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

reply to post by kosmicjack


I would hardly say that his reputation is beyond reproach. Most of the people now touting this story and McClellan's character hated the guy a month ago. It was only when he started telling them what they wanted to hear in the last few days that it all changed.

I've never said that he's not telling the truth. He may be.

Still, there are enough questions about his motivations and past words and actions that I expect that this story will be a non-story by this time next week.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by vor78]

A great analysis:

www.slepton.com...

Whatever McClellan’s intention, “culture of deception,” the provocative phrase included in the book’s title, describes not to the Bush administration or partisan politics in Washington, but the political establishment a whole—including the Congress, the Democratic Party, the media and the major banks and corporations—which has based its entire policy, both foreign and domestic, on systematic and increasingly blatant lying to the American people.

The lies about weapons of mass destruction were driven by the need of the American ruling establishment to hide from the American people the predatory class interests that underlay the war drive. The war was waged not to “protect” the American people, but to secure by means of aggressive war a key strategic objective of US imperialism, hegemony over the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

McClellan, it should be noted, continues this practice of lying, claiming in his book that the real motive for the war was not WMD and terrorism, but the desire of Bush and Co. to spread democracy in the Middle East, perhaps the most ludicrous pretext of them all.

Such lies have profound social roots. They become a necessity, and a political reflex, because the interests of the financial elite, represented by both political parties, stand in such sharp contradiction to those of American working people, the overwhelming majority of society.

The controversy surrounding the McClellan book has once again demonstrated that even when these lies, involving criminality and mass murder, are exposed, there are no real consequences. The same forces that McClellan refers to as Bush’s “complicit enablers” in launching the war in Iraq are still at work, allowing him to continue the bloodbath right to the day he leaves the White House.

It is thus a remarkable fact that despite all the efforts of administration propaganda, bolstered by the myriad “enablers” in the media and the Democratic Party, the vast majority of the American people have turned decisively against the war. They did so, not in response to criticism of the war within the political establishment or the media, but independently, out of their own bitter experiences with the war and the broader social crisis of American capitalism.

In the end, holding accountable those who told the lies and carried out a criminal war of aggression depends upon the emergence of a new, independent political movement of working people in struggle against both the war and the capitalist system that gave rise to it.

reply to post by Leo Strauss

Here is more on Wexler wanting SM to testify under oath in Congress on some of the alegations from his book.

McClellan has not said whether he would be willing to to testify before Congress.

Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said Friday that the White House says it could invoke executive privilege and prevent McClellan from testifying before the committee, but it has not decided whether to do so.

Congressman wants McClellan to testify under oath

So Bush may invoke executive privilege to keep him from testifying. That would only prove the lengths this administration will go to keep the public from knowing the truth.

reply to post by Hal9000


Read the next sentence:

"The law would allow for that," Perino said, "but by saying that I am not suggesting that's what would happen or not.

It seems clear that she was asked whether or not they would consider it and by her response, it appears to be something that she was not prepared or able to answer and so gave a noncommittal response.

reply to post by vor78

If she was not prepared to answer the question, then how would she know that "The law would allow for that"?

I think they have been preparing for this since it was first announced last fall.

Ex-Bush Spokesman’s Tantalizing Snippet on C.I.A. Leak (dated November 20, 2007)

reply to post by Hal9000


I'm sure that she's well aware of what their legal options are, but as a spokesperson, she's not a policy or decision maker. She may or may not have been made aware of their intentions on the matter at this point.

www.cbsnews.com...

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique." No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm," Dole added. "When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years"

what fun

reply to post by vor78

Regardless if it is legal or not, my original point was that if Bush invokes executive privilege to keep him from testifying, it only means he wants to hide what he has to say.


reply to post by Stormdancer777

Wow! Down boy.

Apparently, Bob Dole thinks that loyalty to the administration is more important than the people's right to know what went on in the White house that misled us into the war.

[edit on 5/30/2008 by Hal9000]

[edit on 5/30/2008 by Hal9000]

reply to post by kosmicjack


Thanks for the link, a new one for me.
M's belief in the "ludicrous pretext" of Bush's wanting to spread democracy to the Middle East shows just how much he wanted to believe in Bush. For him to take on the job of Press Secretary meant he was loyal to the Pres, but, as it turned out, not so loyal that he would continue to lie on his behalf for things he, M, new to be untrue.
I will grant M this one belief, as he lived this culture of deception, and is healing from it, just as one might still suffer from effects of an illness during recovery.

The analysis does shine light on the bigger reason for invading Iraq.

reply to post by kosmicjack


I more or less agree with this analysis of "limited hangout". In fact John Dean during his interview with Olbermann called limited hangout as well.

There is no way in hades this war was about democratic reform in the Middle East. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig!

So if this is limited hangout what is the purpose my fellow ATS'ers??? I feel a NWO diatribe coming on!

It could mean something big is coming. It may be that the economy is going to fall to pieces and they wanted this mea culpa on the record.

It is much better for Bush to be guilty of idealism rather than simple greed.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


OMG!!!
IOW just be a greedy bastard like the rest of us who see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. You ingrate for speaking up!!!

If this is the company his fellow Republicans keep, then he's better off without them. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Caveat...just not free from insults like these.

Crimony, they create the mud they stand in and then sling it around at anyone they want. Scott McClellan would be wise to keep counsel with John Dean.

Ok, ok, calm down, desert...maybe in Dole's time someone could have spoken up and changed the President's mind...and there have been those who have spoken truth to power (but I think Nixon had a way to deal with some of them), but the assertion here is that Bush's mind could not be changed. He himself said that HE was the decider.

reply to post by desert


Id give anything for Bob Doles email I have some choice words for that &#(@#er

Things are getting interesting:

www.politico.com...

Conyers: McClellan revelations may require hearing

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said today that he plans to begin discussions with former White House press secretary Scott McClellan regarding his participation in a congressional hearing.

"I find Mr. McClellan's revelations about attempts to cover up the Valerie Plame leak extremely troubling. Particularly disturbing is McClellan's assertion that he was specifically directed by Andy Card to 'vouch' for Scooter Libby after the investigation had begun, which, if true, could amount to obstruction of justice beyond that for which Mr. Libby has already been convicted,” said Conyers.

"I believe this issue may require closer examination, so I have instructed my counsels to begin discussions with Mr. McClellan to determine whether a hearing is necessary and to secure his possible cooperation."

UPDATE: Spokeswoman Dana Perino says the White House could block McClellan from testifying.

I swear (and I have been saying this for over a year) uncurious george is going to provoke a constituitional crisis before this year is out.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by grover]

Click here for more information.

bigunit we'll deal with that comment later

Ok, now...

The 1996 Republican nominee wrote that McClellan should have spoken up at the time if he had concerns about the administration, writing that doing so "would have taken integrity and courage."

Integrity and courage are not this administration's strong suit

Yeah... Out and out lying... disinformation and secrecy they have down pat.

Originally posted by vor78
Still, there are enough questions about his motivations and past words and actions that I expect that this story will be a non-story by this time next week.

I'm sure you hope that this story will die a quick death; but there are enough TRUE patriots out there that are contacting their congressmen and legislators to persue the TRUTH and not knuckle under to the corruption, greed, spin and continued lies.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

reply to post by whaaa


You can believe whatever you want to believe. Honestly, I don't care what happens with it.

Until one of them steps up while still in their office within the administration, the administration will be largely successful in their attempts to paint that person as a disgruntled ex-employee with an axe to grind. It becomes his word vs theirs, and the truth is, neither side's word is worth squat.

The media will have their fun with it for a week or so and that'll be more or less the end of it in the mainstream.

They could stand up and talk all they wanted while in office and be knocked off just the same - terrible car accident, hunting with Cheney, acid bath etc. ad nauseum. It's obvious to me that Scotty Mac had his life and the lives of his family at heart when he wrote this book. By releasing this book now he's put the White House on the defensive. If he were to disappear now, far far too many questions would be raised about the nature of his disappearance and or death. We can whine all we want about why he didn't come out sooner but at least it's out. This could be the smoking gun - he says GW is flat out guilty of treason.

That the motivation for the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, WMDs, or "spreading democracy", as McClellan now spins it, is already settled in the court of public opinion. The disinformation is well documented and the front end of the propaganda machine just broke loose.

Question is - where is the international component to this? American public opinion may be placated somewhat by the delusion that elections offer a clean sweep but what about the "coalition of the willing"?

I'm not naive enough to suppose that matters of legality or justice hold any purchase in this matter, but Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan continue to contribute financially and/or militarily to a war launched by false premises and concocted "intelligence".

(Some, like the UK, also contributed to the concocted intelligence.)

Will there be some repercussions or does the military industrial complex completely trump national interests?

The BBC Newsnight current affairs program this evening discussed the F.B.I.'s war crimes file and included an interview with Congressional Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs Chairman, Bill Delahunt. He stated his intention to go to Guantánamo and interview detainees about their torture allegations. It was put to him that the Pentagon would not give him permission to do so. He replied, "It is our constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on executive power and we intend to do that."

After 8 years dormancy McClellan's conscience revives and Congress rediscovers its constitutional duty. Coincidence or the changing of the guard?

Newsnight Report (available for 7 days)