(If you're buying his book, please buy it here.)
IN THE COMMENTS: John Stodder says:
Wasn't McClellan horrible at his job? That's what I remembered. He looked clueless half the time and the press had no respect for him.
Why would anybody care what he says?
I don't mean this in a partisan way. If you wanted to read a memoir of any president, why would you choose the one written by an incompetent clown.
It's not the disloyalty that bothers me. It's the press suddenly finding wisdom in a guy they previously disregarded as stupid and unreliable.
It's inevitable that critical Bush-era memoirs will come out, but written by smarter people. I'll read those.
पोस्ट्स
१४३ टिप्पण्या:
I keep on hearing that Republicans and Consrrvatives walk in lcokstep. Want to know what lcockstep is?
How many Democrats in the 90's went against the Clintons? How many reporters from CNN and the NYT?
None.
Lockstep is what Democrats do. They never challange a Democrat in power. Look at your Democrat and Liberal posters, they never oppose anything a Democrat does under any circumstances. Ever.
So, another Republican writes a book against Bush? It needs to sell within the publishing community, so another Republican goes against another sitting Republican President.
Isn't this topic already adequately covered by the post immediately before this one?
I thought that was the rabbit in the yard one...
The problem with these "I was a professional liar for years, but now I'm making my money by telling the truth" stories is that the first half of the sentence makes it hard to believe the second half.
Lockstep is what Democrats do. They never challenge a Democrat in power
Then how can you explain Feingold's vote against the motion to dismiss Clinton's impeachment?
Want to get an idea of what Scott McClellan is made of? Google his mother, Carol Keeton McClellan Rylander Strahorn.
look what Scott McClellan said about Richard Clark when McClellan was GWB's press secretary:
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he (Richard Clarke) had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.
gathered here
Seems like anyone who's criticized for job performance these days (Tenet, Clark, etc) whips out the finger-pointing tell-all.
Revenant said" The problem with these "I was a professional liar for years, but now I'm making my money by telling the truth" stories is that the first half of the sentence makes it hard to believe the second half.
Exhibit A: David Brock
Then how can you explain Feingold's vote against the motion to dismiss Clinton's impeachment?
Shrewd politics? The actual impeachment trial was a catastrophe for Republicans -- and allowing it to happen took a major Republican talking point off the table.
When it came time to vote one whether or not Clinton really HAD committed perjury, Feingold (and every other Democrat) voted "no".
Lockstep is what Democrats do. They never challange a Democrat in power. Look at your Democrat and Liberal posters, they never oppose anything a Democrat does under any circumstances. Ever.
*Raises hand*
MM,
Only one Senator voted for Impeachment. The other Democratic Senator who spoke out against the Clintons found himself thrown out of the party because he played Senator Vandenberg.
The Republicans put their "maverick" on top of their ticket, the democrats threw out theirs.
If Democrats do not walk in lcokstep, surely you can find some example of how Democrats "Fight the Power," especially a Democratic one.
Bueller? Bueller?
I'm curious: if we buy books and kindles and such from the links you provide, do you know who is buying and what?
He's obviously disgruntled and suffering from BSD. And really, it's about Clinton.
Doesn't change anybody's mind about Bush, Cheney, et al. Just changes some people's mind about McClellan. Don't be puzzled Ms. Perino, he's doing it for the money.
On Chris Matthews today I hear that McClellan shed light on the real reasons bush went to war...democracy.
The panel was outraged that this was the first they heard of it. If only bush had given speeches talking about this very subject...
McClellan was shocked to discover that he, a White House PR flack, was expected to dispense
"political propaganda".
What did he think his job was?
Chris Matthews: When are we gonna have a surge in Philly? We can't stop the 400 murders a year there and we think we can go into basra?! When are we gonna surge Philly?!
Tucker Carlson: ...We could end all the murders in Philly tomorrow, it would just involve the suspension of a whole host of civil liberties and martial law Chris...
If one wants to get a network job in the media, one cannot have been a loyal Bush Administration official. The only way is to become the unloyal official. Once you are hated by the conservative media, your job at MSNBC is a shoe-in.
Give Scotty a break. He just wants to land a job in the media. He needs his liberal credentials.
That's priceless, UWS guy. Did Spittle Chris have a response?
Everyone's flogging this book like they have a Amazon.com link to a Kindle right on the TV screen of MSNBC, CNN, FOX.
McClellan is roooolllllling in money now.
Today...#1 on Amazon. Of course, this is the MSN's encouragement of insiders telling stories. Good for democracy I suppose, as whistle-blowers (of a sort) get their reward.
Of course your not wanting to talk about it.
What a surprise.
Let's just talk about how horrible Hillary and Obama are.
It's so much easier.
Bush has been great and we aren't going to say anything bad about him ever. That's the rule.
But if this was a book from some advisor of Obama and Hillary we would devour it, love it, embrace it, and hate them more.
The old US of A - everybody wants to make that big score, the big payday, the big enchilada.
Looks like McClellan is no different than the rest of us.
{Jeez no comment yet from Downtown Lad!]
Well, I've already written a couple of posts on it over on my blog. All of it makes me sick. The media, McClellan, the White House, Bush....barf.
At least titus dropped his weak faux-Republican sarcasm bit. It's great to see the sags and bitter wrinkles beneath the self-tanning gel and botox. Now, about that spelling and basic grammar...
"The media, McClellan, the White House, Bush....barf."
Obama, Hillary, pigeons, E!, ethanol...
Man bites dog.
McClellan summary: I need a job, and Fox turned me down.
Magnificent job by his publisher and PR company.
Total nothing book. Will be remaindered for $3.99 in the boxes at the front of Borders at Xmas.
Bush "manipulated sources of public opinion"...OMG!! "Top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."
Like duh.....
Condi Rice? "Deft at deflecting blame"
I'm shocked!
Cheney?
A behind-the-scenes heavy hitter? Just awful!!!!!
Bush? Confident!!! Not introspective!!! Unbelievable.
Where is my dindin Palady Malady?
Now lets focus fellow republicans. There has got to be an Obama we can focus on for the next 5 days.
I am certainly ready.
Scott McClellan will end up selling Christmas ornaments like Linda Tripp-maybe they can have a store together.
I am furious about this memoir that is obviously full of lies. He didn't even know Bush. We do.
Palady Malady when you make my dindin I would appreciate not including the following:
Onions-hate them
Red Meat
Cream Sauce
Your splooge
Thanks doll.
FYI-Tony Snow works for CNN Sloan.
I'm pissed I didn't get a rebate check from the government because I make too much money.
What a crock.
Titus:
Some poor unfortunate Democrat got your rebate money. That should make you feel good.
President Obama will take so much of your paycheck , you will have to move to New Jersey,
Isn't this topic already adequately covered by the post immediately before this one?
It's today's theme! See Malkin, Ray and Bourdain et al.
Seriously, is Scotty saying anything that the left hasn't been throwing on the wall for the last five years? I mean from what I have gotten from the talking heads, this book tells nothing new. Iraq is a fiasco, Plame was outed by Darth Chaney and Dark Jedi in training Libby, etc etc. Sorry Scotter, this isn't blowing my skirt up.
Lockstep is what Democrats do. They never challange a Democrat in power.
Maybe not in power but Hillary is a textbook case of a prior media darling being thrown under the bus for the new savior. I remember the day when Matthews, Olberman et al would practically go down on the Clintons in public if offered the chance. Now they're scum cause theirs a new messiah in town.
Politics is fickel. McClellan was probably just pissed cause he wasn't invited to the wedding.
I'm pissed I didn't get a rebate check from the government because I make too much money.
What a crock.
Well you still have to report the money you make even if its male prostitution. I'm pretty sure there is an exemption for hogs under 5 inches so you should get a refund.
You're going to have to file for an extension though Titus. For the tax return of course, not your hog.
"Chris Matthews: When are we gonna have a surge in Philly? We can't stop the 400 murders a year there and we think we can go into Basra?! When are we gonna surge Philly?!"
Matthews is so horny for Arlen Spector's senate seat that mentions Philly or some other part of PA nearly every night, the supposition being that he can be the PA messiah.
Re: McClellan. He's a weinie. His opportunity to speak against Bush policies was while he worked in the Bush administration, or he could have quit his job in protest. He didn't have the character to to either.
Assumpsit said..."I'm curious: if we buy books and kindles and such from the links you provide, do you know who is buying and what?"
No, it's just a way to make a donation to bloggers you like without paying anything.
So feel free to use the Amazon search box in the sidebar to buy whatever embarrassing items you were going to buy anyway!
Good for democracy I suppose, as whistle-blowers (of a sort) get their reward.
I'm inclined to disagree. I think it is bad for democracy to become a "whistleblower" years after your involvement in unethical political activities.
When a person involved in (or aware of) current wrongdoing blows the whistle on it, that encourages transparency and fosters trust in our elected officials, simply because we can be that much more confident that the bad apples are getting spotted and pulled out of the barrel. But the behavior we commonly see in modern politics -- and McClellan's book is a good example of it -- is that political officials will say and do absolutely anything to stay in power, and will only (belatedly) "blow the whistle" when they can make a quick buck by doing so, and never mind that the period when blowing the whistle could have done some good is years past.
THAT sort of "whistleblowing" does nothing but foster cynicism and distrust. It encourages the belief that nobody can be trusted to do anything unless there's money in it for them. That's not an attitude a democracy can survive under, at least in the long run.
A couple of comments.
Madison Man: Then how can you explain Feingold's vote against the motion to dismiss Clinton's impeachment?
You and I know that Feingold is an exception -- a politician that actually adheres to ideals. Using Feingold as an example of an independent-minded Democrat is like using Joe Lieberman as an example of a Democratic hawk. They're both outliers.
Second, like some of the books that came before (anyone remember O'Neill's book? Anyone?), McClellan is likely telling more truth than not. I'm not sure why he buckles on the Plame and Katrina questions (perhaps he remains a lightweight), but his observations that the Bush administration politicized the war issue and were prone to self-deception are hardly surprising. Even supporters of an aggressive foreign policy have to be dismayed by the administration's blunders, strategic incompetence, and party hack appointments. The problem isn't that Bush and Co. are misunderstood; the problem is that they really are that screwed up, but that the Democrats have nothing to offer that's better.
Revenant:
Good point.
That was and is my feeling about gov't officials and generals who come out *after* retirement to tell everyone how they were right and knew _fill-in-the-blank_ was wrong ALL THE TIME.
McCellan is padding the ol' nest egg in a very respectable Washington tradition.
Why waste money or for that matter time on a book that evidently tells most of us what we already know?
I never liked McCellan. I am glad the President replaced him with Grant.
Of course Clinton would have replaced him with Hooker. But that's another story.
It's not often you can do a civil war general joke. Now we just need Meade to show up.
Have any of the Bush mouthpieces (Perino, Rove, et al) disputed any of the McClellan points...or would disputing them justify their very existence?
No, they haven't. All of these weirdos have, instead, been blathering on about how strange and mystical the whole thing is...talking about McClellan as if he were possessed or, worse, a left-winger. Good to see everyone following the script:
This is not the Scott we knew.
It sounds like somebody else.
We're witnessing an out-of-body experience.
We are puzzled.
It is sad.
It's not often you can do a civil war general joke. Now we just need Meade to show up.
Don't leave out Burnside.
Don't leave out Burnside.
I think Burnside would prefer to be left out.
Have any of the Bush mouthpieces (Perino, Rove, et al) disputed any of the McClellan points...or would disputing them justify their very existence?
Zack, I guess you could say the points were disputed a long time ago including by McClellen himself when we was one of Bush's mouthpieces. It's just that he isn't saying anything new.
Actually it will be interesting when this little tidbit about Richard Clarke comes out.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made.
Now that takes a set of balls that even Titus would faint over.
I think Burnside would prefer to be left out.
Ok so Fredricksburg didn't go so well but the dude had great sideburns.
Scott McClellan was such a pathetic Press Secretary that I came to expect that Helen Thomas would one get up out of her seat, walk up to the podium, make this weenie drop trou, and then give him a good thrashing on his bare backside. I could never figure out how he managed to stay on. I figured he must have had some dirty pictures of Bush that he threatened to go public with. He certainly didn't win any honors getting the President's message out. Then again, neither did "Mumbles" Bush. Okay, so they deserved each other.
Palladian said...
"'The media, McClellan, the White House, Bush....barf.' Obama, Hillary, pigeons, E!, ethanol..."
"Lemme see, uhh…. Low-carb diets. Michael Moore. The Republican National Convention. Kabbalah and all Kabbalah-related products. Hi-def TV, the Bush daughters, wireless hot spots, ‘The O.C.’, the U.N., recycling, getting Punk’d, Danny Gans, the Latin Grammys, the real Grammys. Jeff, that Wiggle who sleeps too darn much! The Yankees payroll, all the red states, all the blue states, every hybrid car, every talk show host! Everything on the planet, everything in the solar system, everything everything everything everything everything everything–eve–everything that exists — past, present and future, in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions.
Oh! And Hugh Jackman.”
Hoosier:
Good catch there with McClellan painting Clarke with the same tar he himself is now getting!
Have any of the Bush mouthpieces (Perino, Rove, et al) disputed any of the McClellan points
Does he make any claims they haven't already previously disputed?
For example, the Bush Administration is on record claiming that, no, they didn't lie to the public about Iraq. They don't need to re-deny it every time a new person makes the claim; you can assume they're still standing by their earlier denial unless they say something different.
Oh! And Hugh Jackman.
Hugh Jackman is Wolverine! How dare you!
But what I know everyone really wants to talk about his Michelle Malkin getting Rachel Ray's Dunkin' Donut commercial pulled...
amirite?....
We already did that Ultra Wine Saver guy. Sharpen up.
I didn't include Burnside, George Thomas, Lew Armistead, George Pickett or even his great grandson Wilson Pickett.
Or Winfield Scott Hancock, since the discussion of han on cock is usually covered in Titus's posts.
Michelle Malkin rules. Her cheerleading video will go down as one of the most important conservative moments and statments of our generation.
statements-sorry Palady Malady
Wilson Pickett would never make a good Commander-in-Chief...everyone knows the calls come at 3am, not the Midnight Hour.
My thoughts about Scottie baby: what a f**king whore--if he had all these concerns he could have resigned and gone public; instead the little co*ksucker waits and unloads--why? Looking for a job with the MSM as a commentator a la Stephanopolic or Gergen--the man is gutless and spineless.
As to the substance of his magnum opus: Bush detractors will, like lemmings rush to say "I told you so..." Bush defenders will attack him. And the end result? Lil Scotty will make a dime and no one ever, on either side of the aisle, will trust him again. What a dork.
Jake Tapper reports on how Scott McClellan trashed Richard Clarke's tell-all during a March 2004 press conference:
McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. ...
Wasn't McClellan horrible at his job? That's what I remembered. He looked clueless half the time and the press had no respect for him.
Why would anybody care what he says?
I don't mean this in a partisan way. If you wanted to read a memoir of any president, why would you choose the one written by an incompetent clown.
It's not the disloyalty that bothers me. It's the press suddenly finding wisdom in a guy they previously disregarded as stupid and unreliable.
It's inevitable that critical Bush-era memoirs will come out, but written by smarter people. I'll read those.
Yeah but if he were President the number would be 634-5789 Soulsville, U.S.A.
OK, I am over Scott McClellan. We know that shit already.
If he has a video of Bush snorting coke and doing a hooker I am interested.
Yes, he was a horrible press secretary. Totally incompetent but like Brownie and many others wasn't chosen for his experience or skills.
Now let's move on.
I took my first Winstrel injection and I am a little loopy. I don't get any of the side effects of steroids because I am on a "cutting" steroid which is a low dosage but does wonders for my defintion. My abs are going to be incredible. The only side effect I have is that I have an aversion to any type of traffic. My friends always tease me and say look theres traffic (insert my name) is going to blow.
Also, I tend to have buckets of cum when I blow.
I worked out so hard today I threw up.
So take that.
The guy at the gym was like that's rad dude you got such an intense pump you threw chow.
I was like what?
Oh! And Hugh Jackman.
Hugh Jackman is Wolverine! How dare you!
You beat me to it, Revenant.
I'd call McClellan a weasel but that would be insulting to the weasels.
Well then don't try and pick up Steve Winwood this weekend.
I loved George Stephanopoulos book about Clinton but I hate this book about Bush by Scotty.
OK< enough.
I am going out tonight.
I feel a big load in my scrotum.
"Wasn't McClellan horrible at his job? That's what I remembered. He looked clueless half the time..."
That pretty much fits everyone who's worked for this Administration.
They all write tell-alls when they leave. Apparently he affirms all the popular memes so it will have sales appeal.
paul, I did google Carol Keeton McClellan Rylander Strahorn. Very political. And his father apparently wrote a book alleging LBJ conspired in JFK's assassination.
Very little interest in Bush or his gang anymore. McCain ignores him & the Republican candidates quoted Reagan (20 years ago) never Bush. Even Hillary and Obama rarely attack him.
Is he still POTUS?
Another failed Moderate Republican. So of course the Elephants had to nominate Bush III.
As for McClellan who cares?
OK, Althouse. Just got off the phone with Mom from Wisconsin and she told me about the story from Madison about some transexual who went to Mexico and got murdered by some man.
My mom told me she had the operation and no longer had a winky.
The guy at the gym was like that's rad dude you got such an intense pump you threw chow.
I remember back in my musclehead days we called that being a pussy.
I am a big pussy Dannyboy.
I am going out tonight to sling my big pussy.
Alan said...
"[Wasn't McClellan horrible at his job? He looked clueless half the time.] That pretty much fits everyone who's worked for this Administration."
Some, sure - but not everyone. If you had to draft a fantasy administration, Colin Powell, John Bolton and Condi Rice would be in senior positions in it; Paul Clement is quite brilliant and I think will go on to do great things. Dick Armitage and Bob Mueller are very capable, competent guy. People might call Karl Rove many things, but clueless and incompetent at his job (to the extent his job was to get the President elected twice) aren't among them. And that's just to look at the people at the top of the ladder, to say nothing of the people working in the trenches.
Titus,
When are you going to stop writing and go?
titustheresnoplacelikehome said...
"My mom told me she had the operation and no longer had a winky."
He. You can mutilate the body all you like, but a he's still a he and a she's still a she.
Have any of the Bush mouthpieces (Perino, Rove, et al) disputed any of the McClellan points...or would disputing them justify their very existence?
Yes. Rove said McClellan was dead wrong about his (Rove) talking to Libby. He said either, that they were both under judicial orders not to to discuss the matter, or that both their lawyers instructed them not to say anything to each other about the matter, I forget now which one. At any rate they worked together and and had to talk to each other but because McClellan wasn't privy to those conversations there was no way McClellan could have known what what was being discussed. And as everybody knows when you assume you make a hmmm out of hmmm and hmmm. <--- last part added for comic relief. It confused Rove and vexed him greatly that McClellan could assume they were discussing the case. Why, it was unimaginable!
*deftly segues*
I object to the use of the phrase, now gaining popularity, "thrown under the bus." It creates a visual image in my mind that is most disturbing. I had a deaf friend a few years ago who, after an evening of steady drinking, was running late for his bus which he could see approaching in the near distance. Calculating his inability to make it to the bus stop in time, he stood in front of the bus and held up his arm straight out signaling the driver to stop. Like Superman calling a halt to an ineluctable force. The driver was unable to stop and plowed into him, knocking him forward some thirty or so feet killing the man on the spot. This was explained to me most graphically in sign language when I asked why I hadn't been seeing the guy around. Now, when I read that phrase, I perforce see the whole thing all over again, and there's nothing I can do to put an end to the visualization whenever it's signaled by that phrase, thus I relive the horror each time.
*deftly segues again*
Thinking about this all over again has caused me to experiment with mixing a batch of rum dingers, which turned out to be most delicious, and has eased my troubled mind admirably.
2 Cups O.J.
2 Cups frozen pineapple
1 small banana
juice of 1 lime
2 oz. Bacardi special edition dark rum
3/4 oz. Grand Marnier.
My correction left off the link
rum dinger
Well the connection cut off the rum dinky but it is still a cool drink.
Chip,
I don't know how your drinks/food taste but they LOOK great.
Bush may have decided on how a White House should operate from seing some setbacks in his father's administration. McLellan diagrees with that stance and he know from that 'that the war was wrong and we need a deputy director for governance.' Heh, the guy's on a roll; what should our next fusion reactor be like; please correct the current equations for holding the plasma; what direction should Arab calligraphy take etc? Curious minds want to know.
I I love the double bind.
The press is vigorously defending the accusations that McClellan has made against them- that they didn't ask the tough questions while buying hook line and sinker the accusations made against the administration.
And then there is this-McClellan the one that headed them off so smartly was easily duped into "spinning all the time"- the propaganda.
This charge of course coming from our own lovely media that refuses to show tapes from the White House but will show you tapes prepared for them by the terrorists and supplied to them by the terrorists' of sniper shots to the heads of US G.I.'s, beheadings, what have you not to mention benefical tapes made by they themselves of guys being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.
Shocker! Propaganda! Evil! Hisssss!
The only propaganda they approve of is the shit they spew for the benefit of the enemy.
Someone above said "Even supporters of an aggressive foreign policy have to be dismayed by the administration's blunders, strategic incompetence, and party hack appointments."
Not if they know anything about the history of military engagements, relative to which of any in this nation's history, this one has been executed well above average.
Marlin Fitzwater's book, though not a tell-all, was an interesting behind the scenes look at a WH Press Sec (It's titled "Call The Briefing"...I liked it).
I can't wait for Perino's book...esepcially if she'll come to my house and perform the spoken word version live.
I don't think I could work in the WH Press Corp while she's there...I'd have 35 questions about HUD reforms and get lost in those eyes, which would just look wholly unprofessional, except on Helen Thomas who let's face it couldn't stop drooling anytime Tony Snow took the podium. 'Course that could just be an age thing...
If you wanted to read a memoir of any president, why would you choose the one written by an incompetent clown.
