Former GWB Press Sec. Scott McClellan Book: Admin. Controversies (merged x 3--M.E.T.)

[Special K]

The talking points made it all the way down to the Tailgate, huh?

Why don't you just say it K'man... he 'hates Bush and you get it'

Actually, I think that pretty much about everyone in high positions who write "tell-alls," I try to look at the agenda of each author, even ones who write negative stories about the Clintons. I don't simply salivate over anything negative that's said about a particular person I hate as apparently you do...but don't worry TSF, I 'get it' why people like you have to do so...

What I find interesting is that the Bushies never get tired of this image that everybody who's in the Administration, frantically covering Bush at every turn, are all fine, upstanding, honest people. But that anybody who says anything bad about Bush after he leaves, then well, he's a liar who's out for money.

The folks who are covering for him don't have a motive to lie. Just the folks who have left, do.

Actually, I think there's a lot of lying and covering up in any administration...not that that makes it right or I'm condoning it. But like I said to TSF, I try to look at the motives of anyone who comes out with a book...especially in an election year.

Fox and Friends is one of the worst news shows on TV, I had to suffer through it this morning. They are extremely unprofessional and I honestly think even more biased then lets say MSNBC. The prick on the right tried so desperately to get the two radio show hosts to say that Obama's comments about his Uncle and Auschwitz were a "huge gaffe" and that "we should expect better from the man running for president." Then they had Karl Rove talking about how McClellan was as bad as "a liberal blogger."

Fair and balanced my ass

:laugh: Sorry you don't like Fox and Friends. I rarely watch it except for the occasion I'm up super early to head to the clinic and I have the show on in the background...and this just happened to be one of those days. The purpose of my post was not to say whether Fox and Friends was a good or bad early morning show, but just to dispute the post saying Fox was not covering the story whatsoever. And all this begs the question...why do you watch something you so despise?

[DarrellsMyHero28]

So he's less 'un-credible' than Bush? Why? How bout the credibility of the general that said Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria? He's not credible, right? And yet, he's utterly dismissed. Why is that? Do we have any reason to question him? Has he been documented lying to start a war? Or lying for a president who would seek to do so?

Look, I'm as guilty as anyone. But I don't think there's any denying that the overwhelming majority of us are supporting the liar who most furthers our personal agenda.

I don't support any of them, if they can prove that the WMDs were moved then fine, I'll eat a whole pot of crow. I think that Bush used propoganda such as 9/11 to influence the country to go into a war that was more motivated by oil and personal reasons than anything that the Bush White House said.

This guy is just one of so many people that have left the Bush Administration and tell us some pretty disturbing things about whats going on. Now, are they mad for being fired? I'm sure they are, but it seems like every single time someone is let go theres another thing added on, to the list of scandals...well not scandals thats too harsh but things that Bush and others have done that they shouldnt have done.

An Example:

Scooter Libby is a very close family friend of my friends. I know that sounds like a stretch but bear with me. His children grew up with her, her and her family know him very well. The man was a scapegoat, period. Bush, Rove and Cheney stabbed him in the back privately and made it look like they were fighting for him the whole time.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

:laugh: Sorry you don't like Fox and Friends. I rarely watch it except for the occasion I'm up super early to head to the clinic and I have the show on in the background...and this just happened to be one of those days. The purpose of my post was not to say whether Fox and Friends was a good or bad early morning show, but just to dispute the post saying Fox was not covering the story whatsoever. And all this begs the question...why do you watch something you so despise?

Overall, I try and watch news from both sides of a story to avoid bias...I'm a Democrat so its hard for me to not just follow the liberal bias in the media but I try. But this morning I was in to work early and it was on the TV at this cafe and I was too tired to remove myself for about 20 minutes...then I got sick of it.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Actually, I think that pretty much about everyone in high positions who write "tell-alls," I try to look at the agenda of each author, even ones who write negative stories about the Clintons. I don't simply salivate over anything negative that's said about a particular person I hate as apparently you do...but don't worry TSF, I 'get it' why people like you have to do so...

Ok, so you pigeonhole everyone who writes a tell all book... sorta like you pigeonhole everyone who says ANYTHING negative about Bush.

I guess you just salivate over making ad hominem attacks upon anyone who says anything you disagree with politically, as opposed to bringing anything substantive.

[Teller]

I don't support any of them, if they can prove that the WMDs were moved then fine, I'll eat a whole pot of crow. I think that Bush used propoganda such as 9/11 to influence the country to go into a war that was more motivated by oil and personal reasons than anything that the Bush White House said.

This probably makes my point better than anything I could have said. If they can "prove" the WMDs were moved; but you're content to "think" Bush used propaganda, and was motivated by oil/vengence for daddy?

Why doesn't someone have to "prove" the latter?

Here's your answer: Because the standard of proof is MUCH lower for things we WANT to believe.

I'm not calling you out 28. Like I said, I'm probably as guilty as anyone of the same thing.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

This probably makes my point better than anything I could have said. If they can "prove" the WMDs were moved; but you're content to "think" Bush used propaganda, and was motivated by oil/vengence for daddy?

Why doesn't someone have to "prove" the latter?

Here's your answer: Because the standard of proof is MUCH lower for things we WANT to believe.

I'm not calling you out 28. Like I said, I'm probably as guilty as anyone of the same thing.

We all do it, I know what you're getting at but it seems like an overwhealming majority of the people that had something to do with the war and are free to talk about it say stuff like what he's saying. I don't think of Bush as evil, I know he thinks what he's doing is right but its hard to ignore all those people. Plus, the fact is the WMDs in Syria story didn't get much press coverage (I know, I know the liberal media)--in fact I heard about it here on ES. Sarge said the guy was gonna have a report, and I didn't even see it on Fox.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This probably makes my point better than anything I could have said. If they can "prove" the WMDs were moved; but you're content to "think" Bush used propaganda, and was motivated by oil/vengence for daddy?

Why doesn't someone have to "prove" the latter?

Here's your answer: Because the standard of proof is MUCH lower for things we WANT to believe.

I'm not calling you out 28. Like I said, I'm probably as guilty as anyone of the same thing.

well, hh, how does one prove that Bush used propaganda to go to war? Is an insider's opinion not evidence of it? Is the only to "prove" it for Bush confess it? That is not the standard in any court I know.

Also, I don't believe that bush used propaganda for vengeance or for oil interests. I think he thought he had a noble goal in mind of spreading democracy, basically, by force. I just think that that was a terribly misguided idea. And it is angering that the president went to war under false pretenses - regardless of how noble those intentions were.

:2cents:

[Special K]

Ok, so you pigeonhole everyone who writes a tell all book... sorta like you pigeonhole everyone who says ANYTHING negative about Bush.

I guess you just salivate over making ad hominem attacks upon anyone who says anything you disagree with politically, as opposed to bringing anything substantive.

:cry:

P.S. I don't attack people who say just ONE negative thing about Bush, or I'd be included in that group. However, I do take notice of certain posters who are constantly starting threads and posting in threads about how "Bush is Satan," "McCain sucks this," "Republicans should pound salt here,"....... :blahblah:

[DarrellsMyHero28]

:cry:

P.S. I don't attack people who say just ONE negative thing about Bush, or I'd be included in that group. However, I do take notice of certain posters who are constantly starting threads and posting in threads about how "Bush is Satan," "McCain sucks this," "Republicans should pound salt here,"....... :blahblah:

They should pound salt...that ****'s been askin for it...

[Tulane Skins Fan]

:cry:

P.S. I don't attack people who say just ONE negative thing about Bush, or I'd be included in that group. However, I do take notice of certain posters who are constantly starting threads and posting in threads about how "Bush is Satan," "McCain sucks this," "Republicans should pound salt here,"....... :blahblah:

So, are you saying I've started threads like this.

I guess you don't hold yourself to those standards though:

Honestly, I can only attribute a statement like that to senility....b/c the other option that pops into my mind as to his reasoning for saying something like that is much worse.

I understand what you are saying. Obviously I've made my dislike for Carter pretty well known in a few threads, but this statement really has me scratching my head and wondering if he really is losing his mind. I mean, he's done a lot of questionable stuff (in my mind at least) recently, but something this insane...well, the only way I can explain it is loss of his mental capabilities.

Wouldn't want you to hold yourself to the same standards you hold other people to. Just keep calling people names that works better...

[NavyDave]

I didn't say you shouldn't trust him (although I wouldn't). I said he doesn't know anything. That's clearly been the Bush administration's strategy since day one-send out the press secretary with zero information. He ends up looking like an ass but at least there is zero risk of him unintentionally insinuating the wrong thing. That's why it doesn't matter that their current press secretary is 22 years old or whatever. She can't possibly say anything incriminating because they don't tell her anything.

Thats normal for all administrations not just President Bush.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

PS--Regarding keeastman

A little part of me dies every time I find out a girl is conservative...

[Teller]

well, hh, how does one prove that Bush used propaganda to go to war? Is an insider's opinion not evidence of it? Is the only to "prove" it for Bush confess it? That is not the standard in any court I know.

Also, I don't believe that bush used propaganda for vengeance or for oil interests. I think he thought he had a noble goal in mind of spreading democracy, basically, by force. I just think that that was a terribly misguided idea. And it is angering that the president went to war under false pretenses - regardless of how noble those intentions were.

:2cents:

An insider's opinion can be a cog in the wheel that could roll downhill to proof. An insider's opinion on its own is not proof. Again, why does he automatically have more credibility than Bush?

I realize you haven't, TSF, but please don't lump me in with people that you see as Bush apologists. It took me a while to figure out what the hell was actually going on, but I've called for Bush to be impeaced over NSA and mail-opening; both of which are unconstitutional, IMO. I don't have anything to gain by saying what I'm saying. It's just an observation.

I tend to largely agree with your second paragraph. Almost completely, in fact.

[#98QBKiller]

PS--Regarding keeastman

A little part of me dies every time I find out a girl is conservative...

:laugh:

[Teller]

PS--Regarding keeastman

A little part of me dies every time I find out a girl is conservative...

Really?

A part of me snaps to attention. :laugh:

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Really?

A part of me snaps to attention. :laugh:

Tennn HUT!

[chomerics]

Let's not pretend that "covering" for the president is not unique to this administration, nor any other.

What confuses me, is that if it's true that the administration made everything up, and McClellan was the one spouting lies daily, why his tome is suddenly gospel truth.

Or if when he was protecting the president, he was telling the 100% truth, now, that he doesn't have to as required by his job, he is lying.

Which makes more sense to you, especially after this is not the first, or second, or third, or fourth, or tenth or even 12th time this has happened? At what point do you admit that the people who left the administration actually have merit to what they day? When there are 5 left in the administration? Like a sinking ship, even rats leave to swim in the water.

At what point do you give a shred of creedence to what they say? ever? Or is that only when a democrat is around?

Can we all just admit that our view of this book is horribly skewed by whatever preconceived notions (read: political affiliations) we have going in?

Why should we assume that? His job is to lie to the American people, we know that, he knows that everyone knows that. Why is it so hard to expect someone that had to lie to the public for 4 years got sick of being used as a whipping boy and a scapegoat dragging his name through the mud?

I've yet to see any reason to believe McClellan is anymore credible than Bush.

What about O'Neil, and Clarke, and Feith, and everyone else that left? Is there any reason to ignore what they have to say too? They all say the same exact same thing, and accuse the administration of the thing we accuse them of. At what point do you realize it is everyone else that is right about the pretext for war?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

An insider's opinion can be a cog in the wheel that could roll downhill to proof. An insider's opinion on its own is not proof. Again, why does he automatically have more credibility than Bush?

I realize you haven't, TSF, but please don't lump me in with people that you see as Bush apologists. It took me a while to figure out what the hell was actually going on, but I've called for Bush to be impeaced over NSA and mail-opening; both of which are unconstitutional, IMO. I don't have anything to gain by saying what I'm saying. It's just an observation.

I tend to largely agree with your second paragraph. Almost completely, in fact.

not trying to lump you in with anyone HH. I wholly welcome debate on substance from anyone. And just to blow some people's minds, my girlfriend is republican department of defense contractor herself. We get along fine - obviously - because we don't call each other names when we disagree.

as for why don't I believe Bush. First of all, I think there is a lot more evidence, in addition to this book, that he intended to go to war with Iraq from his first day in office. I think other circumstantial evidence displays that he intended to "spread democracy" with US military might from the get go as well.

But one more thing is especially persuasive to me.... NO ONE has denied McClellan's book as accuarte, at least not yet. I didn't hear one Bush loyalist say that McClellan was wrong, I heard them say its "sad," or it "doesn't sound like him." But I didn't hear anyone say "we absolutely went to war with Iraq because we believed at the time that they had WMD's." At least, I have not heard that in response to McClellan's book.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

But one more thing is especially persuasive to me.... NO ONE has denied McClellan's book as accuarte, at least not yet. I didn't hear one Bush loyalist say that McClellan was wrong, I heard them say its "sad," or it "doesn't sound like him." But I didn't hear anyone say "we absolutely went to war with Iraq because we believed at the time that they had WMD's." At least, I have not heard that in response to McClellan's book.

I HATE to defend the White House but I don't think they need to respond, they've made their story on why they went to war very clear.

*snaps back to normal*

That was weird

[Special K]

So, are you saying I've started threads like this.

I guess you don't hold yourself to those standards though:

Wouldn't want you to hold yourself to the same standards you hold other people to. Just keep calling people names that works better...

:laugh: Classic reading comprehension mishap on your part right there.

The quotes you just pulled up were actually my way of defending Carter's admission of Israeli nukes. I was agreeing with Jumbo that I think that Carter is slipping mentally to say something like that...RATHER than taking the easy partisan stance that Carter just hates Israel and that's why he said what he did.

Regardless, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you TSF. I prefer challenges...not a bunch of whining about name-calling this and name-calling that.

Bottom line: I question ANY tell-all writer's motives. I'm not saying McClellan doesn't have valid points in his book. He very well might, and I'll be interested in hearing him talk about his book just like I'll be interested in Karl Rove's continued responses. I'm just not going to immediately start frothing at the mouth and jump all over something the second it hits the press just because it goes along with my agenda...

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I HATE to defend the White House but I don't think they need to respond, they've made their story on why they went to war very clear.

*snaps back to normal*

That was weird

i don't think its that clear. and I think now they have settled on the "spreading of democracy was worth it" theory.

if they deny the allegations of the book, of course I'll listen to them. They just haven't yet. So far, they have tried to change the subject by making McClellan appear to have been brainwashed or something.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

i don't think its that clear. and I think now they have settled on the "spreading of democracy was worth it" theory.

if they deny the allegations of the book, of course I'll listen to them. They just haven't yet. So far, they have tried to change the subject by making McClellan appear to have been brainwashed or something.

Spreading democracy to a Muslim country doesn't really work well...

Another issue I have with Republicans...how come they're so ready to "spread democracy and liberate" but don't want to give out foreign aid?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

:laugh: Classic reading comprehension mishap on your part right there.

The quotes you just pulled up were actually my way of defending Carter's admission of Israeli nukes. I was agreeing with Jumbo that I think that Carter is slipping mentally to say something like that...RATHER than taking the easy partisan stance that Carter just hates Israel and that's why he said what he did.

Regardless, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you TSF. I prefer challenges...not a bunch of whining about name-calling this and name-calling that.

Bottom line: I question ANY tell-all writer's motives. I'm not saying McClellan doesn't have valid points in his book. He very well might, and I'll be interested in hearing him talk about his book just like I'll be interested in Karl Rove's continued responses. I'm just not going to immediately start frothing at the mouth and jump all over something the second it hits the press just because it goes along with my agenda...

good for you.

[Special K]

PS--Regarding keeastman

A little part of me dies every time I find out a girl is conservative...

But an angel gets its wings...so I think that's a fair trade off....

[DarrellsMyHero28]

But an angel gets its wings...so I think that's a fair trade off....

Well this certainly isn't the "No Spin Zone"

Plus what a terrible movie to reference...George Bailey stays home from war and helps people...how terrible!

:laugh: