McClellan savages Bush and the Bush admin
 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html

It's not that the incompetence and deception depicted is news. What is news is someone on the inside of the Bush circle owning up to it.

Bush makes Carter look like a genius.

Here we are with Bush about to leave:
1. mired in a deadly and costly and unnecessary conflict
2. our standing in the world among democratically-minded people severely diminished
3. huge debt, huge govt spending
4. a recession
5. civil liberties for Americans in the toilet
6. an administration that has advocated, in effect, for the DC gun ban

I could go on and on. When you put a moron in office, and he is surrounded my evil men, well, we know how this story goes...

Obama, at least, seems not to be a moron. He's got that going for him.

Guarantees some brisk book sales, doesn't it.

Still proud of being a Texan, Mike?

Definitely, my Texas pride has taken a hit. Moreso from this FLDS debacle however.

Now the state govt. is arguing that if the children are returned to their parents, the parents MIGHT LEAVE THE STATE.

WELL NO SHIT SHERLOCK, WITH NOTHING LEGALLY HOLDING THEM HERE IN TEXAS, AND TEXAS DEMONSTRATING HOW FAIR-MINDED THEY ARE, OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO LEAVE THIS STUPID STATE!

McClellan's book bothers me on multiple levels. If he disagreed with Bush at the time on the war, he should have said something to Bush. If he learned he had been lied to about war intelligence, he should have said something to the press or to Congress. If he learned Bush was manipulating intelligence, he should have said something to the press or Congress. He didn't.

Either he is a lousy human being just now doing the right thing for the wrong reason, or he is a lousy human being doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. In either event, I don't think McClellan will do so well in history.

okie-dokey big shot.

I am starting to understand why you had to create your own forum. Not many others can tolerate you.

I agree.

there is a reason you are tangled in embrace with Tex.

He that can hear, let him hear.

You are one strange cat.

Can't we get a real democrat on this site? Just one??? If you in 2008 agree with the decision to invade Iraq you are no democrat. That with the intelligence we had, it was worth invading, killing, occupying. But I take it you are against avoiding any other "threatening" countries.

I mean, the most liberal guys here might be Lebowski and MudPhud, and I don't really count them as democrats.

We don't have one frickin democrat on this entire site. Sad. We have a Persian and an Israeli Zionist, but no democrat.

ChinoCoug, FrankRyan, and DetroitDad are all dems.

FrankRyan--barely an opinion. None memorable.

ChinoCoug is all over the place. I don't understand half of what he says (by choice, because it is too tiring).

DetroitDad, well, I have stopped paying any attention to him, and vice versa, as he is either careless or no good.

If that's all there is, well, that is sad.

Ironically, I do as well. There's no easy way for McClellan to come out of this looking good.

Where do you get that I agree with the invasion of Iraq? And what are you mad at me for? Because without me we "don't have one frickin' democrat on this entire site?" That doesn't really seem like something I am responsible for. If I am not "Democrat enough" for you, join the party yourself. Are you having a bad day?

Sadly for Bush, there aren't many ways for him to come out looking good either. This continues to look like the sham we have thought it was for years now.

Um, he should have said something to the press?

Where were all the leaks coming from that had Bush so upset?

What would it mean, if he had resigned? Oh wait, he did resign. What if he had resigned earlier? What if he had been the only high-up guy in the Bush admin to criticize Bush after resignation. Oh wait, there were others.

etc, etc. The truth was frickin obvious the entire time, that we had a bunch of clowns in there. It's no shock to find out that they were incompetent. The shock is that Bush's friend is telling the truth.

McClellan could have at least had the decency to bow out with malignant cancer and keep his mouth shut.

I suppose the leaks could have come from McClellan, but I would be really surprised. He was quite antagonistic with much of the media when he was press secretary. He did resign, but if you recall, it was widely thought at the time that he had actually been told to step down by Bolton soon after Bolton took over and began reorganizing the West Wing staff.

I did find this gem of a quote from Bush when McClellan resigned:

Mr. Bush, during his remarks, at one point put a hand on Mr. McClellan's shoulder. "One of these day he and I are going to be rocking on chairs in Texas, talking about the good old days and his time as press secretary," the president said. "And I can assure you I will feel the same way then that I feel now, that I can say to Scott, job well done."

Bush needs to stop looking into people's eyes to see their soul. He never seems to get it right. Either that or he needs to take this guy's advice:

Oh come on. Guy leaves the administration with a sour taste in his mouth, writes and publishes a book while Bush is still in office, and you expected what, posies? Some of what McClellan says is likely true, but let's not pretend the man's a picture of objectivity.

As for Bush, the jury will be out on him for a while, regardless of what the leftist nuts think. My guess is, he'll join the list of forgettable presidents, but I don't believe history will be as hard on him as his harshest contemporary critics. It rarely is.

And he doesn't hold a candle to Carter's incompetency.

Who associated with the administration is a measure of objectivity? The people in the West Wing are either strongly biased for Bush or against him, and yet you would have us all give tremendous credence to the statements of those who are for Bush and who work with him closely.

McClellan's motives are likely not pure, but that doesn't mean his statements aren't factual either. His statements are worth carefully scrutinizing. If they appear true after that analysis, Bush is in deep trouble.

Come on. He was the press secretary for crying out loud. His job was to be an advocate for the White House. I imagine he pushed back his doubts and carried on as a good soldier. Shame on Bush for conducting a presidency resulting in this kind of soul-searching from his former inner circle.

Shame on Bush, but shame on his enablers. McClellan had a chance to stand against perceived wrongdoing, though it would have been unprofitable to do so. After being shoved out the door and with dollar signs flashing, he writes a tell-all.

That is part of his job, but I guarantee you the press secretary sees himself as more than that. They almost all describe their job as having a dual role: one in which the press secretary is an advocate for the president's policies, and the other in which they are advocates for the media inside the government, lobbying for more disclosure and access.

I do agree that the atmosphere Bush created in the White House was hardly conducive to open discussions and dissent, but I don't give McClellan a free pass for not having the guts to stand up and do what was right until he was paid handsomely to do so.

Did you hear the latest? One of your legislators (republican, no less) trying to pass a law to get the FLDS to foot the bill for the raid and associated legal costs. I'm sure it will go nowhere, but jeez, what a tool.

He's doing it for the money? Bad timing, if that's the case. This stuff is neither shocking nor interesting any more. I bet the book will be a flop.

I manned-up and registered so I could vote in the primary this time around. I registered as a Democrat.

I'm probably not a great one as I have an independent streak some three miles wide, but I am now a registered "D."

"Tremendous credence"? No idea where you got that. All statements from political people should be considered in that light and weighed accordingly.

Thus I said, "Some of what McClellan says is likely true ..."

You still aren't reading carefully, Cali.

"Some of what McClellan says is likely true" suggests that "most of what McClellans says is likely not true," which isn't something you can reasonably conclude right now. You aren't thinking clearly, Tex.

No, that's not what it suggests, and I'm not concluding that.

I don't have any way of verifying what is or is not true in the book.

Here's a pretty good take on the McClellan mess, IMO, assuming your attention span will permit you to read it all:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...ljNmJmNTQzYWQ=

I'm no fan of the current administration at all and while I agree with those here who state that McClellan should have said something with which he disagreed while he was press secretary, I also believe McClellin was a dickhead to write this book.

Why, you ask?

McClellen is only relevant because he worked for Bush. He spoke for Bush. Nothing he said was his own opinion. Without Bush, McClellan would be nothing.

I believe in loyalty - and in McClellin's case, it's not his lack of loyalty to Bush's politics or policies that I have a problem with, but the fact that he is willing to sell out and bash the man that made him relevant.

If he was too cowardly to say something as press secretary, then he should be forever mocked for trying to make money after he held that job. Man up and say it to his face, McClellin.

deleted because of double post.

I believe in loyalty to country over loyalty to man.

The country comes first and McClellan apparently says he hopes his book will help prevent mistakes like the ones made by Bush et al.

I doubt this is for the money. If he wanted the money, he would have kept his mouth shut and had his pockets lined by the fat cats.

Please explain how McClellan "put the country first."

Re: "fat cats": http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=sv_b_3

He provided a valuable insiders' critique of the administration. that's valuable for the country.

Funny how the country's needs and his financial needs coincided so easily. I guess the county didn't value that critique while he was serving.

History may turn Bush into any number of things, but I really don't think people will struggle to remember his 2 terms.

I doubt anyone forgets 9/11/2001
I doubt anyone forgets the current war on terror
I doubt anyone forgets the current massive federal deficit that will weigh on our country for decades to come.

These are just the top 3 things that I doubt anyone will forget about Bush. I am sure people will remember him for other events that occured in his presidency...like FEMA's response to Katrina etc etc.

My point is that he may not be viewed as harshly in 20, 30 or even 100 years from now, but there have been too many life altering events take place during his presidency that we can be pretty damn sure that he won't be forgotten.

9/11 and Iraq will unquestionably be the hallmarks of the Bush administration. All I meant by "forgettable" is that he will not rank with the Reagans, the JFKs, the FDRs, etc. He'll just be another average President who did some stuff, and kids will learn about it in a day or two during high school history class, and move on.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he'll be remembered as the GOP's Carter. Or maybe Iraq will stabilize and usher in a century of Mid-East peace.

I doubt it.

Another amusing take. ABC's "The Note" examines McClellan's comments about other former Bush admin officials who wrote "tell all" books:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ttie-sowe.html

If his loyalty was to the country, why didn't he confront Bush when he was Bush's spokesman?

No, this was his attempt to cash in on the Bush (deserved) bashing. Based on his greed in this particular case, I would feel safe in assuming that he would write a tell-all book about his own mother for a fast buck.

Here is my dilemma. I never believed a damn thing McClellan said when he was press secretary. Why should I believe him now? I really want to believe him now, but I can't bring myself to give him instant credibility.

I suppose you could argue that he was more likely to lie when he was press secretary, since telling lies is the #1 job requirement for a white house press secretary in the Bush administration. Now that he's a free man, maybe he feels like he can open up.

Isn't it the job of any press secretary to tell the country his boss' lies?

Not defending Bush, but pointing out what a spokesman does.