What Happened?

"Scottie" as Bush referered to him , like "Brownie," like "Scooter," and even like Colin Powell were all duped and forced to spin misinformation purposefully. None of this is new information. That is what happens when you only value "loyalty" over doing the right thing for the American people, whom you suppose to be serving, in addition to the President. If you are loyal to the head Liars, you're in the same boat as they are.

McClellan's timing is perfect as far as book sales are concerned $$$ ca-ching--so, having to lie on a daily bais for his bosses Bush and Cheney will ultimately make him rich, right?

Very sad.....

I wish he had resigned earlier out of honor. I remember that Jerry Terhorst (sp) who was Ford's press secretary, resigned out of principle, when Nixon was pardoned. I do not begrudge McClelland's making money from his memoir. He is setting the historical record straight, as I am sure many others will do through their memoirs in the years ahead. McClelland is a young man with his future ahead of him. To some degree I think he was brave to come out now with his story so I would be hesitant to shoot the messenger.

I wish he had resigned earlier out of honor. I remember that Jerry Terhorst (sp) who was Ford's press secretary, resigned out of principle, when Nixon was pardoned. I do not begrudge McClelland's making money from his memoir. He is setting the historical record straight, as I am sure many others will do through their memoirs in the years ahead. McClelland is a young man with his future ahead of him. To some degree I think he was brave to come out now with his story so I would be hesitant to shoot the messenger.

I am glad that McClelland has written his book ~ better late than never. But that being said, it would have meant more to have expressed his feelings a couple of years ago when it wasn't quite so popular. I have always admired Richard Clark and Paul O'Neill for doing so. Of course, they were attacked by the Bush administration. Paul O'Neill had the best line. I can't find the exact quote but it went something like this: I'm old and rich and he (Bush) can't hurt me. Now those two guys and a few others are the real heros of this story.

Scott must have met Jose Canseco at an airport lounge somewhere.

I question the motives/true honesty level of people who knowingly participate in something immoral for years, then spill the beans after they leave their job and write a book.

Long list of people who claim it wasn't their fault (even though they were highly involved) once they leave and get a book deal - how refreshing if they decided to be honest AT THE TIME!

What's the quotation - "All that is required for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing" or similar.

Scott must have met Jose Canseco at an airport lounge somewhere.

I don't know what he did but the good thing is is that he is still alive!!!

I think there are two interesting bits of fallout from this book --

1. The Bushies totally pushed McClellan out the moment he tried to start being honest...when he admitted he'd lied, but said he'd believed the lie at the time -- well, they had Tony Snow in there before the ink could have dried on a resignation. His disloyalty was punished swiftly and absolutely, with no worry about where that might leave him. Now, he writes this book and you can almost hear Rove shouting, "Unleash the hoooouuunds!" The rabid attacks on someone who held his tongue for so long out of loyalty, and still tried to defend and justify the President in his tell all -- well, it just shows how little class this administration has, and how much of a bunker mentality it has going....

2. I think it's funny how SHOCKED the media seems by the suggestion that they were too easy on the administration when it came to Iraq.

From MSNBC:

We begin with the bombshell book from former White House press secretary Scott McClellan. The tell-all, What Happened inside the Bush White House and Washington?s Culture of Deception. In it, McClellon claims, among other things, that the president used propaganda to sell the war in Iraq.

The Washington Post:

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."

McClellan includes the charges in a 341-page book...

Bloomberg:

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan says in a memoir that President George W. Bush manipulated public opinion through a ``political propaganda campaign'' to justify going to war in Iraq.

It's cute that everyone seems so taken aback by McClellan's shocking revelation of the use of propaganda by an administration that thinks of the American public as sheep. Of course, the NYT reported months ago about the whole Pentagon prepping of the media's "military analysts."

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as "military analysts" whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration?s wartime performance...

I believe the expenditures for the Whitewater investigation will be dwarfed by the coming Iraq War hearings by the Dems. I want to see Cheney chained to a chair, being questioned by his "go eff yourself" buddy from the Senate, Patrick Leahy. Leahy..."Mr. Vice President, I remind you you're under oath". Cheney "Patrick, may I remind you to go eff yourself"!

I hope that there is no long, drawn out partisan spectacle about all of this. After all, America is a democracy, and the majority of the people supported this war in 2003. As a matter of fact, I lived in Shreveport at the time and my office overlooked a park where they practically had a pep rally (complete with steamroller to run over the Dixie Chicks cds people were encouraged to bring). It was frightening to watch the whole Nuremburg rally atmosphere.

Historically, when people argued against democracy and universal suffrage, they invoked the image of a disengaged public being swayed by propaganda.

We can all hope that most Americans have seen the folly of their ways, and that they will think more deeply about issues in the future, and recognize when they are being manipulated by propaganda about patriotism and flag pins. We can hope that the tolerance of buffoons and people who think it's okay to lie to the American people because the end justifies the means and people are too stupid to understand the real reasons for war or suspension of civil rights and privacy is at an end.

To scapegoat administration officials would absolve the American people of their responsibility for what has happened. It would allow all of those who still love W to escape the soul-searching they need to do about their own role in the deaths of 4000 soldiers, the extended and repeated tours that tear apart families, the burden being shouldered by 1% of the population, a major American city rotting on the vine, and an economy in shambles. And if they don't have to see the connection between their blind devotion to a leader and willingness to be swayed by propaganda....well, they'll just do it again someday.

I hope that there is no long, drawn out partisan spectacle about all of this. After all, America is a democracy, and the majority of the people supported this war in 2003. As a matter of fact, I lived in Shreveport at the time and my office overlooked a park where they practically had a pep rally (complete with steamroller to run over the Dixie Chicks cds people were encouraged to bring). It was frightening to watch the whole Nuremburg rally atmosphere.

Historically, when people argued against democracy and universal suffrage, they invoked the image of a disengaged public being swayed by propaganda.

We can all hope that most Americans have seen the folly of their ways, and that they will think more deeply about issues in the future, and recognize when they are being manipulated by propaganda about patriotism and flag pins. We can hope that the tolerance of buffoons and people who think it's okay to lie to the American people because the end justifies the means and people are too stupid to understand the real reasons for war or suspension of civil rights and privacy is at an end.

To scapegoat administration officials would absolve the American people of their responsibility for what has happened. It would allow all of those who still love W to escape the soul-searching they need to do about their own role in the deaths of 4000 soldiers, the extended and repeated tours that tear apart families, the burden being shouldered by 1% of the population, a major American city rotting on the vine, and an economy in shambles. And if they don't have to see the connection between their blind devotion to a leader and willingness to be swayed by propaganda....well, they'll just do it again someday.

Actually, the US is a republic. But I won't stop you, you're rolling.

Oh, and McClellan was the worst press secretary of the modern presidency. No one can really deny that, and most conservatives were screaming it when he was there.

Actually, the US is a republic. But I won't stop you, you're rolling.

Oh, and McClellan was the worst press secretary of the modern presidency. No one can really deny that, and most conservatives were screaming it when he was there.

And the current Pess secy., Dana Perino, has my vote as the second worst.....as in "Bay of Pigs? What was that?"

From today's paper, drawn by Gary Varvel:
*************************************************************
Beam Me Up, Scotty



Scotty wants us to believe what he says now, but not what he said before he was canned?
*************************************************************************

(commentary above and below cartoon also from newspaper)

Actually, the US is a republic. But I won't stop you, you're rolling.

Oh, and McClellan was the worst press secretary of the modern presidency. No one can really deny that, and most conservatives were screaming it when he was there.

Just like a conservative, to nitpick the one small error in a whole long post and act as though that discredits everything else....and then attack the enemy of the day.

Rhetoric over substance...as always.

From today's paper, drawn by Gary Varvel:
*************************************************************
Beam Me Up, Scotty



Scotty wants us to believe what he says now, but not what he said before he was canned?
*************************************************************************

(commentary above and below cartoon also from newspaper)

The Bush administration paid him to lie, now he's getting paid to come clean. Happens all the time.

I don't know how anyone could be the White House press secretary under that administration and still be able to sleep at night!

Just like a conservative, to nitpick the one small error in a whole long post and act as though that discredits everything else....and then attack the enemy of the day.

Rhetoric over substance...as always.

Calling an enthusiastic political organizer when they mistake the form of government is nitpicking? Too your larger point, I agree for the most part, that pure democracy is a bad idea due to the potential for totalitarian rule of the majority. It's one reason I've railed against the 17th Amendment, created by the same folks who brought us prohibition and the income tax. Solid line of work there.

Again, I didn't like McClellan when he was press secretary and I don't like him now. If he took a principled stand, I could appreciate his integrity. He's selling books in an election year. Before you go praising McClellan, you should read what he said about Clarke who said nothing while serving, was out of the loop on major discussions and decisions, then waited two years to sell an election year tell all book.

McClellan pointed to the timing of Clarke's book.

"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/bush.clarke/

Calling an enthusiastic political organizer when they mistake the form of government is nitpicking? Too your larger point, I agree for the most part, that pure democracy is a bad idea due to the potential for totalitarian rule of the majority. It's one reason I've railed against the 17th Amendment, created by the same folks who brought us prohibition and the income tax. Solid line of work there.

Again, I didn't like McClellan when he was press secretary and I don't like him now. If he took a principled stand, I could appreciate his integrity. He's selling books in an election year. Before you go praising McClellan, you should read what he said about Clarke who said nothing while serving, was out of the loop on major discussions and decisions, then waited two years to sell an election year tell all book.

McClellan pointed to the timing of Clarke's book.

"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/bush.clarke/

I certainly agree with you in that it would be best if they didn't profit from book sales. For the profits to go to charity would be best in a perfect world.

I certainly agree with you in that it would be best if they didn't profit from book sales. For the profits to go to charity would be best in a perfect world.

Completely disagree there. I'm all for profit, likewise I'm all for charity, but in certain cases such as this you question motives, esp. when the author did in a similar situation.

Calling an enthusiastic political organizer when they mistake the form of government is nitpicking? Too your larger point, I agree for the most part, that pure democracy is a bad idea due to the potential for totalitarian rule of the majority. It's one reason I've railed against the 17th Amendment, created by the same folks who brought us prohibition and the income tax. Solid line of work there.

Again, I didn't like McClellan when he was press secretary and I don't like him now. If he took a principled stand, I could appreciate his integrity. He's selling books in an election year. Before you go praising McClellan, you should read what he said about Clarke who said nothing while serving, was out of the loop on major discussions and decisions, then waited two years to sell an election year tell all book.

McClellan pointed to the timing of Clarke's book.

"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/bush.clarke/

The truth of the matter is what's important, not McClellean's motives. He is simply an insider who confirmed what most people already knew. This is remedial instruction for the slower students.

This administration is the conservative's problem child. They will defend their child to the bitter end.

The truth of the matter is what's important, not McClellean's motives. He is simply an insider who confirmed what most people already knew. This is remedial instruction for the slower students.

This administration is the conservative's problem child. They will defend their child to the bitter end.

True, but you have balance what he's written about a subject he was largely left out of against his previous comments, such as the comment on Clarke, and the comment when he resigned, "I have been honored and grateful to be a small part of a terrific and talented team of really good people." Further, you have other sides of the story, who admittedly have their own agenda. His agenda is selling books, the others is defending a legacy. He mentions that Bush ignores opposing views, others have noted that Bush relishes debate. He mentions that the administration was reckless when rushing to war when Bush said that there were risks to action and risks to inaction. If the administration had maintained the reason for war, and continued to defend the case for going to war, rather than playing bait and switch with the Iraqi democracy nonsense we'd have a broader support for the war now. Rather, they let the opposition get away with revisionist history rather than defending the reason for war. Bottom line is that his motives are entirely in play because it calls on his credibility, for the same reason that a prosecution witness' testimony is discounted by the jury when they've cut an extraordinarily favorable deal (#1 on Amazon before it was released would count as an example). Regardless, I'm not going to change your mind. You have a picture of a donkey defecating an elephant and you can't even spell your latest unimpugned source's name correctly.

I hope that there is no long, drawn out partisan spectacle about all of this. After all, America is a democracy, and the majority of the people supported this war in 2003. As a matter of fact, I lived in Shreveport at the time and my office overlooked a park where they practically had a pep rally (complete with steamroller to run over the Dixie Chicks cds people were encouraged to bring). It was frightening to watch the whole Nuremburg rally atmosphere.

Historically, when people argued against democracy and universal suffrage, they invoked the image of a disengaged public being swayed by propaganda.

We can all hope that most Americans have seen the folly of their ways, and that they will think more deeply about issues in the future, and recognize when they are being manipulated by propaganda about patriotism and flag pins. We can hope that the tolerance of buffoons and people who think it's okay to lie to the American people because the end justifies the means and people are too stupid to understand the real reasons for war or suspension of civil rights and privacy is at an end.

To scapegoat administration officials would absolve the American people of their responsibility for what has happened. It would allow all of those who still love W to escape the soul-searching they need to do about their own role in the deaths of 4000 soldiers, the extended and repeated tours that tear apart families, the burden being shouldered by 1% of the population, a major American city rotting on the vine, and an economy in shambles. And if they don't have to see the connection between their blind devotion to a leader and willingness to be swayed by propaganda....well, they'll just do it again someday.

Rapunzel, your arrogance regarding the Conservative populace of the American people is only exceeded by your good looks, and I say that with all sincerity.
To intimate that those of a Conservative pursuasion are manipulated by patriotism and flag pins insults my, and every other Conservative's intelligence and understanding of the events that occurred at a given point in time. I, for instance, don't believe the American people were intentionally lied to by anybody. Should we have invaded Iraq when we did? I don't think so but I do believe the President was acting on the best information he had at the time. Was it good enough? Probably not, but God knows Saddam Hussein had given us plenty of reasons to believe he was going to get a lot worse before he got better. Over 300,000 of his own country men dead points to that fact.
Let's talk a minute about the real reasons for war. "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chamce of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." (John Stuart Mill 1806-1873) So, in my opinion, war has very little to do with isolated or specific instances but rather with a situation as it occurs as a whole. It really doesn't matter why war occurs, it is Hell under any circumstance and I hate it more than most because I participated in it during two tours in Viet Nam. Where, we lost over 58,000 in a lost cause due to the inept attitude and actions of our Executive branch and our Legislative branch of government. If you feel I or any other Conservative is "swayed by propaganda" you are sadly mistaken. We do, however, have a different take than you on what this country needs and the direction it should go and that is definitely our right and perogative.

True, but you have balance what he's written about a subject he was largely left out of against his previous comments, such as the comment on Clarke, and the comment when he resigned, "I have been honored and grateful to be a small part of a terrific and talented team of really good people." Further, you have other sides of the story, who admittedly have their own agenda. His agenda is selling books, the others is defending a legacy. He mentions that Bush ignores opposing views, others have noted that Bush relishes debate. He mentions that the administration was reckless when rushing to war when Bush said that there were risks to action and risks to inaction. If the administration had maintained the reason for war, and continued to defend the case for going to war, rather than playing bait and switch with the Iraqi democracy nonsense we'd have a broader support for the war now. Rather, they let the opposition get away with revisionist history rather than defending the reason for war. Bottom line is that his motives are entirely in play because it calls on his credibility, for the same reason that a prosecution witness' testimony is discounted by the jury when they've cut an extraordinarily favorable deal (#1 on Amazon before it was released would count as an example). Regardless, I'm not going to change your mind. You have a picture of a donkey defecating an elephant and you can't even spell your latest unimpugned source's name correctly.

Uhm, he's not defecating on the elephant. He's teabagging him.

Uhm, he's not defecating on the elephant. He's teabagging him.

OMG, that is sooooooooo bad. Wanna join S/D/C nights with the wench's??

Rapunzel, your arrogance regarding the Conservative populace of the American people is only exceeded by your good looks, and I say that with all sincerity.
To intimate that those of a Conservative pursuasion are manipulated by patriotism and flag pins insults my, and every other Conservative's intelligence and understanding of the events that occurred at a given point in time. I, for instance, don't believe the American people were intentionally lied to by anybody. Should we have invaded Iraq when we did? I don't think so but I do believe the President was acting on the best information he had at the time. Was it good enough? Probably not, but God knows Saddam Hussein had given us plenty of reasons to believe he was going to get a lot worse before he got better. Over 300,000 of his own country men dead points to that fact.
Let's talk a minute about the real reasons for war. "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chamce of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." (John Stuart Mill 1806-1873) So, in my opinion, war has very little to do with isolated or specific instances but rather with a situation as it occurs as a whole. It really doesn't matter why war occurs, it is Hell under any circumstance and I hate it more than most because I participated in it during two tours in Viet Nam. Where, we lost over 58,000 in a lost cause due to the inept attitude and actions of our Executive branch and our Legislative branch of government. If you feel I or any other Conservative is "swayed by propaganda" you are sadly mistaken. We do, however, have a different take than you on what this country needs and the direction it should go and that is definitely our right and perogative.

Andy, I didn't ascribe that behavior to conservatives or liberals. I ascribed that behavior to the American people, and more specifically to the subset of American people who do not choose to inform themselves fully before burning books and crushing cd's.

I think true conservatives and true liberals are normally very informed on issues, and I don't find fault in their behavior by and large. I do think that sometimes they took the administration at its word a little too readily, but liberals do the same with Democratic administrations so I can't fault conservatives alone for that. The great experiment in government our founding fathers designed requires an informed electorate, an independent press, and a healthy questioning of our leaders. The problems this country now faces are due, imho, to the dumbing down of information provided to the public and a rush into a "splendid little war."

Despite what you imply, I do not oppose war per se -- I opposed the Iraq War. I oppose the policy of pre-emptive war. I remember with complete clarity that there were stories in the media, particularly the British media, that contradicted the administration's evidence of WMD. I disagree with your assessment that the intelligence was strong enough to justify the invasion of a sovereign country. While I agree that Saddam Hussein was a brutal man, it should have been left to his own people to depose him so that they could not blame the current state of their country on us. There are lots of brutal dictators around the world, there is genocide occuring, there are places where horrible natural disasters have caused tremendous suffering. And perhaps this is where my own conservative colors show -- but I don't see the need for our government and our taxpayers to unilaterally right the wrongs in this world. I don't think we have the manpower nor the purse for such an undertaking. Further, in taking down the delicate counterbalance to Iran that conservatives under Reagan put in place, we actually did more harm to our security than good.

I support the war in Afghanistan, and think it's a true shame that that war has now gone on longer than WW2. Afghanistan was a justified war, and in a desire to secure our oil resources in the Middle East we left that war half completed, and have yet to secure the areas that breed terrorists. Again, we have a country twisting in the wind with no direction -- the very thing the Marshall Plan recognized bred a disgruntled and resentful generation that undermines our future security.

I do not think you, Andy, are swayed by patriotism and flag pins -- but I have been told many times on this board that the person that supported the act that allowed the government to require banks to report any "unusual" activity in anyone's bank account to the government, and left unusual fairly undefined was more of a patriot that the person who opposed that provision because the person who believes that Americans have the right to live their lives free of government intrusion unless there is just cause for a warrant is less of a patriot because he doesn't wear a flag pin. You never made that argument.

I respect your service, and thank your for that service. I also respect your deeply held beliefs even if I do not agree. I don't think the activists on either side can be swayed by propaganda, and I don't think the informed center can, either. We all know people who are vocal supporters of one side or the other but can't articulate their stand on policy. I am fiscally conservative, and socially I think I'm small government conservative as well -- I don't believe it is the government's place to legislate individual behavior in a free country. I believe in pay as you go government. I believe in personal, universal sacrifice in times of war -- not war fought on credit by tiny subset of the people. I believe that it is patriotic to question authority -- but always with respect in the beginning. I believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I think the duties of the fourth estate are as sacred as those of elected officials. Those are not only conservative values, and they are not totally liberal values...they are American values.

Oh, and I supported Bobby Jindal in my last activist work, so I think I can claim a centrist viewpoint.

Arrogant, huh?

Who knew a post opposing trying Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al would draw so many knives from the conservative wing of the board. :roll: