| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2008/5/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50070 Activity:high |
5/28 Former White House press sect comes out with book bashing
his old boss. I feel like we're trapped in an alternate
universe where I read the newspaper and think immediately
'well OF COURSE I THOUGHT EVERYONE KNEW THIS STUFF' when
I read the newspaper and that The Onion should give up, since
their writers will never be able to keep up with the tragic
humor masters of the Bush administration.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/28/national/w051712D44.DTL
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6h9yup
\_ Uhm... "fired staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
\_ Uhm... "fired Bush staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
any administration. Is this your first election cycle in this
country?
\_ Yeah, let's talk about something more important, like WHY
DOESN'T THAT MARXIST OBAMA WEAR A FLAG PIN?
\_ Nice strawman.
Bush bashing is such old hat now isn't it? I mean, how
\_ doesn't get old. consequences of trying to pave Iraq
with no viable plan will be with us for decades.
old money bluebloods in CT still whine about the
New Deal, and that was a long time ago. Iraq isn't
even last week. Iraq is The Now(tm).
\_ Well, Al Qaeda has a part to play in this doesn't it?
If it didn't do 9/11 and fight us in Afghanistan and
Iraq then a lot fewer innocents would have died.
If Saddam wasn't a brutal strongman then we'd have no
excuse to go in there. Who is responsible for the
terrorism in Iraq? It's not the USA that is blowing up
street markets. Iraq is pretty effed up but it was
already effed up.
\_ AQ wasn't in Iraq pre-US Invasion. AQ and SH were
not BFF. We should have stopped with Afghanistan.
We should have brought other pressures against
SH. There were no WMD. There was no link to AQ.
Stop perpetuating lies told by chickenhawks to
sell a war to demonstrate that the Powell
Doctrine was bunk.
\_ I know there was no link to AQ, but there is now
right? So what about that? Should we ignore AQ?
AQ is there now and causing deaths.
\_ AQI is nowhere near as powerful or popular
as the AQ was when the Taliban ruled Afg.
We should leave the internal affair of
cleaning up AQI to the Iraqis.
much more dead can that horse get? Me, I consider myself
an independent voter because the reality is that both major
parties are full of posturing blowhards. If you really care
about change then you should push for instant runoff voting
and support real change from status quo American politics.
Not Obama populist speechmaking change, actual structural
change. Americans are too complacent. We often complain about
the choices but then go ahead and vote for one of them anyway
instead of making a concerted effort to bring someone else in.
I actually think a random selection of people would be better
Congresspersons than district-based elected reps from
political parties. Proportional representation would be
pretty good but political parties in general are somewhat
broken. You could have a bunch of people randomly selected
from an opt-in pool and then have voters approve some number
of those. The usual road to political campaign promotes
corruption and actor-style figurehead polticians.
change. Americans are too complacent.
\_ You really think a Democratic President is going to
be exactly like a Republican one? You expect more
unprovoked wars and massive transfers of wealth from
future taxpayers to well-connected defence contractors?
I don't. If you support real change, you should join
Common Cause and push for campaign finance reform. I did.
\_ You really think a new Republican President is going to
be exactly like Bush?
Bush couldn't do what he has done without the support
of Democrats in Congress. Do you really think Democrats
\_ I believe Bush and his advisors were able to
brilliantly out maneuver and bully Congress into
funding their Iraq plan. Also in another thread
we can all rant about Bush not following laws,
interpreting laws only in the way his lawyers
say they should be interpretted, just simply not
following laws he didnt like because hey its
war time, and then we can get into torture and
how Bush has thrown away decades of world good
will by showing how the US just doesn't care about
the Geneva conventions.
\_ Laugh. How did they bully Congress? If Bush is
not following laws, why don't they impeach him?
\_ I DO NOT KNOW!
\_ They didn't have the votes.
What laws? What world good will exactly? The
\_ look up 'signing statements'
\_ what material effect has this had?
good will was already pretty suspect in most
Arab countries; we have been strongly supporting
Israel for a long ass time and fucking around
protecting or deposing various third world
regimes. The Guantanamo dudes were mainly from the
Afghanistan thing which everybody seems to think
was a fine and jolly war.
\_ American popularity has plummeted worldwide,
not just in the Middle East.
\_ Well, it doesn't seem to matter anywhere but
in the middle east. I don't think this is
a long term thing. Muslims aren't very happy
about Europe either, and China already had
tension for obvious reasons. I don't see any
real long term difference.
\_ The majority of the Guantanamites were sold to
us by our allies in Pakistan. The Bush Admin
encouraged a sloppy attitude toward accepting
these guys without research or due process.
This same Admin then took a laissez-faire
approach to torturing those same people,
most of whom have now been released as not
having been terrorists to begin with.
are corruption-free? Do you think liberals are good
and conservatives are evil?
Democratic presidents took the USA into WW1, WW2, Korea
Vietnam, and Kosovo.
\_ WW1 = won
WW2 = won
Korea = stalemate
Vietnam = lost
Kosovo = won
I think the batting average of a Dem >>> Rep
\_ That's nice, pinhead.
\_ somalia = lost
grenada = won
nicaragua = won
\_ Somalia: poor planning, no war.
Grenada: The entire USMC vs. a minor band of
guerillas; if we'd "lost," there would have
been hell to pay.
\_ Panama '89 = won
Democrats are just as cosy with corporate America as
Republicans.
Campaign finance reform is mostly meaningless.
\_ Bush definitely could not have done what he did
without the support of the GOP. If the Dems are
collaborators, then GOP are Nazis. I'll take the
former over the latter any day.
\_ Really. Why? Bush couldn't do what he did without
the complacence of the American people. Anyway
Iraq isn't fundamentally very different from those
\_ So, since we didn't storm the White House or
impeach them, we're to blame for his bad
behavior? This is like someone killing people
then blaming the police for not catching him.
\_ Well, yes, because we elected him twice.
I blame the American people and Congress.
What do you want from me? We have only
two stinking parties and they are both
bad in various ways. Last time I voted
for Kerry, but I didn't even like Kerry.
This time I will vote for McCain. What
exactly do you want to impeach Bush on?
\_ Lying. Suppressing intel that didn't
favor his plans. Destroying e-mail.
Outing a CIA operative. What do I
want from you? A realization that no
matter who gets elected, they are
not going to be as fundamentally
bad as the President and Veep; a
statement to the effect that no
matter what anyone else didn't do
stop them, they were responsible
for the evil that they did. I
want you to hold the Bush Admin
responsible for its actions, and I
want you to do so without qualifying
it with excuses or references to the
Dems' behavior.
\_ No, I can't hold ONLY Bush
and Veep responsible because they
did not have the power to do their
thing alone. Congress was complicit,
CIA members were complicit, Britain
went to war and we did not force
it to do that. There was evidence
that SH wanted WMD even if he did
not have them, and there was an
insufficient trail for the WMD
that he was supposed to have had.
It's not useful to fixate only on
Bush and ignore the big picture.
How much was evil and how much was
incompetence I do not know. SH did
sponsor Palestinian terrorism to
some extent.
\_ I want a drug pony, indict me.
The POTUS was in a position to
know that the intel he was
receiving was shaky at best.
He still passed it on like it
was a "slam dunk." I buy that
Congress didn't stop POTUS,
and that some in the CIA wanted
to please the prez. The least
you can do is admit that the
Prez. set the tone and ignored
anything that contradicted.
This inability to accept *any*
blame w/o blaming someone else
at the same time is the key
character flaw of this Admin
and its apologists.
\_ Yes, obviously POTUS wanted war,
and dismissed indications
that were contrary to his aim,
and pumped the dubious stuff and
misportrayed the state of intel.
This was wrong etc. But then it's
not like there was hard evidence
against the WMD thing. We do know
SH had a WMD program of sorts and
it's possible we'd have ended up
in Iraq by now anyway for one
reason or another.
But yes, I do blame the prez for
the war. But I don't transfer this
blame to the entire Republican
Party; or at least not really more
than the D Party. Americans elected
W after the WMD fiasco was known.
At that point I am less concerned
about Mr. Bush personally.
other wars in principle. Saddam was a bad guy
and we're fighting for freedom. What's the
\_ the reasons we invaded Iraq change every
day. i don't think this is like past wars,
at all.
\_ It's exactly like past wars. The US was
not threatened in any war except WW2, and
that case was after the US already made
offensive moves against Japan.
The difference is that Bush was more
clumsy and hamhanded about it with the
lame justifications. He wasn't able to
make adequate speeches to inspire the
rabble (but it was still enough).
\_ We got involved in the Korean and
Vietnam war to show our muscle and
annoy the local power in that part of
the world, China. So we invaded Iraq
to annoy Iran? Piss off Syria? Huh
I guess you're right the Iraq war
is like every other war!
\_ So your argument is that just because
others talked us into illegal actions
we should let this bungler off the hook
just because he was so bad at it?
What the hell kind of behavior are we
rewarding here?
\_ No that's not my argument. (?)
difference? We killed lots and lots of civilians
in those other wars too. What's your big problem?
Did defense contractors not profit in the past?
Let's say we didn't go into Iraq. We'd still be
in Afghanistan, right? We'd still maintain the
overwhelming power of the US military. We'd still
have dot com bubbles and housing bubbles. The D's
aren't putting forth anything really different.
Guys like Nader and Ron Paul do put forth stuff
that is different. In 2000 Gore and Bush sounded
very alike and spent the debates mostly agreeing
with each other.
\_ Clinton significanly cut the military budget
and used that money to balance the fed budget.
This is not a small thing. A more liberal
Democrat might actually get something
significant done, like national health care.
WWII was different in that we actually
attacked the people who bombed us. I will
grant you Vietnam.
\_ Of course the Republican strategy to
Vietnam would have been so much less
aggressive.
\_ Re: national health care
Be careful what you wish for.
\_ No, Democrats aren't just as cozy with corporate
America as the Republicans, or they wouldn't support
things like Unions. Corporate America hates unions.
But they are cozy with certain sorts of corporations,
ones that do things like educate, build mass transit,
entertain and litigate (okay, not so great perhaps).
I prefer all of these to bombing civilians for
profit.
I am kind of nutty that way.
\_ You are pretty nutty to believe that Republicans
literally bomb civilians for profit, and that
they don't educate or do anything other than
rape babies. Seriously, take a breath and think
about it. Corporations give huge amounts of
money to Dem campaigns. Dems have huge investment
stakes and other ties large corporations. HRC
served on the board of Wal-Mart. But no,
Republicans bomb civilians for profit. Yay.
\_ Yes, I am very familliar with which special
\_ Yes, I am very familiar with which special
interest groups give to which candidates.
Obviously, you are not. Who does Boeing,
Halliburton, Bechtel and the other war
profiteers donate to? Do you even know?
Most big corporations hedge their bets a
little, but Big Oil and the Military Industrial
Complex overwhelmingly lean GOP. Can you guess
why? Wal-Mart arguably does some things that
are in the public interest (I know, so does
Big Oil...)
\_ Show me the data. And show me where the
money is going in the current election.
Democrats seem to be getting a lot of funds
from defense industry employees now:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=D
Democrats have had power in this country
before and have power in Congress now.
Where's the beef? Where's the utopian
legislation that will lead us to the
promised land? Democrats authorized Bush
to invade Iraq. Democrats do Bad Things
sometimes. National defense is not a
Republican invention and none of the
frontrunning candidates are going to
cut our military meaningfully after 2008.
The only one with that platform was Paul
(a Republican).
\_ and Kucinich, Gravel, Frank Moore.
\_ what about Nader? Point being that
these guys are essentially not in
the Democratic Party.
What's Obama gonna do?
\_ Look at the last eight years. But yes,
everyone can see which way the wind blows
now. A majority of Democrats in Congress
voted against the bill to give Bush the
authority to invade Iraq, no amount of
spin can change that. I think you are
wrong about Obama and defense spending.
Clinton cut it by 1/3 from Reagan. Obama
will do the same. There is no promised
land, but leadership matters and some of
it is clearly better.
\_ Obama would inherit Iraq. He's not
going to be able to cut the military
by 1/3 in a first term, you are nuts.
Clinton did not inherit any wars.
The president doesn't even have that
power, he needs Congress to do it.
As you said, companies try to go where
the wind is blowing and the wind was
blowing for GOP in the last 8 yrs.
\_ Repeatedly questioning my sanity
does not make your arguments any
more pursuasive. I have been shown
to be 100% right about Bush, even
when my position was the extreme
minority. You have not apparently
learned anything at all. Simply
ending the war in Iraq will cut
the military budget by 1/3. I
expect Obama to do thatin the first
expect Obama to do that in the first
two years of his term.
\_ Your position was never in the
extreme minority; that proves
you have a fantasyland inside
your head. What am I supposed
to learn? I didn't vote for
Bush, nor do I like him. I am
just being pragmatic. The
Democrats are not better and
are worse in other ways. The
war in Iraq will play out
similarly with any of the
candidates. Obama will "end"
the war but we will still have
troops there. We already ended
it a long time ago; mission
accomplished etc.
\_ Bush popularity rating was
91% at one point. Either you
have a strange definition
of extreme minority or a very
selective memory.
\_ His rating was never 91%.
Maybe among Republicans.
\_ Oct '01 according to
some polls. Check:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm
Riding high after 9/11
'01? Bush hadn't done shit by then. _/
But ok I stand corrected. What were
you saying about him in Oct 01 that
you were so right about? In Oct 01
we were inundated with patriotism.
\_ Apologies: stat was posted by
motd fact-checker, not pp. Pls
continue.
\_ Somebody sure made money from all those bombs
dropped on Iraq. They don't build those
things for free, you know.
\_ You think no Democrats profited from that?
Hell, maybe you have a mutual fund with
defense industry stock and you profited
yourself. I probably profited. Democrats
profited from napalming Vietnamese villages.
This is not a fruitful line of discussion.
\_ "...You are pretty nutty to believe that
Republicans literally bomb civilians
for profit..." Yes, I would imagine
you find it unfruitful.
\_ Yes?
\_ Hardly a strawman: Obama was called a Marxist on the motd
and the flag pin question was in the PA debate.
\_ Wow, that's real serious important discussion there.
\_ Exactly my point. The media has spent more time
on Obama's non-existent flag pin then on health care.
\_ What? No, this is false.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/69jcj3
Okay, they have pretty much the same
amount of entries here. Do you have any
evidence to back up your claim that the media
has spent more time on health care?
\_ If only McClellan had said something about books like this...oh.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/as-scottie-sowe.html
\_ You know what? I think if Gore the Democrat had been elected,
the new Gore Administration would not have been full of
hubris filled neocon toadies. I do not think they would have
invaded Iraq under false pretenses. We can debate this all day,
but I firmly believe this. I do not think the world would
appear to be headed towards a gigantic United States led
clusterfuck if a Democractic, Gore led administration were
in power right now. I believe there are significant differences
between the current Republican Bush administration, and my
fantasy Gore Democractic administration. I believe an Obama
or Hillary (ahem) administration would not blindly invade Iran
right now. I haven't heard Obama or Hillary (ahem) casually
mention that we should prepare to be in Iraq for the next 1000
years.
\_ While this is most certainly true, I think this has more to
do with BUSHCO than it has to do with the GOP. I doubt Pres.
McCain would have blindly invaded Iraq, &c.
\_ It was hardly blindly. It was very deliberate.
\_ yes, in fact it had been suggested by the whole host of
GOP chicken hawks as far back as 1997. See the PNAC. -tom
\_ Which is exactly why a McCain administration will
invade Iran, if they can figure out how to talk
Congress into it.
\_ It depends on which McCain we get after the election. |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/28/national/w051712D44.DTL In this March 15, 2006 file photo, then-White House Press... The way Bush managed the Iraq issue "almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option." "In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage," McClellan writes. White House aides seemed stunned by the scathing tone of the book, and Bush press secretary Dana Perino issued a statement that was highly critical of their former colleague. "Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," she said. "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. Perino said the reports on the book had been described to Bush, and that she did not expect him to comment. "He has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers," she said. The book provoked strong reactions from former staffers as well. "For him to do this now strikes me as self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional," Fran Townsend, former head of the White House-based counterterrorism office, told CNN. Said former top aide Karl Rove, in an interview with Fox News Channel, "If he had these moral qualms, he should have spoken up about them. And frankly I don't remember him speaking up about these things. Richard Clarke, another former counterterrorism adviser who also came out with a book critical of administration policy, said he could understand McClellan's thinking, however. Clarke told CNN that he, too, was harshly criticized, saying that "I can show you the tire tracks." McClellan called the Iraq war a "serious strategic blunder," a surprisingly harsh assessment from the man who was at that time the loyal public voice of the White House who had followed Bush to Washington from Texas. McClellan admits that some of his own words from the podium in the White House briefing room turned out to be "badly misguided." "When words I uttered, believing them to be true, were exposed as false, I was constrained by my duties and loyalty to the president and unable to comment," he said. "But I promised reporters and the public that I would someday tell the whole story of what I knew." The former press secretary -- the second of four so far in Bush's presidency -- explained his dramatic shift from loyal defender to fierce critic as a difficult act of personal contrition, a way, he wrote, to learn from his mistakes, be true to his Christian faith and become a better person. "I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be," McClellan writes. He also blames the media whose questions he fielded, calling them "complicit enablers" in the White House campaign to manipulate public opinion toward the need for war. McClellan said Bush loyalists will no doubt continue to think the administration's decisions have been correct and its unpopularity undeserved. The book is scheduled to go on sale June 1 Quotes from the book were first reported Tuesday night by the Web site Politico, which said it found McClellan's memoir on sale early at a bookstore. McClellan draws a portrait of Bush as possessing "personal charm, wit and enormous political skill." He said Bush's record as Texas governor and "disarming personality" inspired him to follow him and that his administration early on possessed "seeds of greatness." But, McClellan said, Bush's unwillingness to admit mistakes and belief in his own spin contributed to turning the president into "not quite the leader I once imagined him to be." He faults Bush for a "lack of inquisitiveness" and "a degree of self-deception that may be psychologically necessary to justify the tactics needed to win the political game." Bush "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment," McClellan writes. |
| preview.tinyurl.com/6h9yup -> www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/28/national/w051712D44.DTL In this March 15, 2006 file photo, then-White House Press... The way Bush managed the Iraq issue "almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option." "In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage," McClellan writes. White House aides seemed stunned by the scathing tone of the book, and Bush press secretary Dana Perino issued a statement that was highly critical of their former colleague. "Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," she said. "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. Perino said the reports on the book had been described to Bush, and that she did not expect him to comment. "He has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers," she said. The book provoked strong reactions from former staffers as well. "For him to do this now strikes me as self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional," Fran Townsend, former head of the White House-based counterterrorism office, told CNN. Said former top aide Karl Rove, in an interview with Fox News Channel, "If he had these moral qualms, he should have spoken up about them. And frankly I don't remember him speaking up about these things. Richard Clarke, another former counterterrorism adviser who also came out with a book critical of administration policy, said he could understand McClellan's thinking, however. Clarke told CNN that he, too, was harshly criticized, saying that "I can show you the tire tracks." McClellan called the Iraq war a "serious strategic blunder," a surprisingly harsh assessment from the man who was at that time the loyal public voice of the White House who had followed Bush to Washington from Texas. McClellan admits that some of his own words from the podium in the White House briefing room turned out to be "badly misguided." "When words I uttered, believing them to be true, were exposed as false, I was constrained by my duties and loyalty to the president and unable to comment," he said. "But I promised reporters and the public that I would someday tell the whole story of what I knew." The former press secretary -- the second of four so far in Bush's presidency -- explained his dramatic shift from loyal defender to fierce critic as a difficult act of personal contrition, a way, he wrote, to learn from his mistakes, be true to his Christian faith and become a better person. "I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be," McClellan writes. He also blames the media whose questions he fielded, calling them "complicit enablers" in the White House campaign to manipulate public opinion toward the need for war. McClellan said Bush loyalists will no doubt continue to think the administration's decisions have been correct and its unpopularity undeserved. The book is scheduled to go on sale June 1 Quotes from the book were first reported Tuesday night by the Web site Politico, which said it found McClellan's memoir on sale early at a bookstore. McClellan draws a portrait of Bush as possessing "personal charm, wit and enormous political skill." He said Bush's record as Texas governor and "disarming personality" inspired him to follow him and that his administration early on possessed "seeds of greatness." But, McClellan said, Bush's unwillingness to admit mistakes and belief in his own spin contributed to turning the president into "not quite the leader I once imagined him to be." He faults Bush for a "lack of inquisitiveness" and "a degree of self-deception that may be psychologically necessary to justify the tactics needed to win the political game." Bush "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment," McClellan writes. |
| opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=D Thompson, Tommy graph $250 METHODOLOGY: The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, although individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors if they've given more than $200 to an ideological PAC. NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. |
| www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm All data are from nationwide surveys of Ame ricans 18 & older. "Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W Bush is doing as presi dent?" ALL registered voters 36 53 11 Democrats 10 84 6 Republicans 72 18 10 Independents 26 58 16 . "In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W Bush is doing as president?" Among registered voters: 10/16-18/04 49 47 4 9/17-19/04 47 48 5 8/23-25/04 47 48 5 7/19-21/04 48 46 6 6/25-28/04 45 49 6 5/1-3/04 47 46 7 3/6-8/04 50 46 4 . Among ALL adults, except where indicated (RV = registered voters): 1/10-12/04 54 41 6 12/14/03 58 34 9 12/13/03 52 41 7 11/8-10/03 51 44 5 9/20-22/03 49 45 6 7/26-28/03 56 38 6 5/17-19/03 62 31 7 4/12-13/03 71 23 6 3/29-30/03 66 29 5 3/23/03 67 28 5 3/17/03 62 33 5 2/5/03 61 31 8 1/19-21/03 54 40 6 12/7-9/02 62 33 5 10/18-21/02 RV 63 31 6 9/3-5/02 64 30 6 7/19-21/02 67 27 6 6/8-10/02 69 23 8 5/18/02 75 18 7 4/5-7/02 74 20 6 1/18-21/02 82 13 5 12/8-10/01 85 11 4 11/9-11/01 88 7 5 9/15-16/01 82 12 6 6/23-25/01 50 35 15 4/21-23/01 56 30 14 3/1-4/01 57 22 21 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Prince ton Survey Research Associates International. "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W Bush is handling his j ob as president?" If "Depends": "Overall, do you approve or disapprove o f the way George W Bush is handling his job as president?" MoE 31 Data from 11/03 and ea rlier co-sponsored by Cook Political Report. "Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W Bush is handling his job as president?" If "mixed feelings" o r not sure: "If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or di sapprove?" Trend includes polls conducted indepen dently by ABC News and by The Washington Post. "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W Bush is handling his j ob as president?" |
| preview.tinyurl.com/69jcj3 -> www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=obama+flag+pin&word2=mccain+health+care GoogleFight The classics Funny fights Fight of the month Last 20 fights English version Version franaise Romanian version Brioude Internet Referencement Raynette Abondance IFRAME: content versus Make a fight Search obama flag pin and mccain health care on the web This site is not affiliated with or sponsored by Google SE-Tools Network | SE-Inspector | SE-Keywords | SE-Check | SE-Rank | SE-Bid | Se-Spider | Se-Flash | Se-Fight | Meceoo.com |
| blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/as-scottie-sowe.html Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories. Main As Scottie Sowed, So Is He Reaping May 28, 2008 3:15 PM Before he wrote his own memoir, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was rather critical of those who did the same. In fact, some of the same language now being used to trash McClellan he himself used to trash previous administration authors. January 12, 2004: McCLELLAN: "It appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people." March 22, 2004: McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr Clarke made. Q: Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors. When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it's important that we set the record straight. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today. As Scottie Sowed, So Is He Reaping: User Comments It is fairly comic how the righties, Jake Tapper included, are up in arms how McClellan could not have "raised his concerns at the time" about the bald face lies the administration was utilizing to go to war. This administration had a real nice record on how they treated people in their fold who disagreed with them. I find it amazing that the right wing simply cannot handle the truth when things finally come home to roose, NO THANKS to the lazy mainstream media. Posted by: tdub | May 28, 2008 7:12:32 PM Scott is just out to score some money. Because of that, he's okay with being disingenuous and hypocritical. Posted by: James | May 28, 2008 7:12:27 PM well a tell all book. if he wrote a book about what a great guy bush and everyone was. when you hate a person so much you would believe a goat if it wrote a book. Posted by: carl | May 28, 2008 7:11:06 PM Rhonda, CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH, HUH,, HE KNEW IT JUST AS POWELL KNEW IT AND KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT, UNTIL HE RESIGNED. FOOLS WILL BELIEVE WHAT THEIR LEADERS TELL THEM EVEN IF THEY KNOW IT MAKES NO SENSE. Posted by: American10 | May 28, 2008 7:04:24 PM Is this more to do with the lack of support his mama got in her run for Governor? Posted by: Tom | May 28, 2008 7:03:38 PM I don't think McClellan actually wrote this book. I believe it was ghostwritten and he signed off on it no questions asked. I'm sure he gave an interview, but the editors filled in the blanks to make the NY Times book reviewers and 60 Minutes producers happy. If you read some of the excerpts, McC doesn't actually say he was actually there in on many of the meetings - he just "suspected" or "imagined" what they might be about. As much as I have reached a point where I can't really say I care much about GW anymore, I have to say that if you have to get something that tells a good story, you would be better off buying a Harry Potter book. Posted by: Rhonda | May 28, 2008 7:01:50 PM Have 3 words for ya Scottie: Teddy bear McClellan Posted by: plainsm | May 28, 2008 6:57:04 PM 20 percenters like FMV aside, the question here really is -- was he lying then, in staunchly defending the administration? My bet is that he was firmly entrenched back then, and lying at the behest of his bosses, just like Dana Perino and company are doing now! And just like McCain's folks would do if he were to be elected. Posted by: jackt51 | May 28, 2008 6:52:03 PM How mis-informed you all are. Let's see what has happened in the last 7 years: WE have stopped terriosts attacks on our home ground, given more responsibility to the individual while the Stupidcrats have given illegals more rights then legals, given the lazy more handouts from the hard working, made religion a liability and now their loser leader, Omama, wants to take us the rest of the way to Socialism. Fly Navy Posted by: Steve | May 28, 2008 6:48:59 PM The greatest source of propaganda and misinformation isn't the Bush White House, it's the comments section of a Drudge-linked article. One shining example is Jared's comment: "The best part is that the plan worked! Lots of extremists dead, realtively low number of military deaths and casualties. Still less soldiers killed in the war than civilians that died on 9/11. The number of non-hijacker deaths from 9/11 is 2,974 people, and the number of US troop deaths in the current Iraq War as of Memorial Day 2008 is 4,082 people. The Iraq War deaths do not include the deaths of other coalition troops or innocent Iraqi civilians. For all of the alleged crazies who came over the border from Saudi Arabia or Iran and got killed, there are several more remaining in those countries and in other countries throughout the Middle East who are joining Al Qaeda in droves and eagerly plotting another strike against the US What happens if we have another attack in the US while we've got 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq? How are we going to defend our country or retaliate when our armed forces are stuck in this Iraqi quagmire? Posted by: TexaDem | May 28, 2008 6:44:30 PM Does anyone out there really believe him (McClellan, Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove..... Posted by: Not Left or Right | May 28, 2008 6:38:48 PM Some of the Scott McClellan "should have expressed his reservations at the time" crowd are really funny. Only a few people in 2003 truly felt Saddam in the sandbox wasn't as big a threat as he was made out to be and none of them resided in the Bush Administration. In 2008, many of the Bush Adminstration insiders feel the same way they did then, the opposite of the way most of the country feels today. So, I ask, why in 2003 should Mr McClellan be any different? Isn't he allowed the opportunity, when faced with the cold, hard facts, to make an intelligent and heart-felt reflection and provide discourse on those facts? Why do people feel this man must think the same way in 2008 that he did in 2003? But, at the same time that doesn't mean he's excluded from adding to the debate and trying to get politics back to the business of governing and not to the pastime of selling the people a load of crap. It's real easy to get turned and twisted, especially when you want to believe in the person HOLDING THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND. dismount and try to understand where this guy is coming from. It's not about partisan politics, it about elevating the discussion and actually doing something for the people of this country. Posted by: PHCDR Herm | May 28, 2008 6:37:54 PM The beauty is that Scottso pushed the lefty button and they all run to buy the book and with all the money he earns (from the stalinist democrats) he can donate to good American Republican candidates! Posted by: sydbloom | May 28, 2008 6:33:36 PM What possible reason could any of you have for supporting the war? Posted by: grateful | May 28, 2008 6:27:43 PM Scottie Fat Boy was toeing the line Til came his moment to speak his mind. Posted by: kravitz | May 28, 2008 6:23:06 PM I like George Bush. I'm glad no one has been blown up in the grocery store in the United States since 9-11, remember we all thought that was going to happen? Posted by: FMV | May 28, 2008 6:20:44 PM Aside from going against norms regarding writing about ones boss(in this case GW Bush), what does this say about the guy who wrote it. This sounds to me a lot like he is trying to cash i... |