Scott McClellan Gives Voice to his “Inner Lawrence Wilkerson”

-

mcclellan rove hadley.jpg
On October 19, 2005, Lawrence Wilkerson — Colin Powell’s aide, friend, and chief of staff respectively for 16 years — cleared his throat and conscience about what he saw as a Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal that was warping and distorting the nation’s national security decision making process. Wilkerson gave an amazing speech that I helped organize for the American Strategy Program of the New America Foundation — and it took serious guts and courage for him to do this.
There are some jeering at Scott McClellan for not resigning earlier and not speaking up sooner (as he has now done in his new book) about what he knew about the misdeeds and deception being promulgated from Oval Office central in the White House.
But history needs those who had a front row seat to what was going on to speak up and put this material out into the public record.
This doesn’t change what has happened and that Scott McClellan was part of the Bush machine — but the fight over this president’s legacy and awareness of the crimes this administration propagated really do matter. The political left really doesn’t need to be convinced, but many on the political right do.
And when Republican folks like Lawrence Wilkerson, Flynt Leverett, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Haass, John Bellinger, and others speak up and help us know the truth and give us new wherewithal to encourage others on the political right to look disdainfully and skeptically at George W. Bush’s eight years in office — this should be applauded.
Scott McClellan says he is answering a higher loyalty now than the President — “a loyalty to the truth.” We need more like him to do the same — just like Wilkerson, Scowcroft, and others like former CIA consultant and staunchly conservative scholar Chalmers Johnson, and former right wing Vietnam war hawk Daniel Ellsberg have done.
And I do applaud. Scott McClellan will be on C-Span’s Washington Journal tomorrow morning (Friday) at 7 am EST.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

90 comments on “Scott McClellan Gives Voice to his “Inner Lawrence Wilkerson”

  1. David says:

    McClellan is going as far as he has the capacity to go, given who he is, what he believes, where he came from, and how he sees the world. But it is a hell of a long way from where he was.
    He sees Bush as having been ill-advised, and he has two people in his crosshairs, the same two people I have considered the architects of this criminal enterprise: Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. There are a host of other apparatchiks, of course, but Bush is too ignorant to have thought this stuff up. I have long argued that the most important target of the internal misinformation has been George Bush, and the three most important targets of the propaganda have been George Bush, our troops, and the general public.
    Scott McClellan was a press secretary for a criminal enterprise. He cannot call it that. He has put his neck in a guillotine just for calling it an unnecessary war. You figure what conclusions that sets in motion. Then add in everything else he corroborated in his book. And unlike some of the other people mentioned above, he is not backing down. And this round has legs, people. Do not underestimate its value.

    Reply

  2. arthurdecco says:

    POA asked: “What counts is whether or not the checks and balances installed by the founders are employed, whether or not this nation learns a lesson fromn this sordid and uunprecedented abuse of executive authority, and whether or not the application of accountability has provided a deterrent discouraging future presidents from practicing the same abuses.
    I see no indication that McClellan’s thirty seconds in the limelight is going to move us in that direction, do you?”
    Not yet.
    I’m thinking it’s another infinitesimal nudge in the right direction, is all.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    pauline, go get um, girl….

    Reply

  4. Frigid One says:

    If McCellan had to answer that 9/11 trading question during his WH tenure, he might have said,
    “The 9/11 Commission has officially fulfilled the president’s request and their obligation to the American people, and any other questions need to be directed to that commission…It wouldn’t be proper for me to speculate and I won’t…”

    Reply

  5. pauline says:

    POA wrote:
    “If you haven’t noticed, the “McClellan story” is already being superceded by another…bit of fluff, and the media blip about McClellan’s assertions is already fading out.”
    imo, Scottie-boy was not much more than the Ed McMahon of the non-stop campaign-mode, Big Top dis-info DC circus.
    Hey, who has forgotten 9/11?
    How ’bout some correct answers to these two TOP TWELVE 9/11 quiz questions?
    3) WHO FOUNDED AL-QAEDA and WHY? Most people assume that Al-Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden.
    8) Who was nailed for insider trading on 9-11, betting 600 times over normal against Merrill Lynch, and against American and United (but not other airlines), etc.? In other words, what investors had specific advance knowledge of 9-11?
    Scottie-boy can reply if his memory hasn’t faded, too.

    Reply

  6. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But even so, the con generated a few days of focus on the issue that wouldn’t have been generated without the book, doanchathink?”
    Actually, Arthur, no, I don’t think so. If you haven’t noticed, the “McClellan story” is already being superceded by another Obama/Trinity Church bit of fluff, and the media blip about McClellan’s assertions is already fading out.
    Also, look at the “substance” or the reporting on this issue. The majority of the stories and commentaries I saw had turned the topic away from the validity or non-validity of McClellan’s “revelations”, but instead had turned it into a debate about loyalties and back stabbing. I see NO concerted efforts by our media to expose the lies and propaganda to the light of day, because that self same media is part and parcel of the propaganda machine that McClellan describes in his book.
    Look, these assertions, (lets call them “truths, shall we?), have already been “generated” by volumes of irrefutable evidence presented by history itself. If we start at the exposure of the “Downing Street Memo”, and work our way forward, we have a history of “revelations” by a variety of Washington insiders, intelligence agencies, politicos, and Bush bats jumping ship, that the “intelligence” leading up to the invasion of Iraq was seriously manipulated, contrived, fabricated, and doctored. Even overseas, in Britain, there is a concensus that there was a conspiracy between Blair and Bush to decieve the people of both nations into accepting an invasion of Iraq.
    Besides, Arthur. Have you seen any evidence whatsomever that McClellan’s belated bout of conscience is opening the door to a hue and cry for accountability? It is really quite irrelevant if these panicked rats run for the hawsers, spilling the beans as they scurry for revised legacies. What counts is whether or not the checks and balances installed by the founders are employed, whether or not this nation learns a lesson fromn this sordid and uunprecedented abuse of executive authority, and whether or not the application of accountability has provided a deterrent discouraging future presidents from practicing the same abuses. I see no indication that McClellan’s thirty seconds in the limelight is going to move us in that direction, do you?

    Reply

  7. Dirk says:

    I’m ambivalent on McClellan. He doesn’t get a pass like former Secretary of the Treasury O’Neill, counter terrorism aide Richard Clarke and faith-based office head John Dilulio. But he has better standing than Powell or Armitage who should burn in hell with the rest of the Bush gang.
    Besides what’s been mentioned, one thing stands out for me: during Colbert’s address to the White House correspondents I noticed McClellan getting pretty amused off to the side while others seemed to be awfully uncomfortable. I remember at the time starting to reevaluate my opinion of him.

    Reply

  8. arthurdecco says:

    POA said: “McClellan’s job was to run a con. And, it appears he quit his employer, but not his calling.”
    Amen.
    But even so, the con generated a few days of focus on the issue that wouldn’t have been generated without the book, doanchathink?

    Reply

  9. PissedOffAmerican says:

    David, has it occurred to you that casting George Bush as the unwitting dupe may well be one of McClellan’s motives? The idea that George Bush was just “hoodwinked”, and that he didn’t really “lie” is laughable. The man is a pathological liar, as is demonstrated by his statements in regards to his TANG service. It would truly be a pity for history to portray Bush as just an unwitting patsy of sinister back room players and forces.
    For that matter, I am disappointed that many of you see McClellan in that light. With millions of citizens, globally, seeing through these lies as McClellan was dutifully doling them out, it defies the imagination to think that he was unaware that he was dishing out bullshit.
    It was McClellan’s JOB to obsfucate, confuse, divert and decieve. And he was quite good at it. And where is his apology for being a part in all this? Will he adopt an Iraqi orphan? Sponsor a Christian Iraqi family to come to the states to escape persecution? Or is the only price he must pay for his complicity this belated tome of finger pointing and “I was hoodwinked” mewling?
    Once again, I must remind you, hundreds of thousands, perhaps well over a million, of people have died. Have we become a society that is so callous to justice that all mass murderers must do is seek the services of Random House, and all is forgiven?
    McClellan’s job was to run a con. And, it appears he quit his employer, but not his calling.

    Reply

  10. David says:

    I just watched Scott McClellan on C-Span (replay of Friday’s appearance). The more I learn, the more convinced I am becoming that the book is the real deal and Scott McClellan is being straight up and honest. It might be unreasonable to ask why he did not step forward sooner. The culprits here are Cheney and company. The dupe is W. The sucker was McClellan.
    At this point, thank you for coming to your intellectually honest senses and writing this book, Scott. It is an important contribution to the larger issue of American electoral politics and federal executive governance. It is the responsibility of voters at this point to get this and succeeding elections right.

    Reply

  11. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Ok. You guys win. I’ll concede that Scottie Boy’s book may well indeed serve to inform a few more citizens about what the Washington elite, on both sides of the aisle, have known for years.
    Will it make a difference? Only to Scott’s bank account.
    Will it serve to advance accountability? Only if pigs can fly.
    Will it head off future executive abuses? With Hillary, McCain or Obama in a slither race to the Oval office? Surely, you jest.
    If the Downing Street Memo didn’t do it, Scottie’s self serving bit of literary second thoughts certainly ain’t gonna rise to the occassion.
    But be sure to buy his book. There is plenty of blood to go around, so you might as well get a little to call your own.

    Reply

  12. Kathleen says:

    questions.. I miss the old preview feature too. Too many typos at my end. Keith, say hello to Tahoe Editor.

    Reply

  13. Sweetness says:

    There is no question that Scott should have come forward, or
    done “something” much, much earlier. There is no question he
    was part of the beast and shares responsibility for what has
    happened.
    However, coming forward now in the way he has has merit for
    two reasons: 1) As Steve points out, the history must be written,
    and an insider’s account is important; 2) an insider account
    leaves the Republican establishment little room to argue “for”
    the Iraq debacle in any way. It’s an important prophylactic going
    forward if Bush actually tries to embark on hostilities with Iran
    based on xyz.
    Scott’s book is “old news” to people who’ve seen through the lies
    for a long time. We are not its audience. But it is important new
    news to the 28% who’ve continued to believe in Bush and his
    programs. Scott was among the 28% and believed by the 28%,
    and now that number is a little bit smaller.
    It’s not a fool-proof prophylactic, but it is important. And the
    more people like Scott who come forward, the better. It’s
    certainly better than not coming forward.

    Reply

  14. questions says:

    Hey Steve,
    Any chance of getting an edit function to deal with spelling goofs?! That would be something!

    Reply

  15. questions says:

    I believe I saw recently that 68% of Repubs still approve of Bush. Methinks we need many many more whistle blowers to blow many many more whistles. Perhaps if all the Repubs are rendered deaf by all those whistles, they will no longer answer to the siren call of tax reductions, privitization of profit and socialization of loss, privitization of personal risk, religification of personal behavior (except when the private lives of Congressmen are involved) and so on.

    Reply

  16. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, it didn’t take long for the media flap over McClellan’s book to die down, did it? And gee golly, here we were supposed to awaken to a Brave New World because of McClellan’s heroic effort of exposing old news.
    Anyone care to wager if Brittany is wearing underwear or not this morning?

    Reply

  17. Kathleen says:

    POA right of center?? Pleeeeze. Keith, methinks you protest too loudly. do you have a crush on POA? You’re sounding rather shrewish.

    Reply

  18. Mr.Murder says:

    Forgive me for the late comment, OT as well, but most of POA’s rants seem to be from right of center.
    Many people from there are mad as hell about the boy king’s poor job as well.
    Bush has made extra Constitutional moves from the day he was in office, but the longer his administration goes, the worse it gets.
    They’ve taken the Bill of Rights and renditioned it.
    Keith, your plausible sensibilities would have been in place issuing pamphlets against the Federalists and the anti Federalists. After all, what place did those people have using the King’s good English to discuss some kind of new nation states emerging from the posterity and function of the Colonial arrangement?
    Didn’t they know when and where to shut up and enjoy their tea?
    Certainly nobody ever made forums on town squares to post Common Sense. The nerve of some Founders!

    Reply

  19. Carroll says:

    Posted by Keith M Ellis Jun 01, 1:02AM – Link
    Want me to stop posting here so you can impress us with your superior intellect, reasonable manner, and cutting edge analysis without the distraction of my “unintelligent noise”??
    >>>>>>>>>
    Well that would be nice but don’t do it just for me, I am too busy right now to pay that much attention to the blog……but do it for yourself and devote the time instead to getting some mental help for your abnormal desire for attention from others and your various other problems evident in your personal attacks on other commentors.
    I’ll help with your therapy by ignoring you.

    Reply

  20. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Listen you sick sanctimonious hypocritical asshole. Do you really think I give a crap what some self absorbed jackass like yourself has to say?
    I too looked over your “blog”, and perused a few of your “comments” on the sites you linked to. I asure you, someone that posts their sexual interests on a community blog, and ponders their own propensity for “kink” on a public forum is not someone whom I am likely to find anything to respect or accept mentoring from. In fact, buddy, suffice to say that you are obviously one sick effin’ puppy.
    Everything about your “blog” wreaks of the very narcissism you have accused me of, and your posting of pictures of your infant family members is STUPID and dangerous, particularly in the light of the fact you’re so god damned ignorant that you post directions to your apartment.
    You’re a sick one, bud, and the concerted effort you’ve put into rippin’ me a new asshole only underscores that fact.
    Now, for the most part, I tried to address the topic, and offer my sincere opinion of what import McClellan’s book was likely to have.
    And you? You’ve devoted your efforts to committing the very kind of divisive and self indulgent off topic rant that you accuse me of doing. You don’t like my opinions, comments, or manner of expressing them? Tough shit. I suggest you have a good sitdown with yourself, have a look at your blog, and seek proffessional help. And get those kids off the internet, you damned fool.

    Reply

  21. Keith M Ellis says:

    Want me to stop posting here so you can impress us with your superior intellect, reasonable manner, and cutting edge analysis without the distraction of my “unintelligent noise”??
    Not at all. I don’t want you to stop posting. I want you to stop posting the kind of post you’ve been posting. Respond to the blog posts if you have something insightful to say about them and discuss these things with other commenters as if there was something everyone might learn by doing so. What you are doing now is:
    A) Wrongly believing that writing the same angry screeds against the Bush administration in the comments of a small, wonkish political blog is some form of effective political activism when it isn’t even remotely that;
    B) Emphasizing just how angry you personally are as if that is of interest to anyone besides yourself or provides you with more credibility while not recognizing that it’s just tiresome to read again and again and again;
    C) Often writing these angry screeds making the same basic points when they are not at all related to the blog post or only tangentially so; and finally
    D) Writing these angry screeds more as free standing political statements than as a legitimate participation in a conversation.
    I don’t want you to leave for the sake of leaving. If you changed your behavior, then I’d be happy with your continued presence. It’s not about your “message”, such as it is, as I pretty much completely agree with it. I just think that here it is misplaced, repetitive, unproductive and disruptive, and self-indulgent given its style.
    I’ve been reading the blog, and the comments, long enough to remember you before Steve had his temporary crackdown on comments. Before you were chastised, the vast majority of your comments were entirely off-topic. You, and others, used this comments section as if it were your personal bulletin board for discussing whatever topic you liked. You might as well have been exchanging recipes, it just so happens that you were bitching about Bush. You, and others, are not nearly as bad about this as you once were, but you are still doing it enough that it has stifled any real development of the comments section beyond the little low-rent enclave it always has been.
    “Now you need to to shut up. Probably most people in this country agree with POA …they just don’t have the energy or commitment to keep after it like POA does.”
    So? That has nothing to do with anything. You and he seem to believe that being correct and justified in your political outrage is justification for…well, whatever it is you choose to justify at any given time.
    And, again, this idea that POA’s comments on a small blog are an example of a noble effort of great commitment and a sterling example of political activism is not only absurd, it’s a great offense to anything that even remotely resembles real political activism. Not only is this far, far from the sort of community political activism that makes a real difference, it’s not even a respectable effort on the much more modest level of Internet political activism. It’s cheap or free and easy to write one’s own blog. One could aspire to be a headline contributer to one of the high-profile leftist political group blogs. Or even just being a high-profile commenter on a high-traffic site like TMP or something. But being a warrior for truth in the comments section of “The Washington Note”? That’s such small potatoes that anyone calling it activism deserves great ridicule.
    “And I would not go accusing POA of being a narcissist…I actually looked at your site and a blog devoted to posting your family pictures and talking about yourself and your health problems?…well who is the narcissist?”
    Oh, please. It’s a personal blog with very few entries and is intended for family and friends. Within that context, there’s only one entry about my health and that’s specifically for the benefit of family and friends who were worried about it at the time (a year and a half ago). Everything else is about people and things that aren’t me. That’s not narcissism.
    Anyway, I don’t expect or want a general readership. I only include the link in forms when I post comments for the sake of disclosure and accountability, which I think is very important on the web.
    Meanwhile, you’re the last one who should point fingers about narcissism. You’re as bad as POA with your continual cut-and-pasting here of things not written by you and which are off-topic. You’re doing exactly the sort of thing that political blogging does, except you’re using someone else’s comment section to do it. Start your own blog and attempt to cultivate a readership, quit relying so much upon what other people have written, and drop the notion that everyone else needs the benefit of being informed of things you’ve read as if they couldn’t find it for themselves.
    Really, be honest: are you and POA here specifically because you’ve been chased away from doing the same thing at other sites?
    Both you and POA can’t seem to take criticism and act as if someone criticizing you was inappropriate. But if you’re going to write in public, then you better learn to accept, or at least tolerate criticism. You’re attempting to shield yourselves from it by confining yourselves to a small blog’s comment section.
    Furthermore, you and others respond to criticism of your behavior here as if your little group, by virtue of your daily and long-standing presence, somehow have some proprietary interest in this place. But it’s not yours, it’s not mine, it’s Steve’s and we are guests in his metaphorical house. You act like rude houseguests camped in his backyard for months. Your little encampment is driving away far more interesting and insightful company. I certainly have as much right to post a handful of comments in two years as you and POA have to post hundreds or thousands in the same time period. And, again, if you are going to make such spectacles of yourselves, you’d better accept the right of someone to criticize you for doing so.
    That’s all I’m going to write about this for now. But I’ll keep reading, like I’ve been reading for years, and I’ll probably be back again someday to complain if nothing changes. There’s far more lurkers than there are posters and you don’t get to make the rules just because you have the biggest mouths.

    Reply

  22. Carroll says:

    Posted by Keith M Ellis May 31, 4:53PM – Link
    “Obsequious” is an adjective describing behavior, not state of mind. And I *can* assess POA because he’s all about telling everyone about his internal state. Besides which, when someone acts so consistently like a narcissist, they’re usually a narcissist.”
    Humm.. Keith, you started this flap by attacking POA personally in this post:
    Posted by Keith M Ellis May 30, 11:20AM
    He had not addressed you or aimed his comments at you. Now you need to to shut up. Probably most people in this country agree with POA …they just don’t have the energy or commitment to keep after it like POA does.
    And I would not go accusing POA of being a narcissist…I actually looked at your site and a blog devoted to posting your family pictures and talking about yourself and your health problems?…well who is the narcissist?
    Drop it.

    Reply

  23. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gee, Ellis, you certainly wowed us with your astute and on target commentary today!
    Tell me, Ellis, just what the hell do you want from me?
    Want me to stop posting here so you can impress us with your superior intellect, reasonable manner, and cutting edge analysis without the distraction of my “unintelligent noise”??
    “We know that Steve isn’t happy with the quality of comments here, but we also know he’s not going to do anything else about it”
    And now you’re speaking up for Steve, eh?
    You’ve wasted enough of my time with your masturbatory sanctimony. You don’t like my comments? Don’t read ’em. Failing that, I don’t know what to tell you.

    Reply

  24. pauline says:

    Gary Dilbert recenlty blogged the following. See how many you can answer. How many could Scottie-boy answer accurately?
    TOP TWELVE 9/11 QUIZ
    1) Does any evidence exist to show that our government would ever even consider sacrificing it’s own citizens and lying about it, to achieve narrow, selfish policy objectives? In other words, is there any reason to believe that our own govt. could ever a stage “False-Flag” act of terrorism to frighten us into submission, to promote a War agenda?
    2) Has our government ever done this before, CREATED TERRORISM to blame it on new enemies? What was the Strategy of Tension? What was Operation Gladio?
    3) WHO FOUNDED AL-QAEDA and WHY? Most people assume that Al-Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden. This is flatly untrue. (see below)
    4) How much MONEY did American taxpayers spend to create Al-Qaeda?
    5) What Lawyer blocked a civil suit brought by Widows from 9-11 families, for ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, by getting “diplomatic immunity” for Saudi royalty, against legal inquiry into it’s accounts? (Some Leftist trial lawyer? Ramsey Clark?)
    6) What Fed. Prosecutor stepped out of their regular career to defend an accused Al-Qaeda money-launderer (who “lost” $6M from his taxpayer-supported slush fund)?
    7) Who said “Let Bin Laden go free”? (Some liberal actress? Barbra Streisand, perhaps? Sean Penn? Dennis Kucinich? Cindy Sheehan?)
    8] Who was nailed for insider trading on 9-11, betting 600 times over normal against Merrill Lynch, and against American and United (but not other airlines), etc.? In other words, what investors had specific advance knowledge of 9-11?
    9) Which Govt Official collaborated with a man whom FBI confirmed as the Terrorist Moneyman behind Sept 11, who sent $109,000 to Mohamed Atta (alleged hijackers) in Florida? ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING QUESTIONS.
    10) Under which Presidents did the Pentagon and CIA run joint operations with Al-Qaeda? Is there ANY evidence for ongoing US-Al-Qaeda relations?
    11) What was the most common line of work the “terrorists” and “hijackers” performed in recent decades?
    12) How quickly must have the separation have occurred for each (undamaged) floor strained and interlocking steel trusses to break from outside vertical structures and 47 steel center columns (forming a “hollow” center) for the South Tower to have collapsed in less than 10 seconds? What did they DO with the EVIDENCE, all the steel that melted from exposure to a black smoke kerosene “campfire”?

    Reply

  25. pauline says:

    I’m gonna change directions here for a moment.
    Gee, I wonder how Scottie-boy would comment on the following “ancient history” analysis scribed nearly 9 longs years ago.
    “The FBI and the mad bombers”
    December 09, 1999
    By Joseph Farah © 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
    The FBI is warning us, through its Project Megiddo report, that right-wing Christians are dangerous terrorists prone to incite violence in the weeks ahead.
    This warning is more than slanderous, bigoted and inciteful. It needs to be understood in context. That context is that the FBI has set up a system of self-fulfilling prophecies that permits the government to scapegoat groups of people who are enticed into committing illegal acts or conspiring about them by agents provocateur.
    Whether the groups are organized militia outfits, Christian Identity, the White Aryan Resistance movement or some other misfit, would-be “terrorists,” the tentacles of funding, control and conspiracy always seem to lead right back to the government — whether it’s the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or some other similar agency.
    This is the case with the most dramatic bombings in the recent history of our country — from Oklahoma City to the World Trade Center.
    On behalf of the BATF, Carol Howe infiltrated Timothy McVeigh’s cell while it prepared to blow up federal buildings. She tried to testify at McVeigh’s trial to tell what she knew about the conspiracy behind it and was thanked for her troubles with an indictment. Anyone who believes McVeigh was the mastermind of that operation is either poorly informed or a certified fool.
    Howe identified as a participant in the plot a German former intelligence officer named Andreas Strassmeier. While in the U.S., he enjoyed full diplomatic immunity, carrying concealed weapons, talking about bombing the Murrah Building and practicing with explosives. Reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Telegraph called Strassmeier after he returned to Germany. Here’s how that conversation went, according to Evans-Pritchard’s book, “The Secret Life of Bill Clinton.”
    Evans-Pritchard: “There comes a time in every botched operation when the informant has to speak out to save his own skin, and that’s now, Andreas.”
    Strassmeier: “How can he? What happens if it was a sting operation from the very beginning? What happens if it comes out that the plant was a provocateur?”
    Evans-Pritchard: “A provocateur?”
    Strassmeier: “What if he talked and manipulated the others into it. … The relatives of the victims are going to go crazy. He’s going to be held responsible for the murder of 168 people. … Of course the informant can’t come forward. He’s scared … right now.”
    The most sensible conclusion anyone came to after examining evidence like this is that the Oklahoma City bombing was a sting operation that went wrong.
    But, incredibly, the same conclusion can be drawn about the World Trade Center bombing.
    According to tapes played at the trial of the “terrorists” in that case, the FBI planted Emad A. Salem to infiltrate an Arab group in New York. His job was to act, again, as an agent provocateur — inciting violent attacks. It was Salem who convinced the other participants to bomb the World Trade Center. When he was asked to assemble the bomb, he went to the FBI to ask for harmless powder to avoid a catastrophe. The FBI essentially cut him off. To make a long, complicated story short and simple: The FBI spent $3 million of your tax money to blow up the World Trade Center.
    The story’s essentially the same at Waco, Ruby Ridge and other government-made disasters. This week we learned the FBI has spent a year involved in a militia cell in California “investigating” a plot to blow up a propane facility in hopes of sparking martial law. I won’t be shocked to learn later that FBI agents were leading these so-called militiamen down the primrose path — actually inviting terrorist activity, encouraging it, paying for it.
    When will this insanity end? What is the overall objective of the FBI and government? Are these activities actually designed to thwart terrorism or encourage it? Who benefits most from terrorist activity?
    Americans might be shocked to learn that their government is involved in such escapades. But those who study history should expect such things. It’s been going on since the beginning of time. Planting seeds of fear among the people only helps those in government remain in power and grab more control over people’s lives.
    Remember this the next time you hear about a so-called “terrorist incident.” And, tell your representatives and senators it’s time to rein in the mad bombers and provocateurs in our own government.
    see —
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14869

    Reply

  26. Keith M Ellis says:

    “Obsequious” is an adjective describing behavior, not state of mind. And I *can* assess POA because he’s all about telling everyone about his internal state. Besides which, when someone acts so consistently like a narcissist, they’re usually a narcissist.
    It’s rich that you’re taking such umbrage at “dime store psychological assessments” given that you wrote two paragraphs about my suspected motivations based upon my use of the word “lefties”.
    “…you remind me of a few posters from the past (using different names of course) taking issue with poa…”
    And this doesn’t suggest to you that maybe it’s POA that’s the problem?
    Look, I’ve been reading this blog for a good while, at least a couple of years. I’ll keep reading it, and I’ll keep occasionally puling up the comments page in vain hoping to see something other than the same small group of people saying the same banal things, usually off-topic. Apparently, most people here other than me like the status quo. We know that Steve isn’t happy with the quality of comments here, but we also know he’s not going to do anything else about it.
    So, have fun.

    Reply

  27. arthurdecco says:

    “The real reason he does this is because of obsequious supporting comments like yours.” Keith M. Ellis
    So you’ve figured out POA’s motivations, too? You ascribe his passion and his eloquence on the subject of America’s deterioration to needing to feed off of the approval and protection of nobodies like me when he’s quite capable of defending himself, both verbally and intellectually? …And now you’re confident enough in your opinions of me to label me “obsequious” for challenging your off-topic hatchet job on someone with whom you disagree about process?
    You can add rude and belligerent to your list of my foibles, you pompous gasbag. F-ck off with you dime store psychological assessments of people you know nothing about.
    How could I have forgotten the fact there’s no reasoning with the unreasonable?

    Reply

  28. karenk says:

    Scott-Thanks for saying what some of us already knew.
    But I do wonder why he towed the line for the Administration’s lies for 3 years now suddenly has a conscience. (did he hook up with a liberal girlfriend who helped him see the error of his ways?!) But I’m an eternal optimist so I guess my final take on it is that its better than never getting a conscience.

    Reply

  29. ... says:

    drama from ellis… stay focused on the issues and quit trying to make a scene about poa… you remind me of a few posters from the past (using different names of course) taking issue with poa…

    Reply

  30. Keith M Ellis says:

    “…seems to be an effort to demonize my posting style and my message…”
    Oh, please. You don’t have a “message”. Saying that you’re angry about the Bush administration is not a “message”. You’re not coherent or articulate enough to have a “message”. What you merely do is express how you feel, that you’re angry, over and over again because you expect that to be important to other people.
    Your reaction to my criticism, by the way, shows exactly what your anger is worth: very little. It’s quite obviously the indiscriminate, disproportionate, easily aroused anger of the pathetic and impotent man.
    If you’re assuming that I dislike your comments because I dislike someone saying that the Bush administration is evil, or that I dislike your comments because you’re angry, then your being absurdly hubristic. I have written, to much larger audiences than those here, that the Bush administration is evil and criminal, and that I am angry about it.
    So, no, I don’t dislike you because I dislike your politics. I dislike you because you’ve been dominating the comment section on this blog for as long as I’ve been reading it—a couple of years, maybe—with poorly written, self-indulgent crap.
    “Is anyone who thinks (and writes) like POA, a ‘lefty’ to someone like you? Funny about that – I’ve always considered POA a rational, if passionate, respecter of the American Constitution – I don’t think I’ve every considered him pejoratively as a ‘lefty’. (Where do idiotic descriptors like that come from? And who benefits from their use?)
    Do you really believe that those of us who argue tirelessly for the rule of law and the principles behind the American Constitution are ‘lefties’? If so, then I have to ask you why aren’t you describing yourself that way?”
    I do, in fact, describe myself that way. I usually say I’m a “leftist”, sometimes a “progressive”, and occasionally a “lefty”.
    So, you know, epic fail on your attempt to discover that I don’t like POA because I’m a conservative. I don’t like him because he’s been standing on a soapbox here for a couple of years now, saying that same damn things over and over and over and he thinks that this is doing some good. (Well, that’s his justification. The real reason he does this is because of obsequious supporting comments like yours.)
    Ranting in the comments section of a blog—a small blog, at that—is not activism. The idea that one is making the world a better place by calling Bush a liar in blog comments is at least pathetic and at most delusional. That’s not activism, that’s activism for narcissistic people who are too lazy to actually be activists.
    Not only does POA not have the balls to have his own blog, where he would risk discovering that no one cares what he has to say, he doesn’t even have the balls to comment on much more highly trafficked sites (where he’d possibly influence more readers) because he’d then be foreced to compete with hundreds of other commenters, almost all of whom would be more informed, more insightful, and more articulate. So, instead, he pisses in this little punchbowl, day after day after day.
    Given the nature of this blog, and probably most of its readers, I’m certain that this has the potential to be an unusually erudite, informed, articulate, and insightful commenting community. But POA is the main culprit responsible for making sure this hasn’t happened.
    Steve hasn’t banned him because Steve is very sensitive to charges of silencing dissenting opinion, as he and POA have disagreed more than occasionally. The defense “what I’m doing must be okay because I haven’t been banned” is self-serving bullshit. That’s the lowest possible standard of behavior one could set for oneself here. But it’s clear from his name-calling and the like that it is the lowest possible standard of behavior the POA sets for himself.

    Reply

  31. TonyForesta says:

    While I wholeheartedly agree with you that the “grand government of greed and treason” is pervasive at all levels – but I ask you this? If not now, when? If not us, who?
    Impeachment of the pathological liars, arch deceivers, propagandists and disinformaiton warriors, wanton profiteers, perverted abusers, treasonous traitors, and wanton profiteers in the Bush government is the most appropriate starting point and first critical step in “cleansing” the entire system.
    These beasts must be held accountable!!!

    Reply

  32. Kathleen says:

    POA Roxxxx! Captacha suxxxx and so does the Dem leadership. Pardon the oxynmoron and all the other morons.

    Reply

  33. Carroll says:

    Posted by TonyForesta May 31, 1:09PM –
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Impeachment of one president, while deserved, will produce no long term changes..the corruption will continue…what we have seen will happen again and again. Bush is a minor puppet in the grand government of greed and treason.
    The ENTIRE system has to be cleansed, over turned, whatever….the Law and the Constitution and punishment for crimes against the country have to be carried out.
    Don’t hold your breath.

    Reply

  34. TonyForesta says:

    McClellans book is critical because it corroborates what many of us, who have been ruthlessly slimed as antiamerikan for all these for daring to question, challenge, dissent with, or oppose the fascists machinations, deceptive propagandizing, and pathological lying of the fascists in the Bush government.
    With regard to impeachment. These arguments about the lack of time, or the lack of votes are hollow betrayals of the rule of law, and the Constitution. There are mountains of justifications rizing to the standards of high crimes and misdemeanors warranting the initiation of impeachment proceeding against dear leader, – I mean Bush and azmodeaus – I mean cheney.
    While the democrats may not have the votes, and we all know the fascists in the Bush government will claim kings rights, and national security protections to defray or “throw sand in the face” of any and every investigation – it is a grotesque abuse of justice, and egregious betrayal of the rule of laws and Constitution to resist, or deny the peoples right to “…petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    Even a failed impeachment effort would further tarnish the fascists in the Bush government who are even now attempting to rewrite history, and excuse or cloak a festering litany of deceptions, abuses, failures, wanton profiteering and CRIMES.
    An impeachment effort would cripple McCain’s Bush3 campaign and force McCain supporters to takes stands that could and would haunt if not damn them forever as more information regarding the Bush governmnents high crimes and misdemeanors is revealed or confirmed.
    Do you expect the rest of Ameica to simply allow these fascists to walk away to lucrative fellowships in wingnut thinktanks, or the private military or intelligence industrial complexes the fascist in the Bush government erected – because of lack of time? Because of lack of vote?
    What about honoring America’s core principles?
    What about the truth?
    What about justice?
    What about the rule of law?
    What about the Constitution?
    It was a grievous error for the cowards in the DNC to take impeachment off the table. These leaders betrayed America and should be punished by being replaced, because they cannot be trusted.
    America is ready and thirsting for impeachment?
    Americans do demand accountability from our government?
    It is left to congress now to set aside these hollow meaningless and cowardly excuses about time, lack of votes, and incivility – and act on principle, honoring the rule of law, and respecting and upholding the Constitution – and place impeachment firmly on the table.
    Even a failed impeachment attempt would shine hot lights on the Bush government crimes, strap to the legal system for the rest of thier tyrannical reign, link McCain who is joined at the hip with the fascists in the Bush government as a co-conspirator and appeaser, – and mark democrats as champions of America’s core principles, advocates
    for the rule of law, and defenders of the Constitution.
    The gop attempt at impeachment based on a sexual impropriety ultimately failed, and the facists in the Bush government succeeded in stealing the next election.
    It is cowardly, unprincipled, and a grotesque betrayal of justice to keep impeachment off the table for any reason. Why is impeachment embedded into the structure of the Constitution, if not to redress the exact kind of ruthless concentration and rank abuse of power, radical deceptions, wanton profiteering, criminal activity, and treasons the people have suffered under the tyranny of the facists in the Bush government.
    IMPEACHMENT is the one and only hope for restoring credibility, the rule of law, and the Constitution to America.

    Reply

  35. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gee, Carroll, maybe if we all write books about it, all will be well on Fantasy Ellisland.

    Reply

  36. Carroll says:

    Let’s sum our ills up shall we…
    1) A corrupt congress and a corrupt political and government system and a corrupt election process.
    2)A foreign policy corrupted by US Jewish zionazis
    3) Criminal Capitalism instead of free enterprise enabled by our government.
    Every whistleblower from O’Neil to Scott to Clark to W&M has confirmed these three problems. We know for a absolute fact that we have a government for, by and of the “parties”, for, by and of Israel and the US zionist, for, by and of criminal capitalism.
    “Policy wonking” and verbally masturbating these problems to death as Keith suggest results in nothing but more of the same.
    None of the above perversions could exist without being aided and abetted by both dems and republicans in congress accepting lobby and influence bribes for their own personal political gain.
    It’s not worth discussing. Case proved and closed. The only thing worth discussing is what the people can do about it, if anything.
    Latest of a thousand examples:…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    “Tracing an Iran Oil Blockade Meme”
    On Wednesday, Wall Street Journal opinion editors proposed a plan for a naval blockade on Iran of refined gasoline imports. But they don’t say where they got the idea.
    The Journal:
    The Administration would do better to withdraw from this international charade and consider means by which the mullahs might be persuaded that their regime’s survival is better assured by not having nuclear weapons. A month-long naval blockade of Iran’s imports of refined gasoline – which accounts for nearly half of its domestic consumption – could clarify for the Iranians just how unacceptable their nuclear program is to the civilized world.
    Here was Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz in January explaining the idea of thirty year Israeli intelligence veteran Shmuel Bar:
    Dr. Shmuel Bar, a researcher at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center and one of the discussion’s initiators, believes that the U.S. can still prevent Iran from reaching the next stage in its program of nuclear development. In place of economic sanctions imposed by the UN, which he feels are ineffective, he proposes imposing a naval blockade on all refined petroleum products imported to Iran.
    Sound familiar?
    (Bar led a closed session at the Herzliya conference in January that brought together US and Israeli intelligence analysts to discuss the December U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. You can find more of his writings here).
    More recently, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert reportedly proposed the blockade idea in a meeting with House speaker Nancy Pelosi, as noted by Judah Grunstein.
    On its face while not as overtly militaristic a proposal as air strikes, which some hawks advocate, such a blockade may constitute the kind of provocation that would force international conflict just the same — which may be some of its proponents’ intention. (It may also constitute an act of war.) Worth observing how the blockade idea has worked its way into Washington’s public policy discourse, and paying attention to see if becomes a more frequent talking point in right leaning national security circles in coming months. ”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Let’s see how long it takes Peliso and the usual suspects in congress to advance a bill calling for a blockade of Iran. Think you can do anything about it?….not until your politicans fear you more than they fear the lose of the CEO’s campaign money and US Zionist money and votes, not until they fear for their actual and political lives for betraying the country and it’s citizens.

    Reply

  37. ... says:

    that’s just it, isn’t it? the politicians in a position to do something about this mess have opted to sit it out.. while i appreciate mcclellan coming out and stating the obvious, it would really impress me if pelosi demanded impeachment… it ain’t going to happen… they are all feeding at the troff and quite content to do so….

    Reply

  38. Carroll says:

    Posted by PissedOffAmerican May 31, 10:25AM
    And, in case you haven’t noticed, it really doesn’t seem to matter anymore what the people “know” or want. Whether or not you or I know Bush lied, or whether or not McClellan’s book convinces Eddie Douchbag in Podunk New Mexico that Bush lied is kinda irrelevent, isn’t it? It is these scumbags in Washington that have the power to do something about it. And if you think they need “convincing” about the extent of the corruption, dishonesty, amd lawlessness of this Administration, then you’re a bigger jackass than I already figured you were.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    AMEN

    Reply

  39. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Your spleen should be directed to our spineless Congresscritters and press”
    You must not read my comments much, eh?
    Look, if McClellan’s book was really going to have an effect, it would be a good thing, and I would be lauding his efforts. But do you really think its just a coincidence that these “revelations” are being aired so close to the end of Bush’s term? Do you really honestly think that there is anyone in the halls of power that is unaware of the extent of Bush’s malfeasance, propaganda efforts, and malfeasance?? Or Rove’s slimyness, or Cheney’s dishonesty?
    Come on man, you know better.

    Reply

  40. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Thanks, Arthur.

    Reply

  41. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Its interesting that your lengthiest and “noisiest” contribution here seems to be an effort to demonize my posting style and my message, in light of your comment….
    “Noisy, non-productive and self-indulgent comments waste people’s time and interfere with interesting and productive conversation”
    You might not like it, and I am under no obligation to explain myself, but I have adopted this “personna” for a reason, and will continue to make the “noise” that fits the personna, until Steve requests that I move on.
    There are a number of reasons that I consider you a jackass, Ellis, other than your idiotic suggestion that the Fourth Estate is going to banner McClellan’s assertions that the Fourth Estate enabled this debacle in Iraq. If you haven’t noticed, the media is already toning down its coverage, and the majority of coverage I have seen has mostly been endeavoring to offer the White House’s standard method of repudiation, mainly swiftboating, evading, and diverting. (Of course, you know about the “diverting” thing, doncha?)
    So, lets see, we have the Downing Street Memo. Remember that? Heard anyone mention it lately? Hey, I mean gee, its just an actual official document that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush manipulated the intelligence in order to justify an invasion of Iraq. How’d the media do with that one, Ellis?
    Then ya got Dean’s “Worse Than Watergate”. Now hey, THAT one REALLY went a long ways towards topplin’ the Bush regime, didn’t it?
    Hmmmm, then we have Clarke’s “Against All Enemies”. Another one that really rocked the boat, eh?
    Need I go on, jackass? Do you need more examples of the long list of belated factual accounts of the extent of Bush’s criminality, malfeasance, treason, and ineptitude?
    How was Powell’s tepid mea culpa recieved, Ellis? Did the media pick up that football and run with it?
    McClellan’s book “matters”, allright. It matters to his pocketbook. Period. WE have long had the “evidence” we need to pass sensible judgement about whether or not Bush lied this nation into a war, and should be tried for war crimes, and yes, TREASON. McClellan’s self-serving pangs of literary “conscience” will contribute not one iota of inertia towards holding these bastards accountable.
    And one more thing, jackass. I live in the most highly Conservative enclave of California society, mainly the agricultural center of the Western United States, Central California. My clientelle is mainly red neck, EXTREMELY conservative, and almost always staunch Republican. And I can assure you, these people are not happy with Bush, and they know full well that they were conned. Rarely does a day go by that I am not in a political discussion with some of these people, and support for Bush, trust for Bush, is virtually non-existent.
    So, when another few months has gone by, and McClellan’s day in the limelight has been replaced by the next episode of Hollywood scandal or fifty cent hikes in fuel costs, tell me then what a huge impact this weasel’s belated tome of finger pointing and old news has had on public “awareness”. He’ll be getting checks, though. Undoubtedly, your buck will be in his kitty, eh?
    And, in case you haven’t noticed, it really doesn’t seem to matter anymore what the people “know” or want. Whether or not you or I know Bush lied, or whether or not McClellan’s book convinces Eddie Douchbag in Podunk New Mexico that Bush lied is kinda irrelevent, isn’t it? It is these scumbags in Washington that have the power to do something about it. And if you think they need “convincing” about the extent of the corruption, dishonesty, amd lawlessness of this Administration, then you’re a bigger jackass than I already figured you were.

    Reply

  42. arthurdecco says:

    That’s quite a steaming heap of self-justification you just piled on us, Keith M Ellis. It looks like it took you some time to write. Can you tell me why you bothered?
    Is anyone who thinks (and writes) like POA, a “lefty” to someone like you? Funny about that – I’ve always considered POA a rational, if passionate, respecter of the American Constitution – I don’t think I’ve every considered him pejoratively as a “lefty”. (Where do idiotic descriptors like that come from? And who benefits from their use?)
    Do you really believe that those of us who argue tirelessly for the rule of law and the principles behind the American Constitution are “lefties”? If so, then I have to ask you why aren’t you describing yourself that way?
    Keith M Ellis said: “The more people who come forward like McClellan has, the more the media will begin to present these claims as the incontestable truths they actually are.”
    If you believe what you wrote in the quote I excerpted above, how can you decry POA’s constant reminders of this administration’s, malfeasance, criminality and moral deprivation? Isn’t his approach doing the same things – keeping the same concerns in circulation – holding the admisistration’s feet, and ours, to the fire?
    Logical, you’re not.
    Keith M Ellis said: “It’s arrogant to appropriate someone else’s space for your own soapbox, especially when it doesn’t fit in; and it’s pitiful to do so when there are so many opportunities to set up your own space from which you can say whatever you like.”
    Pompous, and as I mentioned earlier, sanctimonious you certainly are.
    If you went a little easier on the criticisms of your fellow contributors’ communications strategies and stuck to the points you wanted to make about the subject under discussion, leaving out your third rate moralizing and flat-out bitching you’d be eminently readable. Unfortunately, you’ve chosen the path of a prim, thin-lipped scold over that of a thinking and constructive citizen. And that’s not anyone worth reading.

    Reply

  43. Keith M Ellis says:

    “So, tell me, if their only source of info has been the ‘headlines’, then how likely are they to buy McClellan’s book?
    So, whats your effin’ point, jackass?”
    Maybe you missed the part where I painstakingly explained how books like McLellan’s have influence because the things they say percolate outward from those who read it to those who don’t.
    “Now, aren’t you glad I refrained from telling you to go screw yourself?”
    With crap like that, and calling me a “jackass”, you really must have cojones to be offended that I claim your comments are ranting and noisy.
    “It’s not bragging if you can back it up.”
    Half of POA’s comments aren’t even about the post, but opportunities to rant. And he doesn’t have the facts to back up everything he says…a lot of it is unsupported bullshit. Such as his assertion that pretty much everyone in American who isn’t a moron knows that Bush lied about the war. Only someone who doesn’t actually know any Republicans could say this.
    It’s not that I disagree with his feelings about this administration and this war. It’s not that I disagree with his beliefs about the depraved and criminal conduct of Bush and his cronies, and many people in the GOP establishment. I’m pissed-off, too, and I’m ashamed and disgusted to be an American these days. If I could, I’d move to Canada or somewhere in Europe.
    But angry, ranting screeds have always been out-of-place and disruptive on this blog. This is not a high-traffic blog, relative to the political blogosphere; it’s a lower traffic, wonky, policy blog with a notable focus on being less partisan and more pragmatic. The political blogosphere is pretty much wall-to-wall partisan ranting, we can read POA’s words in one form or another pretty much simply by selecting a leftist political blog at random. What we can’t find easily is earnest, intentionally productive, detail and policy oriented discussions with a pragmatic and not partisan focus.
    So, first of all, why the hell is POA here? One obvious reason is that he can be a big fish in a small pond—this is made obvious by the number of his comments which are unrelated to the blog post. I find this both arrogant and pitiful. It’s arrogant to appropriate someone else’s space for your own soapbox, especially when it doesn’t fit in; and it’s pitiful to do so when there are so many opportunities to set up your own space from which you can say whatever you like.
    Secondly, I think that hyperbolic, self-indulgent expressions of rage and hate for their own sake is the hallmark of contemporary conservative commentators. It’s intentionally corrosive to the public commons—these folk want to poison public discourse so that the only effective voice is the authoritative voice backed by force. POA is unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally, mimicking that voice and replicating this corrosion on the left.
    One can make strong, negative statements about conservatives and their policies without sounding like a leftist version of Rush Limbaugh. The default conservative voice is the voice of the street thug; and with comments like “go screw yourself”, POA reveals that his instincts are thuggish, too.
    It’s not as if there’s any real insight in his comments. What’s not outright wrong and stupid—such as asserting that everyone except idiots now know that Bush lied—is merely banal. Such as…Bush is a lying sack of shit. Oh, really? Funny POA should say this, again and again and again, when he just said that everyone already knows it and no one needs to be told. This is noise, it adds nothing, it functions as nothing more than self-indulgence.
    Comments like these in a blog don’t exist in isolation. They are examples of people forming temporary little communities and having a conversation. When POA says that no one is forced to read his comments, he’s being disingenuous because he said so as a response to my comment. This little exchange proves that it’s a conversation among numerous people, not isolated bits of rhetoric. We don’t know what we regret wasting time reading until we have read it. Noisy, non-productive and self-indulgent comments waste people’s time and interfere with interesting and productive conversation.

    Reply

  44. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “POA’s incessant rants continue to add noise to the comment section here. He wonders how it is that anyone could possibly not already be convinced of the things that McClellan writes about. The irony is that a great many Americans are like POA, except with the opposite point-of-view. They know the truth, anyone else who doesn’t is an idiot. They reek of the same sort of blinkered self-certainty as POA. So, yeah, there’s lots of folks out there who aren’t convinced about Bush’s dishonesty and the wrongness of the war. And, as far as I can tell having read so many of POA’s comments, they’re just about as intelligent as he is.”
    Out of courtesy to Steve, I won’t tell you to go screw yourself, like I’ve a mind to.
    Instead, I’ll point out to you that anyone who “aren’t convinced about Bush’s dishonesty and the wrongness of the war”, and are as “unintelligent” as you accuse me of being, are quite unlikely to buy McClellan’s book. But you already know that, don’t you? Or else you wouldn’t have said “Those people will never be convinced otherwise”.
    Further, you state…..
    “But the cast majority of the American public is extremely uninformed. They only know the sort of thing that rises to the headlines in the top fold of the front page (or, more likely, the news they hear their officemates discussing)”
    So, tell me, if their only source of info has been the “headlines”, then how likely are they to buy McClellan’s book?
    So, whats your effin’ point, jackass?
    After Muslim’s getting boogered with chemical light sticks, the Downing Street memo, the Plame outing, Rice telling Congress to take their Congressional subpoena and shove it where the sun don’t shine, Katrina, and a myriad of other blatant and despicable acts, its your contention that the very media that has ignored these transgressions are now going to run with McClellan’s accusations?
    And you call ME stupid?
    BTW, you are READING, here, not LISTENING. My suggestion to you, if my “noise” is too loud for ya, don’t read my comments. It’ll do wonders on turning the volume down. And, uh, great link. Too bad it goes to nothing.
    Now, aren’t you glad I refrained from telling you to go screw yourself?

    Reply

  45. David says:

    Keith,
    I have to disagree with your linking POA with the foaming mouths on the right. Spunkmeyer’s Ali quote is to the point.
    But I agree very strongly with your comments regarding McClellan’s book, and I think they reflect a clear-eyed view of a political reality, so much so that I think they are worth repeating:
    “The more people who come forward like McClellan has, the more the media will begin to present these claims as the incontestable truths they actually are. And the more the media presents these things as the sort of stuff everyone accepts as true, the more that Joe Blow, who doesn’t know much about anything, will accept these sorts of things as being true.”
    ***
    “So, yes, McClellan’s book matters.”
    And I would add that even the attempts of the various major media to give voice to the administration’s defenses and their own lame attempts to claim they really did ask the tough questions won’t stop this freight train. The book shot to #1 on Amazon, the e-campaign coordinator for Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign has come forward and confirmed McClellan’s assertions, and progressive voices have one more concrete weapon in their arsenal. Indeed, it does matter.

    Reply

  46. Spunkmeyer says:

    Re. POA comments: to quote Muhammad Ali, “It’s not bragging if
    you can back it up.” Righteous indignation supported by facts, as
    opposed to those within the “9/11-was-by-Saddam-Flat-Earth-
    Society-Oh-Gosh-I-Wish-It-Were-True” contingent are totally
    separate issues.
    Ignorance of facts coupled with arrogance doesn’t make it any
    more true. Yeah, I’m not a fan of nuance on these matters…

    Reply

  47. arthurdecco says:

    Keith M Ellis said: “POA’s incessant rants continue to add noise to the comment section here.”
    POA is indeed noisy. As should anyone who cares about truth and justice be.
    I’d rather read POA’s noise than the irascible sanctimony you directed his way, Mr. Ellis. Mainly because he appears to be less blinkered than anyone else I can think of who posts their opinions on this blog.

    Reply

  48. not stupid says:

    As I never believe the lies before the invasion, I knew it was a done deal when all our armies were put on the border before going to the UN. What a joke! What would have happen! Would we have come home without attacking Iraq! They all should pay for their deed; they all have blood on there hands.
    As we are reaching the end of this administration, I think it is too late to impeach them. We have to wait till the next president is in the WH and then demand that they all be arrested for War Crime. That way they would be no more pardon like Liddy and the world would know that those criminals are paying for their actions.
    Thank god, no more Bush will reach the WH. Sorry Barbara, your dynasty is over.

    Reply

  49. JohnH says:

    Kudos to McClellan and all those who are outing Bush for his lies. Many of us have known since 2002 that Bush was lying, but the gladly gullible on the right just can’t believe that our government lies!
    But when will someone state clearly and unambiguously why Bush did lead America to occupy Iraq? All these tell tale books add to the mountain of evidence that we did not occupy Iraq for any of the stated, constantly changing reasons. But they refuse to breach the line in the sand demarcating the real truth. Only Greenspan has gone there, but only because he thought everybody already knew.
    Only when insiders have the courage to state the obvious truth–over and over and over again–will Americans finally realize that they have to deal not just with Bush but also with our oil problem. (Properly done, maybe we can deal with our global warming problem, too.)
    Why haven’t the real truth tellers stepped forward yet?

    Reply

  50. DonS says:

    When you consider that lots of folks still think Saddam was responsible for 911, yeah, restating the obvious is needed to get different message across. Some are willfully ignorant; some blinkered true believers; many just headline and Fox news types.
    McClellan, for all his ordinaryness, was the message man. AND, he was/is someone the media types cannot ignore for just that reason. He makes them squirm. Its fun to watch the mediaheadws dissemble.

    Reply

  51. PAGING COLIN POWELL says:

    What are you doing to restore your relevance and your loyalty to the national interest?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/whats-the-difference-betw_b_104248.html

    Reply

  52. pauline says:

    Remember Private Jessica Lynch and the bad-to-the-bone political actors’ lines? (“lines” or “lies” are the same for this repulsive bunch.)
    see —
    news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3251731.stm
    Remember Army Ranger Pat Tillman (rest his soul) and the bad-to-the-bone political actor’s lines/lies?
    see —
    cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/24/tillman.hearing/index.html
    Remember the [unforgivable] lies/lines of WMD from the same corrupt bad-to-the-bone political actors?
    Ray Close, a former CIA analyst in the Near East division and now a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), wrote way back in ’03 —
    “We might start by reminding our audience that there are several subjects that are NOT germane to the current [WMD] debate, because they are not questioned by anyone. These include the following:
    1. That Saddam Hussein was a vile despot who terrified and enslaved the population of Iraq;
    2. That Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, that he used them against his own people, and that he probably would not have hesitated to reconstitute his WMD program at some future date if given the opportunity.
    “Those subjects should be excluded from the debate entirely.
    “The issues that are critically important, on the other hand, are these:
    1. The Bush Administration declared that it had irrefutable, ironclad proof that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States, and this claim was used as the justification for launching a preemptive war.
    “The whole question of whether initiating preemptive military action is appropriate at all for a democracy like ours, under any circumstances, is a subject that deserves much more careful debate on the national level here in the United States than it has received — in terms of its moral justification, its constitutional legitimacy and its practical utility as an instrument of national policy. But on one vital point EVERYONE is already in complete agreement — that preemptive war cannot possibly be considered unless there is compelling evidence of an imminent threat to our national security. Not an unprovoked attack against a POTENTIAL FUTURE threat; not a war based on an intellectual conviction that harm COULD be done to us someday by a particular foreign enemy. Those are ideas that are new and unique to the self-proclaimed “Bush Doctrine”. We are, by our own established moral and legal constraints, limited to launching military attacks ONLY against an enemy who poses an IMMINENT threat to our physical safety and our vital national interests, or who has already committed an act of war against the United States. There has been no national debate in which a change in those long-accepted and time-honored criteria has even been proposed for consideration, much less approved.
    “Today, it is very clear that no legitimate casus belli existed. In fact, many of the intelligence reports on which this momentous decision was based, and which were used to give that decision a patina of moral justification, were largely unsubstantiated. Some of the intelligence was even based on documentation that was known at the time to have been forged. In other words, it should be acknowledged beyond any question that the claimed “imminent threat to the safety of America” was a complete myth.
    2. The main issue, we must conclude, goes far beyond the question of how available information was evaluated and used in making policy decisions. We are not talking just about errors of judgment on the part of earnest and conscientious analysts in Washington, and we are not denigrating the quality of U.S. surveillance technology or challenging the probity of our human intelligence sources. Nor are we limiting our concern to the question of whether or not certain individual officials in the Administration tinkered with the intelligence process to please their bosses or to support partisan political agendas — serious as such corruption would certainly be.
    “What emerges as beyond dispute is the simple and straightforward reality that a preemptive war was launched on the basis of intelligence information that was represented to the American people and to the world by our leadership as incontrovertible proof of conditions that they must have known perfectly well did not really exist. Thousands died in that war. Immeasurable physical damage was done to an entire nation. A critically important principle of international law was violated and mocked. That was not only dishonest and immoral. It was a crime against those values for which America stands most proud.”
    see –
    http://www.counterpunch.org/close06102003.html
    What should the next admin do with these bad-to-the-bone political actors? Or will NOTHING be done because all the DC bad-to-the-bone political actors have the same “agent”? Yep, the devil himself, along with the devil’s chosen foreign powers — who have infiltrated our federal government at the highest levels — are still alive and well.
    I sigh.

    Reply

  53. Keith M Ellis says:

    POA’s incessant rants continue to add noise to the comment section here. He wonders how it is that anyone could possibly not already be convinced of the things that McClellan writes about. The irony is that a great many Americans are like POA, except with the opposite point-of-view. They know the truth, anyone else who doesn’t is an idiot. They reek of the same sort of blinkered self-certainty as POA. So, yeah, there’s lots of folks out there who aren’t convinced about Bush’s dishonesty and the wrongness of the war. And, as far as I can tell having read so many of POA’s comments, they’re just about as intelligent as he is.
    Those people will never be convinced otherwise.
    But the cast majority of the American public is extremely uninformed. They only know the sort of thing that rises to the headlines in the top fold of the front page (or, more likely, the news they hear their officemates discussing). For them, no, it isn’t obvious that Bush lied and the war was a mistake. They probably think we either did find WMDs, or that they were hidden and shipped to Syria (eh, actually, “some other country”).
    The more people who come forward like McClellan has, the more the media will begin to present these claims as the incontestable truths they actually are. And the more the media presents these things as the sort of stuff everyone accepts as true, the more that Joe Blow, who doesn’t know much about anything, will accept these sorts of things as being true. And the more that there’s a growing consensus that these things are true, the more the GOP politicians are unable to pretend they aren’t. Once large portions of the GOP power structure concedes these truths, the more likely they will turn on everyone responsible, including Bush himself.
    Maybe no one will ever go to jail and there won’t be the big Congressional hearings we’d like to see. But it seems to me that there’s a good chance that a rising tide against Bush, pulled by the accumulating weight of books like McClellan’s and such, the more that we won’t have to wait twenty years for the disastrous nature of the Bush administration to be universally acknowledged—this might happen in only six. And it will also mean either the continued destruction of the GOP, or its radical reshaping. Either of which would be good news.
    So, yes, McClellan’s book matters.

    Reply

  54. TokyoTom says:

    POA, I don’t have much esteem for McClellan, but surely you can appreciate that he has finally DONE A GOOD THING, in a very prominent way that will have important ramifications. Your spleen should be directed to our spineless Congresscritters and press.

    Reply

  55. Spunkmeyer says:

    Very hard to argue with any of that, POA. I would have had much
    more respect for McClellan if he decided to testify before Congress
    and all that prior to writing his book. Even “the ultimate stool
    pigeon”, John Dean, went before Senator Sam prior to writing his.

    Reply

  56. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I’m amazed. Truly amazed.
    Will someone please tell me what aspect of McClellan’s assertions and “revelations” are new news?
    Do you people out there seriously entertain the notion that this nation’s political leaders, on either side of the aisle, do not know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this nation was decieved into war, using 9/11 as the springboard for their propaganda?
    That there are doubts Rove was involved in Plame’s outing?
    That there are still people out there that have delusions about Cheney being an honest person?
    The issue is not who has the guts to admit it, the issue is….
    WHO HAS THE BALLS TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE?
    To be honest, I would like to see sites such as this one post McClellan’s book on the internet, and launch a campaign encouraging all Americans to refuse to buy it. It is a perversion of all morality that this slimey, abetting, and complicit weasel will profit on the graves of so many human lifes.

    Reply

  57. abiodun says:

    In the various criticism of McClellan book by the Bush admin, I am still waiting for a direct comment on the substance of his writing. It has to go beyong being “shocked” or “not the Scott we knew” to pass muster.

    Reply

  58. pauline says:

    In Hollywood, bad acting + bad characters + trivial plot = boring bad movie, right?
    In DC, bad political “acting” + bad-to-the-bone characters + a fascist deathly, deceptive plot = the last 8 years of this morally corrupt cabal.
    My tomatoes aren’t close to being ripe, but I’m ready to throw a few rotten ones at these rotten clowns.
    POA comments, “And don’t forget, people. If what he says about Rove and Libby is true, he withheld information from Fitzgerald. He should have come forward, as what Rove did to Plame amounts to high crimes and treason. By witholding that information, he abetted treason, and through doing, he abetted compromising the security of the United States,” and Emptywheel’s both nailed it —
    “At this point, Scottie McC is still accepting Scooter Libby’s lies, though I suspect he sees the dangerous frailty of them. With Bush’s clear admission to Scottie that he was in the loop, and the evidence that, subsequent to receiving an order from Cheney (authorized by Bush) to leak classified information to Judy Miller, Libby leaked Valerie Wilson’s identity, the circumstantial evidence shows the President was directly involved in the deliberate outing of a CIA spy. The only question now is whether Bush realized he authorized the leak of Valerie’s identity, in addition to a bunch of other classified documents.
    “Think of how much sense this makes. We have evidence that George Bush ordered Libby to respond to Joe Wilson on June 9, 2003. We now have Bush’s own confirmation that he authorized the leak Libby made to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003–which included the leak of Valerie Wilson’s identity. We know on July 10, Condi told Stephen Hadley that Bush “was comfortable” with the response the White House was making towards Wilson. And we know that–when Cheney forced Scottie McC to exonerate Libby publicly that fall, he did so by reminding people that “The Pres[ident] [asked Libby] to stick his head in the meat-grinder.” We know that Libby’s lawyers tried desperately to prevent a full discussion of the NIE lies to be presented at trial. And we know that–after those NIE lies did not come out, for the most part (though one juror told me that NIE story was obviously false, even with the limited information they received)–the President commuted Libby’s sentence on July 2, 2007.”
    see —
    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/05/29/george-bush-authorized-the-leak-of-valerie-wilsons-identity/

    Reply

  59. Linda says:

    I agree that it is hard to blame McClellan for not speaking up sooner while Powell has remained silent all these years. Press and media really failed to ask tough questions and press for real answers–and not just talking points or answering a different question than they one they were asked. Condi was/ still is particularly good at doing that, but they all did it. And Congress was no better on that score.
    Jay Rockefeller’s committee report on the build-up to Iraq war finally is suppoed to come out next week. That will be another step in unraveling what happened, and all these revelations will help Obama against McCain. McClellan correctly blames the entire atmosphere inside the Beltway, and that’s Obama’s message.
    Impeachment might have made sense in 2004 or 2005, but Democrats didn’t have the will or majority to pursue it. It really makes no sense as an option now–better to just let the truth emerge bit by bit and discredit and dishonor for life all the players in Bush Administration.

    Reply

  60. liz says:

    Trouble is Steve, when a citizen speaks up we are squelched. I have had over 200 years of American law in a Social Security Disability claim,so the SSA has been politized too. There is NO reason not to accept valid legal court orders except corruption and secondary gain. The Inspector General just issued a report full of untruths. I believe this reflects on the Bush Administration as much as the war. It’s a war at home. There is a war going on between the President and his cronies and We the people of the United States of America. Plenty of people will understand this soon if they are still denying it today. Corruption, deceit and lying is rampant in today’s government across the board.
    This is how Bush’s policies affect Americans at home and this is something people are failing to talk about publicly.
    And lawyers, well, most of them are too chicken to take on the problems………

    Reply

  61. JimN says:

    McClellan’s book is significant and newsworthy, as Steve explains, because it’s another step in the unraveling of the Bush administration’s lies and the outing of the truth. The process of America coming to its senses is what’s important. Those who are still deluded are on the right and McClellan’s voice matters more than those on the left because it’s from a Republican and an insider, and therefore more credible to people on the right.
    This news item (the release of McClellan’s book) can be about the process of coming to reality, or it get confused and become about McClellan’s character. The issue of McClellan’s character, bound up with questions about his alleged agenda, the timing of his revelations, what he could have done differently, is a sideshow and a distraction from the real story. However, in a misguided attempt to appear “fair and balanced” and because it’s more sensational, the media is dutifully pursuing the less important story.
    This is the Bush administration’s only defense–smoke and mirrors. And you never know for sure the true agenda of those posting on blogs, who may be acting in a way to add to the confusion and help out with Republican damage control.
    Keep your eye on the ball.

    Reply

  62. easy e says:

    And impeachment is off the table because of?……..(TWN?????????????????, please explain)

    Reply

  63. Lucky says:

    McClellan said that in his MSNBC interview with Keith Olbermann that he believed in Bush’s commitment to be a bipartisan president. On the other hand, Lincoln Chafee in his book Against the Tide recounted a meeting with VP Cheney in which Cheney met with some moderate congressmen and said the Bush administration would reject the bipartisan course and would not be bound by what was said in the campaign. I would like to ask McClellan about what he knew about such a policy.

    Reply

  64. David says:

    I’m with you on this one, Steve.

    Reply

  65. PissedOffAmerican says:

    And don’t forget, people. If what he says about Rove and Libby is true, he withheld information from Fitzgerald. He should have come forward, as what Rove did to Plame amounts to high crimes and treason. By witholding that information, he abetted treason, and through doing, he abetted compromising the security of the United States.
    And, BTW, it is also pertinent to remember that McClellan presided over the press room when James Guckert was given press credentials and allowed to throw scripted questions at Bush, as well as given passes for overnight access to the West Wing. It stretches the imagination to think that McClellon was not aware of Guckert’s dubious press credentialing, and his complete lack of credible claim to the title “journalist”.
    Guckerts’s sexual preferences are irrelevent. But the fact that he was a prostitute and a pornographer is NOT irrelevent. Are we also to give McClellan a free pass for his part in planting this guy in the middle of our Fourth Estate to pose as a serious journalist?

    Reply

  66. Carroll says:

    I don’t think Scott should be bashed for not resigning or not coming forward earlier. He wasn’t that important in the scheme of things, and didn’t have the weight of a Collin Powell. Doubtful he could have changed anything when none of the other whistleblowers like Clark or O’Neil changed anything by coming forward.
    Powell on the other hand could have had an impact…he’s the lowest of the low to me.
    If we want to blame someone for Bush, blame congress….and the whole corrupt Orwellington DC
    establishment. You know damn well if we outsiders could see what was going on….they knew.
    Actually I give McClellan credit for being brave and finally standing on his values…he’s a lot younger and has a longer way to go than the older adm dropouts who squealed on Bush. So no matter how much he might make off his book he’s given up
    any future career he might have had in the political field.

    Reply

  67. leo says:

    Maybe we’ll be hearing from Wolfson or Ickes soon… “Inside the un-Real Campaign.”
    Nice to see Carville jumping ship as prelude to future opportunities.

    Reply

  68. leo says:

    Maybe we’ll be hearing more of the real truth from Wolfson or Ickes soon. “Inside the un-Real Campaign.”

    Reply

  69. bangzoom14 says:

    How many more lies and fabrications are we gonna hear before we decide to throw these white house bums out? And Nancy if you’re reading this.. put IMPEACHMENT back on the table where it belongs.

    Reply

  70. PissedOffAmerican says:

    ROFLMAO!!!!
    Yeah, like we needn’t this weasel McClellan to come forth and finally enlighten us to the fact that this sack of shit George Bush was lyin’ to us. Or that Rove was up to his neck in the Plame outing. Or that Cheney can’t be trusted not to lie to the American people.
    And this bit about many on the right need to be “convinced” is absolutely silly. Look, if you don’t realize Bush was bullshittin’ us, then you are so damned ignorant that McClellan’s self-serving use of the ejection button is not likely to convince you. Bottom line, anyone on the right, OR the left, that refuses to ADMIT the extent of Bush’s criminality, malfeasance, incompetence, and dishonesty is just a spineless scumbag. There are three types of people out there in the homeland…
    1) Those that are too stupid to realize Bush bullshitted us into a war.
    2) Those that know that Bush bullshitted us into a war and are willing to point out that fact.
    3)Those that are such partisan or ideological fanatics, are so dishonest and immoral, that, although they KNOW Bush bullshitted us into a war, they will not admit it out of some sort of peverse loyalty to party or ideology.
    To imply that those in government, on the right, need to be “convinced” that Bush lied to us is an unbelievable flight of fantasy. Anyone that denies Bush bullshitted us has no business in government, because THEY are in fact bullshittin’ us.
    I find it hard to believe that Steve rubs shoulders with ANYONE on either side of the aisle that still believes that the so called “intelligence” wasn’t manipulated, fabricated, exaggerated and propagandized to advance the public’s willingness to accept an invasion of Iraq.
    Look, heres the deal. McClellan is no hero. He has shown himself to be a slimey conniving weasel, and he was instrumental in abetting the criminal invasion of a soveriegn nation that posed absolutely NO threat to the United States. Further, this criminal invasion resulted in the deaths of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, (if not MILLIONS by the time its all over). And now this slimey piece of crap is going to get rich on the backs of all those dead people.
    The central shock to all this, and it seems to slap me in the face almost everyday, is just how slimey and despicable the people in the highest positions of our government have become. Watching this latest bit of backstabbing he said you said they said he did you did they did horseshit is like watching a bunch of fuckin’ hyena’s ripping each other to shreds.
    If you aren’t ashamed of what this nation has become, then there’s something wrong with you.
    Or are we so tittilated by the drama that we are willing to forget that HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND OF PEOPLE WERE MURDERED BY THESE LIES. McCLellan has his fair share of their blood on his hands, no matter how many of you think this book washes it off.

    Reply

  71. samuel burke says:

    i say Yessssss to Scott McClellan, may there be many more like
    him and Larry Wilkerson.

    Reply

  72. Spunkmeyer says:

    Closed captioning for the irony-impaired is provided for you by
    this video (and especially the last minute or so) via TPM:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd7tl9OkYng

    Reply

  73. arthurdecco says:

    samirkand said: “The media, unfortunately, is just sucked right into it. They never even seem to notice that the White House isn’t answering the question.”
    They notice alright. They’re in on it.
    McClellan has done a good thing.

    Reply

  74. Lynn Dee says:

    I applaud McClellan as well. And two related points on his not speaking up earlier: (1) He was a press secretary. If people like Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke and so on could be discounted by the W.H. as disgruntled and/or “out of the loop,” is there any doubt they would have made short work of a press secretary? and (2) the W.H.’s “why didn’t he speak up at the time?” talking point is laughable. Exactly how much weight would he have carried? Can’t you imagine it? “Sir, Scotty is having trouble with some of the things we’re asking him to say…”
    So yes, the truly courageous thing (perhaps) would’ve been to speak up at the time. But would it have stopped the march to war? Or would he have been barely a speed bump?

    Reply

  75. ... says:

    i agree with samirkands view also…

    Reply

  76. DonS says:

    That the WH is acting surprised and discounting this former “insider” so roundly only goes to shore up the importance of his informaiton, betrayal or exculpation — whatever flavor you choose.
    I’m really not into the person and personality aspects of all this,and certainly not surprised by the revelations.
    But this becomes another placemarker that is needed in the deconstruction of the Bush-Cheney criminal enterprise, its enablers, and its attempt at covering up and controlling the this country through fear and more fear.
    Self-delusion is not an adequate defense to shield Bush and these criminals from accountability. While they may never suffer the results of prosecution in the US, there need to be many and vigorus attempts at legally investigating and charging them in whatever way possible, starting as soon as possible. Pelosi’s words about the “big lie” are politically convenient, but what she really needs to do is eat her previous words about impeachment and act like a real leader.
    McClellan had the part about enablers correct.

    Reply

  77. EA says:

    samirkand, reggie and others are correct. Look at the forest and not the trees.

    Reply

  78. reggie says:

    DR, it really doesn’t matter why “Little Scottie” is saying what he is saying. What matters is the information “Little Scottie” is making public, and how we can use it.

    Reply

  79. Desert Rat says:

    Eh, color me unimpressed.
    If anybody thinks that Little Scottie is doing anything more than trying to save the tattered remnants of his reputation, I have some fine Swampland in Florida for sale.

    Reply

  80. TokyoTom says:

    Contrary to Roy, it is not the President, Cheney or others in the inner circle who have been betrayed by McClellan (or Wilkerson, Clarke etc.). Rather, it is these dedicated staffers whose loyalty was betrayed by the President, Cheney and an inner circle who were caught up with an end-justifies-the-means pursuit of and abuse of power, and who expected staffers to compromise themselves.
    Even while McClellan of course bears some personal responsibility for acting as the mouthpiece for and defending to the press corps a lying administration, it was clear before McClellan resigned that he had caught on an was sick of selling his integrity out so cheaply. I`m impressed that he has had the guts, at least in part, to acknowledge so publicly that he was being taken advantage of.
    That`s more that can be said of Colin Powell, though, who bears even greater responsibility fo allowing himself to be used to sell a war he did not believe in.

    Reply

  81. Jim from Chicago says:

    >>And when Republican folks like Lawrence Wilkerson, Flynt Leverett, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Haass, John Bellinger, and others speak up and help us know the truth and give us new wherewithal to encourage others on the political right to look disdainfully and skeptically at George W. Bush’s eight years in office — this should be applauded.<<
    Let’s not forget John DiIulio, who did it in 2002 while Bush was still flying high in the polls.
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/DiIulio.html

    Reply

  82. samirkand says:

    I’m happy to see what McClellan has written. The public is not clued in to how much spin comes out. They drink it up.
    See the White House counter-attack. It demonstrates exactly what McCllellan has been saying. They say that McClellan is “disgruntled.” Obviously, this is not the issue. It’s a nasty personal attack on McClellan, rather than addressing the merits.
    They say the president is too busy to make a statement on such a small matter. Wrong again. It’s a major media issue at a level where the president could well make a comment. They simply don’t want to start a debate over this. They want to call it trifling. A sorry response.
    McClellan has told what one presumes is a true story from his perspective. The White House is trying to kill his story with . . . more propaganda. Their response really bears out what he’s saying. My personal viewpoint is that such manipulation, by any political party, is a great disservice to the country.
    The media, unfortunately, is just sucked right into it. They never even seem to notice that the White House isn’t answering the question.
    My hat is off to McClellan for having the guts to do it.

    Reply

  83. Kerwin says:

    While there is certainly something to be said for speaking out and setting the historical record straight, I’m a little tired of members of the GOP ruling elite who had positions of power within the Bush administration and did nothing to challenge its flawed policies.
    Answering to “a higher loyalty” now is a noble sentiment, but why not recognize that loyalty to the truth and the public you serve while you are in office and can do something to protect the public interest? Why wait until speaking out becomes a largely self-serving act that allows you to cash in on a book deal?
    It’s another reminder of the GOP’s contempt for public service.

    Reply

  84. TonyForesta says:

    Curious how you choose the slime McClellan, Roy and IGNORE the sad fact that your president, and your government deceptively propagandized and lied to the American people to sell the Iraq war. I can imagine more devious or perfidious, or treasonous crime.
    The President and vp are the pathological liars.
    The Bush government bruted lies and propaganda in a devious, deceptive, and tragically successful effort to stuff the Iraq war down America’s throat. It was McCellans job to carry the presidents water, and like others before him, and hopefully after – the terrible weight of the deceptions and crimes committed by the Bush government compelled McClellan to finally set the record straight, let the truth be told, and the facts revealed.
    Whistle blowers are heroes, courageously risking their careers and often their lives to shine light on crimes and patent lies.
    It is the criminals and liars that should rightfully be condemned, not those who point out the crimes and the lies.

    Reply

  85. Roy says:

    Scott McClellan is such a light-weight and an idiot. The President talked candidly in front of Scott and Scott stabbed him in the back.
    If you don’t want to see how the sausage is made, then don’t go in the kitchen.

    Reply

  86. ... says:

    >>The president was leaving an event in North Carolina, McClellan recalled, and as they walked to Air Force One a reporter yelled out a question: Had the president, who had repeatedly condemned the selective release of secret intelligence information, enabled Scooter Libby to leak classified information to The New York Times to bolster the administration’s arguments for war?
    McClellan took the question to the president, telling Bush: “He’s saying you yourself were the one that authorized the leaking of this information.”
    “And he said, ‘Yeah, I did.’ And I was kind of taken aback,” McClellan said.
    “For me I came to the decision that at that point I needed to look for a way to move on, because it had undermined, I think, a lot of what we had said.” <<

    Reply

  87. ExBrit says:

    McClellan did a brave thing in speaking up. A little late, perhaps, but not too late to impact Bush’s legacy. I agree with Steve – there are still far, far too many on the right and in the media who are not only defending, but continue to promote the view that the war on Iraq was a good thing. Every voice that, however tardy, that speaks in opposition to the drumbeat on the right is valuable.

    Reply

  88. ... says:

    what took him so long???????????? sounds like you are making excuses for him…

    Reply

  89. Mavis says:

    I bet Scott McClellan had a great night’s sleep last night! Nothing like telling the truth to make one sleep peacefully.
    When someone holding in the truth,it’s like hamsters on a wheel going round and round. The hamsters had to find a new home! They probably didn’t have to look far in Washington.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *