Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Actually I just read my post and I left out something. I meant to say if your press secratary or counterintelligence head is not in the loop (Bush claims Richard Clark was not in the loop) Then who the hell is. You are right the press guy usually does not know the real truth they are told what to say. They are basically the presidents b!atch. So I agree but I did leave that one small part out.

Have you seen how they try to mop it up? It's so laughable, and yet very predictable. They don't debate any of the substance or issues Scott raised, but instead they attack him personally saying things like, "this isn't the same Scott we all knew...". What a shamefull bunch of people. I honestly have no idea how they can get up and look themselves in the mirror in the morning to shave or brush their teeth...

reply to post by kosmicjack


Ha haa...you stole my thunder. I should have read the entire thread first before posting my two cents. You articulated almost exactly what I tried to and did it much better.

But you know, the people are finally seeing through it. I mean when their not busy working three jobs, and buying cheep electronics and plastic goods at Wal Mart. The sad thing is, few will pay any attention to this report, and even fewer will ever read the book. I bet less than 20% of American's even knew who Scott McClellan was.

Starred!

Keith Olbermann is interviewing Scott McClellan on MSNBC

Just a heads up. Keith Olbermann is interviewing Scott McClellan on MSNBC right now. If you missed it, it will be on again at 10:00 PM and 2:00 AM EST.

I tell you it is quite different when you hear him actually say what is being said is in his book. When you remember him being such a stonewall while he was PS, he is very candid and revealing.

edit to add: He was on for almost the whole hour. Some pretty revealing stuff. KO asked SM that if we start hearing the same rhetoric on Iran as we did with Iraq, should we be suspicious? He said YES, and this is one of the reasons why he wrote the book, so that we could learn from what lead to the Iraq war and that it wouldn't happen again.

I am still holding judgment on SM, but I think his credibility just went up a notch.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by mybigunit

 

I'm not buying anything. I simply find his statements to be incredibly hypocritical when the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak, that he went out of his way to ATTACK a former Bush administration official for saying many of the same things back in 2004 that he himself now is.

Given this, the man's credibility is less than zero, IMO. He may be telling the truth, but if he is, he's as guilty as anyone.

Pardon him, he was just doing his JOB. Just as Dana Perino is now. Do you not think she lays awake at night wondering "WTF!, these people are crazy!"

Hasn't anyone seen those pictures of Bush at that graduationthis weekend? People, this is the President of the United States of America...body slamming a happy grad with a big 'hoo-rah' thrown in for good measure. Where is his sense of history or decorum?

Oh yeah, he has none, just ego.

reply to post by kosmicjack


As the old saying goes, if you don't like it, quit. No one forced him to be the White House press secretary.

Scott McClellan is a true patriot!!

I am watching his interview, now, with Keith Olbermann....on MSNBC. Recording it, actually....so good to know that a person has a conscience, and speaks to his conscience.

(not sure how to spell that word)....a person can be "conscious" meaning, awake or aware....or have a 'conscience'....a moral fiber....I think Scott McClellan has proven he is both aware, and awake, and has a conscience!!!

I wish him all the best!!!!

Originally posted by kosmicjack
There is NO WAY a member or former member of the Bush administration would say this publicly unless that person had verifiable proof.

I'm not so sure about that. According to those in the White House who aren't Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. if McClellan ever had any misgivings about what he was being told to do, he never spoke about them, publicly or privately to ANYONE. The way you handle a situation like working in the White House when you don't agree with the current administration is you draft a letter to the president or you resign and make it known why. You don't stay in for your full term under the guise that everything is okay and then turn around and write a book about your true feelings. That's cowardice and I would say McClellan can't be trusted because his true motivation remains a mystery.

What I DO find interesting is how SO MANY people hate Bush and his administration SO MUCH that they are willing to take anything, ANYTHING that even implies wrong doing, and run with it. Even when there is no clear evidence to back it up. Even when the whistle blower's motivations are highly suspect.

I'll believe McClellan when he produces evidence to back up his book and in the meantime I'll let all the Bush haters take this grain of salt and run with it while I sit back on the sidelines and shake my head.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Scott McClellan is a true patriot!!

And why do you say that? Because he's telling you everything YOU want to hear?

Why would you want to listen to anything Keith Olbermann says? That man is a raving nutjob. He called our U.S. soldiers "cold blooded killers" and then was caught lying about it.

www.olbermannwatch.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Agree.
I didn't realize the interview would be THE program tonight, so I was thrilled, especially to have it end with another true patriot, John Dean.

Whenever I saw M in action, I was reminded of the similarity between his presentation and the performance of Scott Peterson, who I believe is a pathological liar. But with M, I felt that he had started out a decent man but ended up knowing he was spinning tales/lying for his uppers. So, yes, disillusioned but far from disgruntled.

I pity those around him who say he's not the Scott they knew; those people are so immersed in themselves and creating fantasies/untruths/coverups that they can't recognize one honest man.

reply to post by sos37


the website you direct us to can't even spell....well, they can spell 'persecute'....but they don't seem to understand how to capitalize a word.....very sad.

edit....I just pointed out something, twice....did you notice?

[edit on 5/29/0808 by weedwhacker]

So when are they *REALLY* going to say it wasn't about the oil, but the STARGATE(S) and all this other crap was just a cover and Bush is the tool to do it?? Come on--What could be more important than exopolitics?? Really! It's all about control. People only look at the pornographically insane violence!

Well if McClellan did write the book to avoid criminal chargers he may have made a very smart move . By bringing out the book his aim could be to ensure that the sway of public opinion means that an unbiased jury could not be found or that road is open for his defence consul. Myself I am not 100% convinced that he didn't know that he was passing on dis infomation .

I always felt when i watched press conferences, that Scott was literally pushed out there unprepared, or there was something wrong with him.
He always looked nervous and stiff. It makes you wonder how this whole operation is being run.

I think press conferences should be answered by the president- surely he has time
Let HIM tell the lies.

reply to post by vor78


Ummm...he did quit.

And DGTempe, you're right about his seeming unprepared and nervous. He as well as others have stated that in the Bush Administration the role of Press Secretary is very diminished in that he was not allowed to fully vet issues with the President or other staff members but pretty much had to get up there and pimp their stories with his hands tied behind his back - so to speak.

In other words, the the PTB wanted him to have as little info as necessary to conduct the press conferences and, in that way, if there was push back from reporters, McClellan wouldn't have enough info to backslide from the official position or leak any nugget of actual truth. He was charged with merely painting a vague picture of the "truth" they wanted us to believe.

reply to post by kosmicjack


Well, that's true. He did quit...after three years on the job.

Speaking of which, heck, he TOOK the job at a time when the Iraq War had already started.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by kosmicjack

 

Well, that's true. He did quit...after three years on the job.

Speaking of which, heck, he TOOK the job at a time when the Iraq War had already started.

He and several other of the Bush cronies quit. I mean Vor lets be real here when you have people like Colin Powell quitting and the 15 others including McClellan you have to say to yourself why? Usually its what I like to call the sinking ship effect. When you see the ship going down you jump ship. Many people who have quit have come out negative of Bush policies just because they are called disgruntled and only out for money doesnt mean they arent telling the truth as they know it. Frankly I watched the Olbermann interview last night and I was disappointed. I thought he really pandered and didnt lay into Bush like I know he wanted to. I think the right wing attack dogs are getting to him.

reply to post by mybigunit


Agreed. He did seem a bit beaten down. It doesn't help that Fleisher is going around saying that now McClellan will have no friends. They are definitely trying to put him in a box. I hope his old-time friends stand up for him. Where's Texas!? Saddle up.

reply to post by mybigunit


People quit all the time. It doesn't mean that they are disgruntled or angry over something. For example, both Ari Fleischer and Tony Snow resigned from that position, but both were for personal reasons. Fleischer still maintains the 'party line' as far as I know. I'm not sure about Tony Snow these days, but his resignation was due to illness.

I'm not defending the Bush administration itself. In the end, my position is simply that this guy isn't trustworthy, either.

reply to post by vor78


Just because a person quits and then becomes a whistle-blower does not mean they are not trustworthy. He wasn't fired. He worked for Bush for over ten years. No one has charged him with incompetence or malfeasance. He was promoted from Deputy Press Secretary to Press Secretary. He was not charged with any crime nor was he being investigated by Patrick Fitzgerald.

The reason the story is blowing up is exactly because he is so trustworthy. Because he has been so loyal. Because he has a reputation beyond reproach. No one in the adminstration nor any former employees of the adminstration had a negative word to say about McClellan until he spoke out against Bush.

I'm not sure why you think him so untrustworthy? Because he wrote a book? Puhlease. He has a right to support himself. Who's going to hire him now, in the middle of this fire storm?