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

[@DCGoldPants]

I think the White House needs a thesaurus. Everybody using the same words like "Puzzled" in their interviews doesn't exactly make it seem like those person's thoughts.

[Thiebear]

Arent you a little old to be a child?

On every other topic.

On every other poster.

On every other subject.

yes.

But for you, its a special kind of irritation

free of charge.. odds are i agree with you too.

[dockeryfan]

I think the White House needs a thesaurus. Everybody using the same words like "Puzzled" in their interviews doesn't exactly make it seem like those person's thoughts.

I think Rove has told everyone to use the same language, so the responses are in unison and give them some strength. "I just can't figure out why he would do this. I'm puzzled, really"

[@DCGoldPants]

I think Rove has told everyone to use the same language, so the responses are in unison and give them some strength. "I just can't figure out why he would do this. I'm puzzled, really"

This is where folks like Fleicher and Bartlett need to sound like individuals who are concerned what happened to Scott. They sound like they are talking about somebody they never met.

[Burgold]

It certainly does make them sound "on script" I'm puzzled why they would feel the need not to be candid and need to be so prepped.

[81artmonk]

First off, if you are going to have the unmitigated gall to post off rushlimbaugh.com at least have the stones to link your source. ..

So a qoute is only good and accurate if it comes from another source. IMO a qoute is a qoute.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052808/content/01125104.guest.html

Are you saying that you don't believe him? Why? What would be HIS reasoning for it?

At what point do you finally decide that everyone else was right and good ole Rushbo has it wrong? Ever?

What I'm saying is he is disingenuis.(I think that's how you spell it)

He railed others who have done exactly what he is doing. Plus, if things were as he said, why would he continue to tow the line without saying anything or resigning??

Since he stayed on long enough to be fired, he obviously didn't have that much a problem with it.

[81artmonk]

Then obviously you weren't in Tailgate back then. Because back when Bush was selling the war, I knew he was selling the war. I said so. Repeatedly. Here, in numerous discussions we had on the subject.

(I also said that I don't have a problem with the President selling a war, if there's a good reason for the war. That one man's "propaganda" is another man's "leadership". And that leadership is, IMO, the #1 job for a President. I pointed out that, IMO, Lincoln sold his war to the people. My opinion of the invasion, back before we did it, was "He'd better be prepared to go public with a damn good reason later, or this is gonna be one of darkest marks against our nation in our history.")

I don't think I was, but I don't see how that has any relevence to my point you qouted? If he had such a problem with everything why not resign or quit?

Instead he hung on and towed the party line. Doesn't seem right.

[81artmonk]

I really don't see what's so odd about it.

From what I've read, he said that he did NOT have these feelings at the time, but the more he thought about it and reflected on it SINCE QUITTING he was able to see what was going on.

What's so odd about that. He got a perspective on it after stepping outside where he was.

There is nothing in your life you look back on now and say you would have done this or that differently? I find that hard to believe.

He also accepts responsibility for being part of the deception and not recognizing what was going on.

so, what's so odd about it?

your right, I have looked back. What I haven't ever done is look back though and say "huh, you know what we were doing was really wrong" I may have looked back and regreted doing the wrong, but never realized that what I did was wrong for the first time.

correction.......................he was fired. IMO he is angry about something. Just me, but when I leave a job I was happy in, I don't think about saying all these bad things about. However when I am frustrated or angry about something, I tend to want to badmouth them to someone, a wife, a friend, which leads me to believe that's the case, and he can make a buck too.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

your right, I have looked back. What I haven't ever done is look back though and say "huh, you know what we were doing was really wrong" I may have looked back and regreted doing the wrong, but never realized that what I did was wrong for the first time.

correction.......................he was fired. IMO he is angry about something. Just me, but when I leave a job I was happy in, I don't think about saying all these bad things about. However when I am frustrated or angry about something, I tend to want to badmouth them to someone, a wife, a friend, which leads me to believe that's the case, and he can make a buck too.

The last part is a distortion because when he left office, W came to the press conference and made a comment about how he still envisioned the two of them sitting in Texas talking about the days they were in the white house together. He left on very good terms.

[dockeryfan]

Since he stayed on long enough to be fired, he obviously didn't have that much a problem with it.

What proof do you have that he was fired? This is another lie being spun to make it seem like he was "disgruntled"

Here's your own fox news saying he stepped down. If he was fired, they would have reported it as such.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192260,00.html

"I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity," the president said. "It's going to be hard to replace Scott, but nevertheless he made the decision and I accepted it. One of these days, he and I are going to be rocking in chairs in Texas and talking about the good old days.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

What proof do you have that he was fired? This is another lie being spun to make it seem like he was "disgruntled"

Here's your own fox news saying he stepped down. If he was fired, they would have reported it as such.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192260,00.html

Yea, if he was so disgruntled and pissed about being "fired," why is everyone in the White House "puzzled" about this. You would have thought they would have seen it coming.

[Ax]

I wonder if he was blackmailed into saying what he says in the book, by some gay rights group, threatening to "out" him by releasing photos?

:whoknows:

[Vicious]

I wonder if he was blackmailed into saying what he says in the book, by some gay rights group, threatening to "out" him by releasing photos?

:whoknows:

Not only that I hear they are black mailing judges so they can marry rabbits.

[ECU-ALUM]

This is a pretty interesting battle of wills going on and I think it's going to get more interesting as more comes out about this book.

The one person I hope one day wrties a book about all of this...Colin Powell. I bet he has some interesting things to say...although I doubt he will ever write a book about this, but one can hope.

[@DCGoldPants]

Something clever.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted at 11:40 AM ET, 05/29/2008

The Puzzled Presidency

Dan Bartlett has had 36 hours to think it over, and he's still puzzled.

"There's not a lot of specific evidence [for] some of the more explosive charges that he's putting in this book; that's the part that is leaving us most puzzled," the former Bush White House official said of his turncoat former colleague, Scott McClellan, on NBC's "Today" show this morning.

Bartlett's understanding does not appear to have advanced much from Wednesday, when he announced his befuddlement on television. "Those of us who were close to Scott during this process and the last eight years are really just puzzled by and bewildered by the views," he said then.

The puzzlement was pervasive. "We are puzzled," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. And President Bush? "He is puzzled," Perino reported.

Of course, nobody's really puzzled about anything. They're peeved and perturbed. But they can't admit that, so they have retreated to the practice -- time-honored in the Bush White House -- of discrediting your opponents by labeling their actions confusing and irrational.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's claim that Bush can't launch military action in Iran without congressional consent?

"I'm puzzled," Perino said at the time.

The media's interest in John McCain's criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq war?

"It's puzzling to me," Perino said.

Opposition by Democrats to Iraq war spending?

"I'm puzzled," said Vice President Cheney.

Problems with deficit spending during a war?

"I'm always puzzled," said then-press secretary Ari Fleischer.

Disagreements over Bush's Medicare proposals?

"Very puzzling," Fleischer said.

But perhaps nobody spent as much time being publicly -- and implausibly -- puzzled as McClellan himself did, from the White House podium.

An article on the treatment of prisoners? "Puzzling." Democratic complaints about Karl Rove's fear tactics? "Puzzling." Changes to restrict information on the White House Web site? "I'm somewhat puzzled."

In his book, McClellan describes the time when Bush was asked whether the Iraq war was a war of choice or a war of necessity. Bush "seem puzzled," McClellan wrote. "This, in turn, puzzled me."

Can nobody solve the puzzle? "Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald and his team," McClellan writes, "had all the pieces of the puzzle that could be uncovered." But don't get excited. "Other pieces will likely never be made public by individuals like Cheney, Libby, and Rove who have no reason to reveal them."

Puzzling.

[DeanCollins]

So McClellan has again comfirmed what we already knew (albeit half of us won't admit it ). So what's the big deal. Bush co. spews a few more lies and denials and life goes on. Next fall, half of you still pull the "R" lever, what's new?

[dockeryfan]

So McClellan has again comfirmed what we already knew (albeit half of us won't admit it ). So what's the big deal. Bush co. spews a few more lies and denials and life goes on. Next fall, half of you still pull the "R" lever, what's new?

I think this is tongue in cheek, but it falls completely in step with the next phase after the "puzzling" discredit brigade...

The "this is nothing new...nothing to see here" phase.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Something clever.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/?hpid=opinionsbox1

that is hysterical.

[Predicto]

There is a story circulating that McClellan's publisher is funded by a group owned by George Soros... This definitely smells like Soros.

Quick question: Did you bother to investigate whether this was true before you threw this "story" out into the discussion?

[dockeryfan]

Quick question: Did you bother to investigate whether this was true before you threw this "story" out into the discussion?

There is no source. There are right wing blogs that reference the "story" with no proof or credibility. That's it.

Show me the board of directors with his name on it. Show me the money donation.

This is the problem with right wing blogs.

Credibility. They don't have to actually prove anything. All they have to do is print it.

There are people (Smoot included? maybe) who are convinced that the "news media" is biased, so they will tune out CBS, NBC, ABC, but are more than willing to read a blog and believe it to be true.

[Predicto]

There is no source. There are right wing blogs that reference the "story" with no proof or credibility. That's it.

Show me the board of directors with his name on it. Show me the money donation.

This is the problem with right wing blogs.

Credibility. They don't have to actually prove anything. All they have to do is print it.

There are people (Smoot included? maybe) who are convinced that the "news media" is biased, so they will tune out CBS, NBC, ABC, but are more than willing to read a blog and believe it to be true.

So I looked. The book is published by the Perseus Book Group, the 2007 Publisher of the Year according to Publisher's Weekly Magazine. They own several well known publishing concerns, including Vanguard Press.

Now, for all I know, Perseus is connected to George Soros in some way. Maybe he has an ownership interest? :whoknows: But it is a legitimate publishing house, not just a fly by night political hack organization.

I just asked because I hate it when people spew out partisan stuff without doing any basic checking of the facts.

[Sarge]

So I looked. The book is published by the Perseus Book Group, the 2007 Publisher of the Year according to Publisher's Weekly Magazine. They own several well known publishing concerns, including Vanguard Press.

Now, for all I know, Perseus is connected to George Soros in some way. Maybe he has an ownership interest? :whoknows: But it is a legitimate publishing house, not just a fly by night political hack organization.

I just asked because I hate it when people spew out partisan stuff without doing any basic checking of the facts.

Well, if you go to the New York Department of State website and Enter "Perseus" Look what you get

http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.SELECT_ENTITY?p_srch_results_page=2&p_entity_name=%70%65%72%73%65%75%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53

Hello George

And here's the link between Perseus and Public Affairs books

http://www.perseusllc.com/portfolio/Perseus_Books.htm

[Predicto]

Well, if you go to the New York Department of State website and Enter "Perseus" Look what you get

http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.SELECT_ENTITY?p_srch_results_page=2&p_entity_name=%70%65%72%73%65%75%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53

Hello George

So this is a pharmaceutical book publisher? Is the first item on that list (the only one that matters) connected to the Soros pharmaceutial items, or do they just happen to use the same word "Perseus" in their name? Don't you think it might be worthwhile actually finding out whether there is a connection before you start throwing the rumors around?

Also, does it really matter if the book was published by a publisher with ties to liberals? Who did you think was going to publish it? National Review Books? Heritage Foundation Books? :laugh:

[Larry]

Well, if you go to the New York Department of State website and Enter "Perseus" Look what you get

http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.SELECT_ENTITY?p_srch_results_page=2&p_entity_name=%70%65%72%73%65%75%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53

Which tells you that there exists a company named Perseus LLC (which is in the publishing business, and which is the company in question).

And three companies who's names begin with "Perseus-Soros". Two of which are Pharmaceutical companies, and the third is "Management".

Granted, the web page you've linked to has virtually no information whatsoever. Although it does say that the three Soros companies all have essentially the same address, whereas the one that published the book has a completely different one.

Yep, Sarge, you've proven that the book was published by a company named "Persius", and that Soros owns three other companies that have the same word in their names.

(No wonder you believe that there's a link between Saddam and Ossama.)

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Scott will be on with Keith Olberman tonight.

Just more proof that the right is in fear and is just flat out wrong. And full of ****.

He will have to testify in front of Congress. It will all come out how much they lied. Bush should have to wright letters of apologies to all the families of dead soldiers for the deaths. Not the fake thanks they get anyway. "Sorry I lied and got your son killed."