Page 1 of 2

Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House in new book.

Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 8:57 pm
by downhill
Wow....I'm speechless. I really am!

Excerpts from the article.

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.

. He writes, for example, that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House “spent most of the first week in a state of denial,” and he blames Rove for suggesting the photo of the president comfortably observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover. McClellan says he and counselor to the president Dan Bartlett had opposed the idea and thought it had been scrapped.
But he writes that he later was told that “Karl was convinced we needed to do it — and the president agreed.”

“One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term,” he writes. “And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.”

McClellan lost some of his former friends in the administration last November when his publisher released an excerpt from the book that appeared to accuse Bush of participating in the cover-up of the Plame leak. The book, however, makes clear that McClellan believes Bush was also a victim of misinformation.

The book begins with McClellan’s statement to the press that he had talked with Rove and Libby and that they had assured him they “were not involved in … the leaking of classified information.”

At Libby’s trial, testimony showed the two had talked with reporters about the officer, however elliptically.

“I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.

“Neither, I believe, did President Bush. He, too, had been deceived and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie.”

• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes.

• Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’”

• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”

• “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

• McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.”


Wow........


I never figured McCellan for one to actually write a book on this. Money talks and in this case, I'm glad it does. There are a lot of things in that book that are major things we've discussed on this forum and sometimes in great detail. It feels great to be vindicated by someone as close to Bush as McCellan was. I'm sure he's no longer very close to the Bush family or the insiders. Let the rants begin

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 7:31 am
by Think
What a hypocrite.

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 8:28 am
by Gixxer
i like him, and ari fliescher (sp)

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:57 am
by 9mmprincess
I was watching Morning Joe today, and I was kind of surprised that pretty much everyone on that show trashed McClellan for writing the book, "betraying" Bush, and having "the nerve to make money off it". I kind of thought of the folks on that show as at least leaning to the liberal side... but they just seemed disgusted by McClellan for writing the book, and I don't really get why...? I mean if all that he's saying is true I'm glad he had the balls to come out and say it. It's hard to get mad at someone for "betraying" Bush, ect, when Bush has been such a terrible president and is responsible (in my opinion anyway) for so many awful things, such as the Iraq war.

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 1:41 pm
by downhill
9mmprincess wrote:I was watching Morning Joe today, and I was kind of surprised that pretty much everyone on that show trashed McClellan for writing the book, "betraying" Bush, and having "the nerve to make money off it". I kind of thought of the folks on that show as at least leaning to the liberal side... but they just seemed disgusted by McClellan for writing the book, and I don't really get why...? I mean if all that he's saying is true I'm glad he had the balls to come out and say it. It's hard to get mad at someone for "betraying" Bush, ect, when Bush has been such a terrible president and is responsible (in my opinion anyway) for so many awful things, such as the Iraq war.

Talking points, Princess..... The fact is, it's a myth that the press is really liberal over all.

Betraying? Give me a break. lol

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 1:59 pm
by 9mmprincess
Yeah, I can't get too upset over Bush being "betrayed", either. As far as I'm concerned he's betrayed the whole country by getting us into a war we didn't need to go fight.

Anyway, maybe the folks on Morning Joe are just mad that McClellan said the so-called liberal press were too soft on the administration, not asking enough tough questions about the war. It's not the first time that's been said, and I definitely think there's some truth to it.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 2:42 am
by Far-N-Wide
Gotta love a guy who can speak and represent the voice of the president for as long as he did, each and everyday to the world media at press briefings. Then when offered a pile of money, he writes a tell all book, and then goes on the book / speaking circuit for even more money. How can you respect a person who can say one thing and say something else for money? Mr McCellan is not much of a stand up guy, no anyone I care to give money to. just to read a book designed to make him money so late in President Bushes time in office. The ship is sinking so lets cash in.

Todays news has nothing to do with responcible reporting of the news. It's all about ratings and profit. Anything to make money and ratings. Even to make the reporting news anchor or reporter in the spot light even more popular. Self gratification... Makes me want to puke.

President Bush should have hired better people than Mr. McClallan. Stories like this fuel Al Quida's effort to promote and rebuild terrorism (a cash industry in todays modern Islam). Books like this, and lack of continured support by congress, do nothing to curb or stop terrorist activity. It's ok for polititions to sway and bend to popularity poles, Vs. following trough on your support of an un popular war.

If you are all ok, with the world trade center as it stands today. Then I hope the next 911 terrorist act lands on your front lawn, or takes someone away from you, whom you care about. Personally I support caring about the Iraqi people. I believe 25 million Iraqi's largely agree in freedom of choice. Wheather they know how to co-operate with each other or not. They deserve a right to try and govern themselves. The UN's lack of involvement in this matter is just plain sad. To date, we have not seen a drop of any of that Oil you may be thinking about, so please don't bring any of that to the thread.

Some folks have stated that Sadam was not a "Terrorist" or "linked to Bin Ladan" or had he any WMD on his soil. Hummm.... Sadam killed nearly 1 million of his own country men in his tenure... Not a terrorist? Sadam used chemical weapons on these country men.. AKA: Weapons of Mass Distruction. Some will say none of this matters or is of concern to anyone outside of Iraq's borders. I guess you also forgot about Iraq invading Kwait in Aug 90. It was a matter of concern to them. Can you recall how many chances we gave to Saddam to comply with weapons inspections after the Gulf war in 91?.

As far as what history may record in the decades to come about President Bush and the current state of todays gulf war. I think it will some up. "Too little to late, we should have rolled in sooner, dug in longer and stayed for several decades. Dragged the corrupt UN in, kicking and screaming in support of the effort of stabilizing Iraq. We the UN membership should have united and Stood together against Iran and not drag it's feet any, on nucular inspections in that country". The leadership and direction that country plans on going is just plain alarming.

If you think any Democrate running for office is going to actually pull out our troops out od Iraq, as part of some campaign promiss.... Well I might have a bridge in Brooklin I'd like to sell you... cheap. McCain has the balls to say this is not true, we are going to be there awhile. This will not be over with soon.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 3:24 am
by Jim
*popcorn.gif*

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 7:32 am
by Izzo
Far-N-Wide wrote:Gotta love a guy who can speak and represent the voice of the president for as long as he did, each and everyday to the world media at press briefings. Then when offered a pile of money, he writes a tell all book, and then goes on the book / speaking circuit for even more money. How can you respect a person who can say one thing and say something else for money? Mr McCellan is not much of a stand up guy, no anyone I care to give money to. just to read a book designed to make him money so late in President Bushes time in office. The ship is sinking so lets cash in.

Todays news has nothing to do with responcible reporting of the news. It's all about ratings and profit. Anything to make money and ratings. Even to make the reporting news anchor or reporter in the spot light even more popular. Self gratification... Makes me want to puke.

President Bush should have hired better people than Mr. McClallan. Stories like this fuel Al Quida's effort to promote and rebuild terrorism (a cash industry in todays modern Islam). Books like this, and lack of continured support by congress, do nothing to curb or stop terrorist activity. It's ok for polititions to sway and bend to popularity poles, Vs. following trough on your support of an un popular war.

If you are all ok, with the world trade center as it stands today. Then I hope the next 911 terrorist act lands on your front lawn, or takes someone away from you, whom you care about. Personally I support caring about the Iraqi people. I believe 25 million Iraqi's largely agree in freedom of choice. Wheather they know how to co-operate with each other or not. They deserve a right to try and govern themselves. The UN's lack of involvement in this matter is just plain sad. To date, we have not seen a drop of any of that Oil you may be thinking about, so please don't bring any of that to the thread.

Some folks have stated that Sadam was not a "Terrorist" or "linked to Bin Ladan" or had he any WMD on his soil. Hummm.... Sadam killed nearly 1 million of his own country men in his tenure... Not a terrorist? Sadam used chemical weapons on these country men.. AKA: Weapons of Mass Distruction. Some will say none of this matters or is of concern to anyone outside of Iraq's borders. I guess you also forgot about Iraq invading Kwait in Aug 90. It was a matter of concern to them. Can you recall how many chances we gave to Saddam to comply with weapons inspections after the Gulf war in 91?.

As far as what history may record in the decades to come about President Bush and the current state of todays gulf war. I think it will some up. "Too little to late, we should have rolled in sooner, dug in longer and stayed for several decades. Dragged the corrupt UN in, kicking and screaming in support of the effort of stabilizing Iraq. We the UN membership should have united and Stood together against Iran and not drag it's feet any, on nucular inspections in that country". The leadership and direction that country plans on going is just plain alarming.

If you think any Democrate running for office is going to actually pull out our troops out od Iraq, as part of some campaign promiss.... Well I might have a bridge in Brooklin I'd like to sell you... cheap. McCain has the balls to say this is not true, we are going to be there awhile. This will not be over with soon.
I have no idea what to say to this. :rotfl:

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:11 am
by Roody
Far-N-Wide wrote:
If you are all ok, with the world trade center as it stands today. Then I hope the next 911 terrorist act lands on your front lawn, or takes someone away from you, whom you care about. .
So because people disagree with how this war is handled you believe they should have a terrorist act committed against them Far-N-Wide? The World Trade Center and Iraq are two different things. It's the WTC and Afghanistan that are tied together. It's already been proven over and over that there is no ties between the people who hit the WTC and Pentagon with the people running Iraq.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:28 am
by RoundEye
Image

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:38 am
by Izzo
Roody wrote:So because people disagree with how this war is handled you believe they should have a terrorist act committed against them Far-N-Wide? The World Trade Center and Iraq are two different things. It's the WTC and Afghanistan that are tied together. It's already been proven over and over that there is no ties between the people who hit the WTC and Pentagon with the people running Iraq.
I'll agree with his statement that McLellan is a tool for coming out with this now. Where the Hell was he years ago with this? Most of this crap we already knew or figured out for ourselves. He's an ass trying to make a buck in the waning months of the administration. Screw him.The rest of FNW's post is sad statement of the gullibility of the majority of the American public.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:47 am
by Roody
Izzo wrote:I'll agree with his statement that McLellan is a tool for coming out with this now. Where the Hell was he years ago with this? Most of this crap we already knew or figured out for ourselves. He's an ass trying to make a buck in the waning months of the administration. Screw him.The rest of FNW's post is sad statement of the gullibility of the majority of the American public.
I agree with that aspect also. In my last remark I was addressing Far-N-Wide's comments on terrorism. As for McClellan his comments are accurate based on what I have seen and heard, but regardless of that I don't recall him stepping down due to differences with the Administration. If he had perhaps I would have cut him some slack, but as it's been stated this smacks of a desire to make money.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:07 am
by Sava700
Ya know its funny... last night they were talking to several guys that used to be on the team with him, and all of them pretty much said that he isn't the same guy he used to be and would love to know why he's saying such things against how he felt to begin with. Also I believe someone questioned his editor whom had changed alot of the books wording to make it look better.

Major two faced here and to even write this book suggests he's only trying to make money off his own lies.

But for once I agree with Izzo here... If this was such important news he should have been bringing it up years ago when it mattered instead of trying to make a buck off these stories if they are lies or not..that point is rather mute.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:18 am
by downhill
Sava700 wrote:Ya know its funny... last night they were talking to several guys that used to be on the team with him, and all of them pretty much said that he isn't the same guy he used to be and would love to know why he's saying such things against how he felt to begin with. Also I believe someone questioned his editor whom had changed alot of the books wording to make it look better.

Major two faced here and to even write this book suggests he's only trying to make money off his own lies.

But for once I agree with Izzo here... If this was such important news he should have been bringing it up years ago when it mattered instead of trying to make a buck off these stories if they are lies or not..that point is rather mute.

Yep the talking points monkey's are out in full swing, trying to do damage control.

Lies? LMAO!

By the way, his publisher has already stated over and over that the words in that book are McCellan's own.

Money? WTF? Why would anyone write a book about the hell years he must have went through if it wasn't at least in part for money. The rest is to state his own thoughts on what's turned out to be the worst presidency in modern memory.

Turn off Fox and read the book, then decide.


As I stated in my first post, there is NOTHING in that book, that hasn't already been brought up here.

As to brining it up years ago? LOL That's hogwash if you think about it. He still felt a strong loyalty to Bush. Something that this sitting president just doesn't ask for, he demands. Not just that, your loyalty is always tested by him in that you HAVE to always agree with him or you're out the door.

IMHO it just took McClellan a while to sort through all the b.s.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:23 am
by cybotron r_9
Roody wrote: It's already been proven over and over that there is no ties between the people who hit the WTC and Pentagon with the people running Iraq.
I will have to disagree with this statement, I thought it was our own Govt. that executed 9-11 and aren't they running Iraq now! :p :wth:

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:26 am
by YARDofSTUF
Is it bad when I read that and think, I'm not shocked one bit.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:33 am
by Roody
cybotron r_9 wrote:I will have to disagree with this statement, I thought it was our own Govt. that executed 9-11 and aren't they running Iraq now! :p :wth:
:p

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 12:05 pm
by downhill
cybotron r_9 wrote:I will have to disagree with this statement, I thought it was our own Govt. that executed 9-11 and aren't they running Iraq now! :p :wth:
Tounge in cheek..lol

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:37 pm
by Sava700
downhill wrote:Yep the talking points monkey's are out in full swing, trying to do damage control.

Lies? LMAO!

By the way, his publisher has already stated over and over that the words in that book are McCellan's own.

Money? WTF? Why would anyone write a book about the hell years he must have went through if it wasn't at least in part for money. The rest is to state his own thoughts on what's turned out to be the worst presidency in modern memory.

Turn off Fox and read the book, then decide.


As I stated in my first post, there is NOTHING in that book, that hasn't already been brought up here.

As to brining it up years ago? LOL That's hogwash if you think about it. He still felt a strong loyalty to Bush. Something that this sitting president just doesn't ask for, he demands. Not just that, your loyalty is always tested by him in that you HAVE to always agree with him or your out the door.

IMHO it just took McClellan a while to sort through all the b.s.
Its all about the money... and yes I believe most of it which I didn't read the book but after reviewing the highlights and listening to whom you say are doing "damage control" God forbid they are telling the truth here vs him lying.

Again...if this was so important..any of it, then it should have been told years ago and not wait till you can do a book of it to obviously gain nothing more than money and perhaps some fame which are coming from people like yourself. Are you going to be at his first book signing? :rotfl:

IMHO thats all this book is... b.s.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 6:25 pm
by downhill
Sava700 wrote:Its all about the money... and yes I believe most of it which I didn't read the book but after reviewing the highlights and listening to whom you say are doing "damage control" God forbid they are telling the truth here vs him lying.

Again...if this was so important..any of it, then it should have been told years ago and not wait till you can do a book of it to obviously gain nothing more than money and perhaps some fame which are coming from people like yourself. Are you going to be at his first book signing? :rotfl:

IMHO thats all this book is... b.s.
It's all lying huh?

People like myself? Any reason to toss that in there other than trying to throw in an offhand insult? You do undersand that it's this constant background noise you bring into your statements just tend to tee people off? There isn't any reason to do that. None.

Spell gullible for me, because the American people during the time he's talking about, were exactly that. He talks about the admin outing Plame. Guess what? Everything he had to say about it has already proved true.

Tell me, what American major news source actually did their job and questioned the motives to go to war?

The New York Times even went so far as to publish everything Judith Miller wrote on why we SHOULD be at war, even though her sources were crap. Remember her? The gal who went to jail other than reveal who called her and casually mentioned that Plame worked for the CIA? Yeah that gal.

Really there isn't anything in that news article I posted that hasn't already proved true. Not a lick.

If you choose to hate him, for this book, hey, fine by me. I'm just saying, the book isn't BS and if you actually believe the damage control that it is, well, then, eggs really do make good facials.


Every thing mentioned in that book, is pretty much things that have been discussed at great length on SG.

Like to argue much?

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 7:13 pm
by Sava700
downhill wrote:It's all lying huh?

People like myself? Any reason to toss that in there other than trying to throw in an offhand insult? You do undersand that it's this constant background noise you bring into your statements just tend to tee people off? There isn't any reason to do that. None.



Like to argue much?
Most of the book most likely is a tall stretch of the truth.

As for a offhand insult.. none doing.

and there is no background noise in my statements.. Its just the way I type but not how I speak..which I debate a point much better in person so excuse me for "tending to tee people off".

like to argue much? Naw not at all..you quoted me first on what I said so I defended my post and words..there is plenty of reason to do that. Plenty.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:21 pm
by downhill
Tall tales?

Sava, have you been paying attention to the revolving doors in this admin? Just cabinet members alone.....

Let's see......

Colin Powell. Embarrassed to all hell that he fell for the bait and switch. He won't talk but his personal assistant has and it mirrors what this book says about the war and somewhat about Bush Cheney and Rove.

Paul H. O'Neill, was Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury . He won't say but speculation is that he was fired because he thought differently on Cheney/Bush's tax cuts and other economic policies. He ALSO wrote a book. In it, he mentions that for the time he was there, Rove was over one shoulder, and Cheney over the other, saying, "stay the course" ..... and all the while, Bush just sat there nodding at each of them. O'Neill indicated that Bush most of the time, looked bored and lost. Gee, does that ring a bell?

Speaking of.....John Snow.....left for better money. Wait! Someone else in the Whitehouse inner circle that's looking for money? Wow! How about that?

Don Rumsfield. Left because he was an idiot.

Gale Norton Secretary of the Interior. She left when she could no longer convince anyone that it might be a good idea to not sell off Government lands to the uber rich to help finance the war. She was replaced by Idaho's own Dirk Kempthorne who got Bush to come to Idaho instead of taking care of business as Katrina roared down on Louisiana. By the way, Kempthorne is all for selling of a few select parcels in Idaho..on a sealed bid basis.

Ann M. Veneman, She left with the usual, taking care of family but insiders say it was related to companies like Monsanto who were/still are given special breaks to make genetic mutations in our food stock and then sue their neighbors when some of that genetic material gets carried by wind and bees to neighboring fields. Well that and when she couldn't find her car for the smog.....from lessened air quality controls.

Don Evans. What's to say? He was a very close friend of Bush and when it was discovered that he was in over his head, he quit.

Tommy Thompson. Not sure why he left. Probably to improve his golf game.

Tom Ridge. Whats to say? He didn't like how things were being run by Cheney so he quit. He was replaced by Michael Chertoff. :rotfl:

He's had, count them...three Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development He can't keep them because they get bored with nothing to do. After all, housing and urban development? " Let the bastards eat cake!"

Norman Y. Mineta...he was Secretary of Transportation and the only Dem appointed. He's gone and was probably legit. He just didn't feel comfortable flying back and forth to Hawaii. Dunno if you got that or not but hey....


Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham/ Really I'm not sure why he left. He's probably writing a book to get rich.

Secretary of Education..Rod Paige. When he caught Bush just looking at the pictures in Playboy, and not reading the articles...well it was time to hang it up.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs? There's been three of them so far. Think about that for a minute. Our country has been at war since 2003 with Iraq. Yet none of them stay.


I'm sure when Bush leaves, there will be two types of books that come out. One where he's hailed as a hero and the other more to the truth........

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:12 pm
by Sava700
downhill wrote:
I'm sure when Bush leaves, there will be two types of books that come out. One where he's hailed as a hero and the other more to the truth........
typical from a Bush hater.. I loved the "more to the truth" part.. classic. :rolleyes:

Thats pretty much your whole reason behind your posts..you hate Bush and the Admin.. you could care less if McClellan wrote this book or a damn child's book on ducks..its just a excuse for you to vent.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:21 pm
by Roody
Sava700 wrote:typical from a Bush hater.. I loved the "more to the truth" part.. classic. :rolleyes:

Thats pretty much your whole reason behind your posts..you hate Bush and the Admin.. you could care less if McClellan wrote this book or a damn child's book on ducks..its just a excuse for you to vent.
All the reasons mentioned earlier gives alot of people a good reason to dislike this Administration.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:31 pm
by Sava700
Roody wrote:All the reasons mentioned earlier gives alot of people a good reason to dislike this Administration.
maybe so..and its their right to dislike or like..but this is about approving of a book whom someone clearly wrote for their own gain..he waited till now to post this information which again most of it is false according to not one,two or even 4 people that used to be in the Admin but several that all say the same thing..that this guy is out of his mind. Also leads back to what a few others stated - why wait now to tell people in a book about all this when if it was this important or even true to tell it during that time.

Makes no sense to me...the guy was on CBS even news tonight and when Katie asked a few questions to him he was looking around alot while trying to answer.. kinda the same way those look around when they are lying or trying to avoid the truth. But yeah, he sure did jump on the first chance he could to plug the book to make that cash. :thumb:

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:32 pm
by Roody
Sava700 wrote:maybe so..and its their right to dislike or like..but this is about approving of a book whom someone clearly wrote for their own gain..he waited till now to post this information which again most of it is false according to not one,two or even 4 people that used to be in the Admin but several that all say the same thing..that this guy is out of his mind. Also leads back to what a few others stated - why wait now to tell people in a book about all this when if it was this important or even true to tell it during that time.

Makes no sense to me...the guy was on CBS even news tonight and when Katie asked a few questions to him he was looking around alot while trying to answer.. kinda the same way those look around when they are lying or trying to avoid the truth. But yeah, he sure did jump on the first chance he could to plug the book to make that cash. :thumb:
Naturally he will make alot of money off the book, but that doesn't make his remarks any less true.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:35 pm
by Sava700
Roody wrote:Naturally he will make alot of money off the book, but that doesn't make his remarks any less true.
doesn't make them any more true either... this book fails in so many ways.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:37 pm
by Roody
Sava700 wrote:doesn't make them any more true either... this book fails in so many ways.
That's where you seem to keep missing on what DH has already shown. There is plenty of former Administration officials who's remarks coincide with what McClellan stated. DH's point is there is enough info out there that shows there is something to this then that there isn't.

Btw, in what "so many ways" does it fail?

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:44 pm
by Sava700
Roody wrote:That's where you seem to keep missing on what DH has already shown. There is plenty of former Administration officials who's remarks coincide with what McClellan stated. DH's point is there is enough info out there that shows there is something to this then that there isn't.

Btw, in what "so many ways" does it fail?
I saw his point..but there are more against whats said in this book then there is for regardless of who's left the administration including McCellen..and the book will prob fail due to a major amount of untrue stories, plus it has his picture on it with his "used to be Hero".

I'd love to read it but I'm not giving him a cent to read lies when I can do that in the local news paper for free.

but anyway.. I think I'm done discussing this ... on to the next subject.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:50 pm
by downhill
Sava700 wrote:doesn't make them any more true either... this book fails in so many ways.

Oh come on and calm down. My apologies for showing you a pattern.


Tell you what, Sava, I'm going to give you one hell of a chance to vindicate yourself.

Prove that everything in that book, are falsehoods. Hell prove that the big items mentioned in the book are falsehoods. I'll give you a decade.

Pretty much the big details have already been proved. So that leaves the little stuff...like Bush blew up or Cheney and Rove were trying to get their stories straight.......

Those can't be proved one way or another but the big details can and they have been.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:53 pm
by Izzo
Sava700 wrote:doesn't make them any more true either... this book fails in so many ways.
have you read it?

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:58 pm
by Izzo
I'll take it by the deletion of Sava's comment that he answered 'No' :rotfl:

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:01 am
by Roody
Sava700 wrote:I saw his point..but there are more against whats said in this book then there is for regardless of who's left the administration including McCellen..and the book will prob fail due to a major amount of untrue stories, plus it has his picture on it with his "used to be Hero".

I'd love to read it but I'm not giving him a cent to read lies when I can do that in the local news paper for free.

but anyway.. I think I'm done discussing this ... on to the next subject.
Well wait a minute here man. You said the book fails in so many ways. Tell us what the ways are.

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 8:46 am
by downhill
From an Olberman interview with McCellan, last night.


OLBERMANN: Was that a sort of warning that this book was coming? Did you know even that that was what you meant by that?

MCCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

OLBERMANN: When you were going to -- that you look forward some day to talking about it. Did you mean the book?


MCCLELLAN: The book, no. I wasn't thinking about it at this point. I was still at the White House. But as I left the White House -- I think you need some time to kind of step back from being in that bubble to really be able to reflect on events and try to understand and make sense of them. Because, when I went to work for the president, I had all of this great hope like a lot of people that he was going to come to Washington and change Washington, as he had governed in Texas, as a bipartisan governor who had 70 percent approval. It didn't happen and I wanted to go back and look, why didn't that happen? Why did things go so terribly off course from what he promised? He assured people he was going to be a bipartisan leader, a person of honor and integrity, restore honor and integrity to the White House. Where did things go wrong? That's really the overall narrative in the book, but certainly the Plame episode was a defining moment for me that is a central part of the book.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/po ... three.html

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 8:48 am
by Izzo
downhill wrote:From an Olberman interview with McCellan, last night.


OLBERMANN: Was that a sort of warning that this book was coming? Did you know even that that was what you meant by that?

MCCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

OLBERMANN: When you were going to -- that you look forward some day to talking about it. Did you mean the book?


MCCLELLAN: The book, no. I wasn't thinking about it at this point. I was still at the White House. But as I left the White House -- I think you need some time to kind of step back from being in that bubble to really be able to reflect on events and try to understand and make sense of them. Because, when I went to work for the president, I had all of this great hope like a lot of people that he was going to come to Washington and change Washington, as he had governed in Texas, as a bipartisan governor who had 70 percent approval. It didn't happen and I wanted to go back and look, why didn't that happen? Why did things go so terribly off course from what he promised? He assured people he was going to be a bipartisan leader, a person of honor and integrity, restore honor and integrity to the White House. Where did things go wrong? That's really the overall narrative in the book, but certainly the Plame episode was a defining moment for me that is a central part of the book.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/po ... three.html
Scottie McC: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

Scottie McC: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/ ... -identity/

Take it as you will....

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:27 am
by downhill
Yeah that's in the interview also. It's not so much in McCellan's thought's that the President actually was in on it but by declassifying selective info, Bush set in motion the outing of Plame.

It could be something that Cheney put him up too since Cheney was stolling the halls of the Pentagon quite often during the leadup to Iraq.

That's probably something we'll never know.

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:46 am
by Sava700
Izzo wrote:have you read it?
Sava700 wrote:I saw his point..but there are more against whats said in this book then there is for regardless of who's left the administration including McCellen..and the book will prob fail due to a major amount of untrue stories, plus it has his picture on it with his "used to be Hero".

I'd love to read it but I'm not giving him a cent to read lies when I can do that in the local news paper for free.

but anyway.. I think I'm done discussing this ... on to the next subject.
But Roody, I answered your question in that post as well... or thats pretty much the answer your going to get.

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:50 am
by Roody
Sava700 wrote:But Roody, I answered your question in that post as well... or thats pretty much the answer your going to get.
No you didn't answer my question. You stated one thing (greed) as why you didn't believe it. Yet your reply was there was many reasons why it has issues. You made the claim man so tell us what the many reasons are?

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:52 am
by Izzo
Sava700 wrote:But Roody, I answered your question in that post as well... or thats pretty much the answer your going to get.
How can you say any book fails on many levels without actually reading it?