Who better to memorialize the presidency of an incompetent clown?
But seriously, what does it matter who the press deems as wise or stupid? The press is useless.
Are his recollections accurate? That's what matters, not whether the press anoints him or ignores him.
John Stodder said...
Wasn't McClellan horrible at his job? That's what I remembered. He looked clueless half the time and the press had no respect for him.
Why would anybody care what he says?
But then aren't you kinda saying that almost no one in the Bush administration should write a memoir?
I don't mean this in a partisan way. If you wanted to read a memoir of any president, why would you choose the one written by an incompetent clown.
Who says you gotta read it? The bombshells (the only parts I wanna hear about from one of these books) make the media and you can react to them from there.
It's not the disloyalty that bothers me. It's the press suddenly finding wisdom in a guy they previously disregarded as stupid and unreliable.
Since you can't be stupid enough to believe that McClellan's book is not newsworthy, it's probably the disloyalty that bugs ya.
It's inevitable that critical Bush-era memoirs will come out, but written by smarter people. I'll read those.
The smarter people (except those who are evil) will probably be even harsher on Bush (and on themselves).
What a shame we didn't have the smarter Republican presidential candidate (McCain) win his party's nomination in 2000. But I guess that was hard when Bush's people were committing all sorts of scuzzy defamations of him during the primaries. As a consequence we will have years and years of memoirs from the dunces of the Bush administration who are now leaving us with a big mess to clean up.
Simon,
My dream team includes Donald Rumsfeld as press secretary--especially if he studies up on his role as portrayed in Frank J.'s In My World series.
Comin' and goin'. That's how most people get it.
(Count the layers, references and implications there. I dare you.)
Kum bay ya or stab your brother, whatever the approach, it pretty much does end up the same way, for the most part.
Doesn't it?
Since you can't be stupid enough to believe that McClellan's book is not newsworthy, it's probably the disloyalty that bugs ya.
This is a curious way to argue your point.
You actually think it's credible to claim you know what I really believe, and that it's at variance with what I wrote?
I wouldn't try this in real life. You're not very good at it.
In life, that is; and regardless of station.
Anyway, I'm just talking about the breathless coverage. Of course it's newsworthy. It's just not extremely newsworthy, nor particularly interesting to for the reasons I stated.
There were a lot of professional public servants of great intellect and accomplishment in Bush's administration. They might have been wrong-headed, but they weren't stupid, and their insights into how decisions were made will be enlightening and of historical interest.
McClellan, however, seems like a small-timer, a guy out of his depth like that FEMA guy, "Brownie." I don't recall much in the way of huzzahs for Brownie's memoir. It was, as I recall, a bunch of self-justifying crap.
Also, aren't you sophisticated enough to realize that every Administration leaves a "mess" for the next administration to "clean up?" Standard rhetoric at the end of a second term. Bush himself used it about Clinton.
Oh, and I doubt you, personally, will be much involved in the cleanup. So I'm not sure who this "us" who has "a big mess to clean up" refers to. Are you expecting a call or something?
Who better to memorialize the presidency of an incompetent clown?
By that logic, "Ed Wood" should have been directed by Uwe Boll.
And then there is this-McClellan the one that headed them off so smartly was easily duped into "spinning all the time"- the propaganda.
Well that's been the whole game with Bush. By day, the stupidest man on the face of the earth. By night, brilliant but diabolical dictator who is able to dupe the smartest minds into passing fascist legislation, launching unncessary wars and last but not least, causing fire melt steel.
Rocean I am not going.
If my posting causes you so much trouble and discomfort I recommend ignoring me.
You will rest much easier.
I did get laid tonight. I had a three way for those that are interested.
For example Rocean I have no idea about anything you post about and I don't care. I rest soundly and am completely comfortable.
Take my example. You will be much happier and you won't be so critical of others.
Now back to my three way. The bottom was black and the second top was Morroccan. The Morroccan had a huge hog. I felt less than but I made up for it in my fucking abilities-I hope. The Morroccan cheered me on as I fucked the black guy. Think of the college guy in The Accused being cheered on. You get the picture.
"He. You can mutilate the body all you like, but a he's still a he and a she's still a she."
Even if the he now has a vagina and not a winky?
My mom told me the "he" went as a "she" and worked a The Shamrock Bar in Madison and worked for the Madison Aids Support Network.
Hi fellow republicans and lovers of the Bush Doctrine. How is everyone this morning?
I hope patriotic, republican and content with everything that the amazing Bush Adminstration has done for our country.
I know I am feeling good. Heck, I just got laid.
"Even supporters of an aggressive foreign policy have to be dismayed by the administration's blunders, strategic incompetence, and party hack appointments."
That's funny because a lot of people were saying the same things about Lincoln too.
It sure would be nice if more Cheney-Bush officials would come clean with the American public rather than continue to perpetuate all these bloody lies.
Though I think McClellan should have resigned sooner. He's like so many who have done wrong in public office and then come clean once they leave power.
Though, at this point, there's not doubt that we were LIED into an invasion and occupation. Sure would be nice if the right wing would come to grips with that reality.
McClellans book comes from Public Affairs Books, owned by Perseus Book Group, owned by...
George Soros.
But nothing to see here. Move along.
(cf lgf)
JSF -- Sorry I had to leave last night, but I simply was pointing out that your comment at 4:25 is false. It took me a second to think of the Feingold example -- I think I could find rafts of Democrats who weren't lockstep with Clinton.
But just keep on believing what you want -- facts are obviously irrelevant.
Titus,
Way to over respond to an innocent question!
You wrote 2 or 3 posts about how you were going out for the night, and then kept on writing. Hence, my comment.
You were like someone who keeps announcing they're leaving the party in five minutes, but a hour later they're still there.
Though, at this point, there's not doubt that we were LIED into an invasion and occupation. Sure would be nice if the right wing would come to grips with that reality.
Oh please. I really wish you folks who scream BUSH LIED would make an honest effort to explain why Clinton, Gore and a host of other Democrats are on public record saying the same damn thing this Administration was saying before the war.
Be nice if the leftwing can come to grips with that reality.
MM,
No problem. My point here (and I make it in my Blog as well), is that Democrats have had no "Goldwater to Nixon" moment. At what point has an incumbent Democrat been challenged (not in a primary, but in a policy setting) in giving up power for a greater good.
Over the past 7 years, Ad Homs and wishing for Republicans to be in jail or dead have become the norm for the Democrats, and not one Democrat stands up and says "Hey, we crossed a line,"
During the 90's, the Clinton's took Republican FBI files, rather then an outcry of Civil Rights of your political opponents (what got Nixon in trouble), there was silence.
When all the flurry came after the Patriot Act by the Democrats, most Republicans remembered how the Democrats (and MSM) acted when Republicans civil Rights were violated; Republicans chose to ignore the Dems whining, because when given a chance to stand up for what is right, they chose to give a pass.
Oh please. I really wish you folks who scream BUSH LIED would make an honest effort to explain why Clinton, Gore and a host of other Democrats are on public record saying the same damn thing this Administration was saying before the war.
We've already been over this dozens of times. Yet you, and others, continue to insist that "us folks" never explain why we think Bush lied.
So one last time (I wish). The U.N. weapons inspectors reentered Iraq in late 2002. They found nothing, no stockpiles, no production facilities, no active programs. The more they looked, the more obvious it became that maybe Saddam was telling the truth when he said he destroyed his stockpiles. He was also cooperating with the inspectors and had even begun allowing overflights of spy planes.
Yet the administration kept insisting that we "knew exactly" where the WMDs were stockpiled and that there was "no doubt" that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs, including his nuclear programs. Heck, he was even trying to buy yellowcake from Niger! He also had mobile production labs for biological weapons, drawings of which were trotted out in front of the U.N. He was also had UAVs capable of spraying chemical and biological weapons all over the middle east. None of this was true and based on extremely bad intelligence obtained from known fabulists.
After we invaded (and of course even up to the date of the invasion Rumsfeld was still assuring us we knew "exactly" where the vast stockpiles of WMDs were) we found out the Administration either outright lied, knowing that the intelligence was fabricated, or just didn't care if the intelligence was bad. They certainly didn't know "exactly where" the WMDs were and there was far from "no doubt" that the programs had been reconstituted.
If Democrats do not walk in lcokstep, surely you can find some example of how Democrats "Fight the Power," especially a Democratic one.
What on earth are you talking about. Look at what happened to William Jefferson (who was stripped of all his committee assignments) while every Republican hangs on until the bitter end with all their power intact (e.g. DeLay--but of course you believe he was just a victim of partisan prosecution).
"Our soldiers will end up walking and riding camels back to Kuwait, and that will not be a pretty sight.....
"My scenario assumes incalculable incompetence on the part of the President and the SecDef. But I have found that every time I think they can't do anything more boneheaded or incompetent, I turn out to be wrong."
--Freder Frederson's August 2006 "Nightmare Scenario in which America abandons its troops in Iraq, and they are massacred.
(My favorite part of the Frederson "fuck the Army up" scenario is when he says "the Army slowly starves, and most importantly, runs out of fuel, they [Bush and Rumsfeld] will insist every thing is just fine, until it is too late.
Remember, the most important and essential thing for the Army is its fuel supplies. All its fuel is trucked from Kuwait. The obvious way to really fuck the Army up north is to start blowing up the fuel convoys heading north.)
We've already been over this dozens of times. Yet you, and others, continue to insist that "us folks" never explain why we think Bush lied.
So one last time
No I asked you to explain why Clinton, Gore et al were making the same WMD arguments during their administration yet don't call them to the carpet for lying.
Learn to fucking read.
JSF, I think I understand your point.
An excellent example is Democratic Larry Craig, the senator from Idaho. Enhmeshed in a sex scandal, and having stated he'll resign, he nevertheless clings to power with the tacit support of his party.
How typical!
You wrote 2 or 3 posts about how you were going out for the night, and then kept on writing.
Much adieu about nothing.
Bart said that people would give Bush a pass on the war, if they know anything about the history of military engagements, relative to which of any in this nation's history, this one has been executed well above average.
Bart, I'm not talking about the military performance, I'm talking about the political performance. The military has performed superbly.
It was Bush, Rumsfeld who almost lost the war by trying to keep casualties down. It was Bush, Rumsfeld and the State Department that almost lost the war by having no plan for the occupation after the fall of Hussein.
Eisenhower could lose thousands of men in a training excercise and not be sacked; Patton could watch an entire airborn assault over Sicily be shot down by friendly fire and not be sacked; troops could engage in prisoner executions and crimes against civilans and have them covered up; Allied chiefs could oversee bombing raids that killed at least 600,000 Japanese and German civilians and receive nothing but hosannas.
None of that matters now. If that level of folly and slaughter is the standard, we will never fight a war of choice again.
The most important responsibilities for Bush and his political team after determining the strategic aims of the GWOT were (a) ensuring that regional actions supported strategic aims (i.e. having a plan for reconstructing the country they were about to wreck) and (b) building domestic support for the long term commitment. Both of these responsibilities were fumbled.
Petraeus could be as smart as Patton and Eisenhower put together, but Bush is no FDR.
Bush is no FDR.
Quite true. FDR locked up 100,000 American citizens during WW2 and no one said boo. Bush locked up a couple hundred foreign jihadists captured on the battlefield and is compared to Hitler.
Go figure
Immanuel doesn't pun; he Kant.
But Paul Z. can.
No I asked you to explain why Clinton, Gore et al were making the same WMD arguments during their administration yet don't call them to the carpet for lying.
Ummm, because they didn't actually start a war? i.e., no one died.
Umm, Daniel, I believe it was Clinton who bombed Baghdad (for the same reasons that Bush did, but that's another story) an act that killed hundreds of people in an underground bomb shelter. Or are you doubting Iraqi death estimates now too?
Why Clinton Bombed Iraq
Well its a damn shame someone left the gates open at the funny farm. Let's see...can I summarize:
1. he was obviously a liar then so who can believe him now?
2. this is clinton's fault
3. this is about democrats
hmmm a good deal of objective realistic thought in this thread that's for sure. some one who was there and knee deep in it spills the beans on the feckless bush administration and since you can't refute anything because it is, by all accounts, all true, then shoot the writer.
talk about kneejerk conservatives.
PatCA, if you want to compare what Clinton did and what Bush did in regard to Iraq...do you really think it's the same thing?
Because if you do then you should be commending Clinton just like you do Bush.
But we know that it's not the same thing. So why can't you guys understand this?
There wasn't an Iraq War under Clinton; there was under Bush. Still is. And it's been a bungled mess, from conception to...now. Maybe Clinton was smart to avoid it, eh?
ugh, Iraq War debates.
Hoosier Daddy said...
"FDR locked up 100,000 American citizens during WW2 and no one said boo. Bush locked up a couple hundred foreign jihadists captured on the battlefield and is compared to Hitler."
I think Robert Jackson did, but that aside, sound point.
Sorry Rocean. Hugs.
I thought you meant go from this site.
Accept my apologizes.
No I asked you to explain why Clinton, Gore et al were making the same WMD arguments during their administration yet don't call them to the carpet for lying.
Apparently you can't read, because I answered you.
The Bush administration had information from the weapons inspectors on the ground (who were finding nothing) that Clinton did not. This should have forced the Bush administration to reassess the intelligence. Yet they continued to insist that Saddam had WMD stockpiles and active programs in the face of mounting contrary evidence. Evidence the Clinton administration did not have.
MM,
Cute -- but as the taking of the "Bloody 13th" in House of representatives during Speaker O'Neill's regime begat the rise of Speaker Gingrich; The attitude of the Dems (and the MSM) during the issue of the Clinton taking the GOP FBI files left a message (as well as how women's groups treated President Clinton sexual harrasment charges over Senator Packwood.
In 1990, when I was a Liberal democrat from NYC, I protested Gulf war I with a variety of other Democrats from around the country. Why? Because at the time, Democrats believed that Bush Sr. should have used the Military force in the ME to install Democracies, not support Oligarchs. 12 years later, the son takes the belief that the Democrats were right in 1990 and what do the democrats do? Protest that there is no need to rid the world of a dictator.
As there are no "Goldwater to Nixon" moments against democrats in power, there is no core belief that modern democrats have. Hence the GOP FBI files.
Feder,
In all your posts you never disagree with a Democrat in power. Ever. Democrats have never said any Democrats do wrong. Ever. You prove my point by your posts.
I think Robert Jackson did, but that aside, sound point
Well actually Simon, it's not a sound point. It's just excuse making.
Most people consider the Japanese internment camps a horrific mistake. The fact that the limbo-justice system we've created for suspect foreign nationals is slightly less apalling is hardly a defense.
Our military has conducted the Iraq war with astounding precision and professionalism. They have not been well served by a sloppy, short-sighted administration.
Apparently you can't read, because I answered you.
The Bush administration had information from the weapons inspectors on the ground (who were finding nothing) that Clinton did not.
I can read fine Freder, it's your BS spin that's hard to decipher.
So Clinton didn't have the evidence that Bush had which pretty much says, Clinton didn't have any. Or you can conclude that sometime between 1991 and 2000 Saddam destroyed it all yet there was no evidence that he did. Yet Clinton and other Democrats continued to state that he did and Clinton embarked on his own 3-day shock and awe bombing campaign to destroy these non-existant WMDs.
Freder, is the only military action you approve of are those Democrats embark on regardless of threat, intel etc? Cause that's sure what it seems like.
hdhouse said Well its a damn shame someone left the gates open at the funny farm
And look who shows up.
Most people consider the Japanese internment camps a horrific mistake.
Yes of course, most people born
30+ years after the fact. The same ones who condemn Hiroshima didn't have to contemplate being part of the invasion force of Japan.
Hoosier, I once worked with a guy whose parents, as children, were sent with their families to internment camps. U.S. citizens. Jailed without cause. Lost most of their possessions.
Some civil liberties are worth preserving -- even in wartime.
Or you can conclude that sometime between 1991 and 2000 Saddam destroyed it all yet there was no evidence that he did.
If you are contending that the WMDs are still out there somewhere (and the administration now admits they were wrong), then I honestly don't know what else I can say.
You are in the same category as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
What baffles me about all this nonsense is that a press secretaries job is to spin everything--they are paid liars. To make it sound like they're telling the truth, press secretaries are pretty much kept in the dark about everything and/or manipulated. ANY press secretary who claims to be treated differently is a liar and a fool.
This isn't just a Bush thing; years ago Jody Powell was the darling of the press and had just as little credibility.
Henry said...
"Well actually Simon, it's not a sound point. It's just excuse making. Most people consider the Japanese internment camps a horrific mistake. The fact that the limbo-justice system we've created for suspect foreign nationals is slightly less apalling is hardly a defense."
I took - perhaps mistook - Hoosier's point to be that there is an element of hypocrisy in the fact that, for all the noise about Bush having done this, that, or the other, what FDR did with the Japanese internment was far worse than anything Bush has done, yet FDR remains a President venerated by the very people who now criticize Bush. Those folks note (as do you) that "[s]ome civil liberties are worth preserving -- even in wartime"; they are willing to forgive the greater sin of a President of their own party sooner than they would forgive the lesser sin of a President of the other party.
I'm surprised that you would regard setting up a POW camp and placing captured enemy combatants into it -- a common if not universal practice by both sides of most major conflicts of the last two centuries -- as morally equivalent to (let alone only "slightly less appalling [than]") the internment of 110,000 American citizens based on their race.
Daniel,
You said no one died under Clinton; that is not so.
Bush haters are always the first to say even a just war is morally equivalent to a bad war because people die so I am applying that standard.
And how do you know whether or not I commend Clinton or Bush?
McClellan's book rehashes old arguments, like this one, and adds nothing new. So go in peace and hate Bush. I am hoping the good news in Iraq continues, whoever gets the credit or the blame for it.
I took - perhaps mistook - Hoosier's point to be that there is an element of hypocrisy in the fact that, for all the noise about Bush having done this, that, or the other, what FDR did with the Japanese internment was far worse than anything Bush has done, yet FDR remains a President venerated by the very people who now criticize Bush.
Simon,
That was exactly the point I was making. I don't necessarily agree with what FDR did but I wasn't alive in 1941 so I'm hard pressed to second guess decisions made during a time of war.
But that was my point. In fact, when people decry Japanese-American internment, they always preface it with the US Government locked them up, not FDR. Today they contend Bush and Cheney are personally locking up and waterboarding innocent Muslims.
If you are contending that the WMDs are still out there somewhere (and the administration now admits they were wrong), then I honestly don't know what else I can say.
Freder, can you put that sentence statement into context with the rest of the comment? Or is the reading comprehension thing still something you're working on.
If Bush had enough information to prevent war, then that means Clinton had less or none to justify his statements much less, embark on Operation Desert Fox.
You are in the same category as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
No Freder, if I was then I'd be arguing that we planted them in Iraq and just forgot where we put them.
Nice try though
Hoosier Daddy said...
"[W]hen people decry Japanese-American internment, they always preface it with the US Government locked them up, not FDR. Today they contend Bush and Cheney are personally locking up and waterboarding innocent Muslims."
And the internment was done by executive order, was it not? It was done on the personal and institutional authority of the President, unsupported by any act of Congress, and carried out by agents of the executive branch, necessarily "surrogates for the President in whom th[e executive] power is vested by the Constitution." If any action by the United States could be said to be an action of a particular President, rather than of "the government" in abstracto, the internment would have a claim to that title, I would think.
And the internment was done by executive order, was it not?
Yes it was. Simon my biggest beef with much of the left is the complete ignorance of historical precedent. They argue as if somehow Bush has completely shredded the Constitution, eliminated all civil rights and turned the country into a police state. The Alien and Sedition Act during WW1 was much more onnerous in terms of civil liberties than the Patriot Act is.
The fact that many think all this is new territory only confirms that no history is taught in schools anymore.
Simon, my "slightly less appalling" was intended as ironic understatement, but that kind of thing doesn't always come through.
I would say that Guantanamo has been a serious mistake, not because POW camps are bad, but because the Bush administration failed to think through the problem -- who would be sent there, under what conditions (Geneva or not), how would they get out?
I am actually closer in opinion to you and Hoosier (and Bart above) than not.
But I think the Bush administration has made grevious mistakes that should be acknowledged.
The argument that FDR or his commanders oversaw much worse disasters is not persuasive. It makes no more make sense to defend Guantanamo by bringing up the Japanese internment camps as it does to bring up Andersonville Civil War Prison.
The military front is only one part of the GWOT. Another is that of criminal investigation. The third is the media.
It is on this third front that the Bush administration has been most negligent. Consistently they focused their policies on short-term results while disregarding the media impact. Guananamo is one. Severe interrogations is another. On one hand you have a decision with no end date. On the other hand a decision made in secret that would eventually come out. In both cases the Bush administration failed to think through the long term consquences.
Even if you think these were good ideas on their own, they have caused terrible damage to domestic support for the war -- which is where we are most likely to lose.
It's a different world. World War II is not the model.
Henry,
I agree that the administration has lost what might be called the "air war" on Iraq, i.e. communicating and leading the public narrative on what we're doing there, why, and what harms arise from leaving. I also agree that that's fatal; in a democracy, you can only flout the people's view for so long, but sooner or later, if they turn against a policy and that issue rises to the top of the food chain, they'll reassert themselves. By losing the public, Bush has made it very much more difficult to prosecute the war than it might have been, and created the possibility that it might end in precipitous withdrawal.
Guantanamo has been on aspect of that, but I think that to an extent, Guantanamo, along with some other things, such as the Patriot Act, have become a sort of totem, invested with broader characteristics of the administration in their invocation by critics. Critics don't usually go after Guantanamo qua Guantanamo, they go after it as a symbol of what they believe is a broader pattern of the administration's behavior, tying it to concerns about civil rights that may be legitimate concerns, but which have nothing to do with Guantanamo.
Lastly, I don't think of criminal investigation as having a great deal of relevance to the GWOT, but I may just be having a blond moment - could you elaborate on what role you see criminal investigation playing?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा