world

Former spokesman bashes Bush in new book

47 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

47 Comments
Login to comment

No news here. Any objective person with half a brain who has followed the Bush presidency came to the same conclusions long ago. They would have also concluded that McClellen was a sacrificial lamb that Bush, Cheney, and Rove sent out daily to try to sell a bunch of half truths.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The Iraq war was not necessary"

Yeah, and neither was the Afghanistan war, or any of the war on terror I guess.

"former Bush aides joined current White House aides in expressing disbelief and disappointment at McClellan's account"

So, basically everyone else is still onboard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just love it when insiders come out and kick this administration square between the teeth.

Scott McClellan, like others who have left the Whitehouse, tell of an administration that was looking for a way to attack Iraq from the beginning.

This isn't some sappy clerk down on the 3rd floor, but Scott McClellan, one-time spokesman for Bush White House.

I love it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another bush guy trying to buy his soul back with the money from a book. Not counting scottie, there's also: Richard Clarke Colin Powell George Tenet Paul O'Neill James Comey and David Iglesias who have decided to that a quick buck is better than being loyal to bush. Yep, lots of honor in this crowd.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This isn't some sappy clerk down on the 3rd floor, but Scott McClellan, one-time spokesman for Bush White House.

I think as of last week he was the guy you'd never believe in a million years. Funny how things change. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka, you sell your soul, you gotta pay the piper. One book isn't gonna be enough, I'm afraid.

I always wonder if these guys ever think about the damage they do to the institution they represent, or are they so caught up in their own little empire that they forget they are suppose to be representing the people who voted for them, not trying to deceive them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Colin Powell taught us that men of honesty and integrity can be untrustworthy when faithfully acquitting their duties in the service of the untrustworthy. If you want to prevaricate, send an honest man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"McClellan issues this disclaimer about Bush: “I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people.

Pretty disappointing to read that. The publisher of Mr McClellan's book is directly funded by a George Soros trust fund, Perseus-Soros Management LLC. Billion$ in the old war chest and an army of lawyers from the Clinton and Carter administrations. What do they fear?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, to recap:

The leftists once called McClellan a lying mouthpiece. Now, all of the sudden, the leftists say he can't tell a lie and is a saviour. (rolleyes)

The guy's trying to make a buck by selling a book during an election year. Keep in mind he wrote the book last year, but it was given it back to him by his editor to spice it up a bit.

In 2004, no less than three President Bush-bashing books and a Michael Moore-on movie came out before the election and he was re-elected. So much for the awesome power of Mr. Bush-hate machine.

For eight years, every new book attacking George Bush has been greedily welcomed by liberals, who consume themselves with new flames of hatred, stoked by the possibliity it would finally make a difference -- which it never did -- because long ago the U.S. public reached a suturation point with all the President Bush hate it can tolereate.

Unfortunately for liberal windbags, Mr. Bush isn't even running for re-election. Which makes this new hate book something of a post-BDS effort.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can't blame a guy for making a buck. If I knew I could make a million liberal dollars, I would! I don't think I would make any cash off of conservatives though, they have a tendency to hold their cash.

Sushi, what's the price? Did you get a hard cover or soft?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Honor is an non-existant attribute of the Bush Co inner circle.

And as the first poster rightly said, everybody knew what the bastards where up to years ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Back at'cha ramen, Now the right can once again choose their poison: either one of their own is a lying opportunistic hack who has no honor or one of their own is telling the truth, making their dear leader a criminal.

Spin for my entertainment neo-cons! Spin, I say!

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And as the first poster rightly said, everybody knew what the bastards where up to years ago" Yeah, but why believe him now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now, there is a new problem here. According to Dr. Rice, one of the smartest and most respected of women world wide counters McClellen's book:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4952726

As much as I don't like GWB, I do have a lot of respect for Dr. Rice. I would take her words over this guy. Hey, he was out of work, needs cash, and what is the best way to break a million? Write a book about Bush..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Yeah, but why believe him now?"

I don't need a turn-coat like McCellan to see the truth about Bush Co.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh - I don't think Rice has an ounce of credibility, especially in light of her boss, though I'm not doubting her intelligence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Quotes from Rice that show she is no better than her bosses -

Those who were skeptical should have spoken up at the time

Millions around the world did.

why in the world were you allowing the Iraqi people to suffer under the terms of oil-for-food.

Condi seems to have forgotten that it was the US and UK that refused to remove the sanctions.

Smart, maybe. Respected? No.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Smart, maybe. Respected? No."

Exactly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In fact Cleo, "Those who were skeptical should have spoken up at the time" is probably meaning the people in the Bush Co administration....

...this means we have an extemeley gifted woman who expects people to throw their jobs out of the window by critisizing their boss, and at a time let's not forget, that any dissent in the US was shrieked down a "un-patriotic".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow. Tony Blair looks like an even bigger, sillier, perfumed poodle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...'someone with a penchant for self-deception if it “suits his needs at the moment,” “an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader” who has a lack of interest in delving deeply into policy options, a man with a lack of self-confidence that makes him unable to acknowledge when he’s been wrong.'

smacks dead on of the entire group of the few remaining bush supporters: they just can't accept facts, and insist on fooling even themselves when it suits them (or rather, when the truth DOESN'T, which is most of the time).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think Dr. Rice deserves the disrespect many of you are giving her.

However, I will agree with Madverts that there cases "that any dissent in the US was shrieked down a "un-patriotic"." I do recall some country band getting a lot of flak.

Like so many of you have faith in Hillary, Obama, Bush, etc.. I have always had a high regard for Dr. Rice. Like so many though, she is in the wrong company. You have to admit, she is a whole lot better than her predecessors including Albright.

Anyway, excerpts from the book are coming out and what I found interesting was this: "Scott McLellan who accuses President Bush of being "evasive" and "shading the truth" about the war in Iraq, his rumored cocaine use and other controversial issues." Can you really believe Bush snorted coke? I can't. Drinking yes, but he is no way cool enough for coke. I won't believe that. Coke is for smart people!

Also, "McCLellan, who defended the war during his three years as the White House spokesman." Hey, he could have quit which leads me to believe that while we can disagree with the war, he himself did not but is now trying to make a buck off of it. In fact, I will go as far as saying that McClellen is a disgruntled employee.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pro or anti Bush sentiment is all theater to me but…

"The leftists once called McClellan a lying mouthpiece. Now, all of the sudden, the leftists say he can't tell a lie and is a saviour. (rolleyes)"

Where’s the inconsistency? By McClellan’s own account he was a lying mouthpiece. If an athlete lies about using steroids and then after the career is over admits to using steroids in a tell-all book, does that mean he/she can’t be telling the truth?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well I'm not sure the "I was lying then but I'm not lying now" position really breeds credibility...heh.

I'm sure there's some truth to what McClellan says. But that's mostly due to my opinion about Bush, not McClellan. I just get a kick out of hassling the radicals. :) This guy is about to change sides and the radicals are going to completely change thier position on him. It's a war, don't ya know?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK, let's hold the Bush Administration to the same high standards they for which they impeached Clinton. Lewinsky "did" Bill, and Bush "did" America, Iraq & Afghanistan, to name a few countries. So, who deserves impeachment more? Bill or Bush for his "4,000+" dead, many more permanently wounded and the disgrace and disrepute into whose quagmire America has been dragged on his watch? Scott boy, I doubt you've told us even the half of it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Over at the Mainichi Web site the question was asked: Why did it take two years after he left to spew forth his rightous indignations?

Negative "tell all" books always sell best. Wonder what the dollar amount was that made McClellan "see the light".

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, who deserves impeachment more? Bill or Bush

You obviously haven't heard, democrat Nancy Pelosi took impeachment of Mr. Bush off the table.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This guy is about to change sides and the radicals are going to completely change thier position on him.

Heh, perhaps obama has found his runningmate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

W/ingnut:

someone with a penchant for self-deception if it “suits his needs at the moment,” who has a lack of interest in delving deeply into policy options, a man with a lack of self-confidence that makes him unable to acknowledge when he’s been wrong.

But can they bloviate! for eight seven years, cheering W as he's bankrupted the US six ways from Sunday, all the louder every time a former insider reveals the administration's malevolent incompetence; after the neocon mea culpa; after the pro-war, former generals on TV turn out to be shills for weapons makers...

W's own Press Secretary criticizes the American media for being "too deferential" to the Government. He lays the blame for Bush's ability to propagandize the nation on the media's uncritical dissemination of the Republican administration's falsehoods...if even Scott McClellan recognizes the mythical nature of the "liberal media" cliche and sees political journalists as meek little handmaidens for government propaganda, how much longer can this myth be maintained? http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/28/mcclellan/index.html

The Chronicles of W/ingnut: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku8JRW3cz1E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxWtsbapkio&feature=related

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, what kind of posts does a traitor in the Bush Co camp bring out?

"Bill Clinton" and "Tony Blair".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not sure whether Scott McClellan's book is true or has it's falsehoods, but it's funny that this tell-all, like others, has cast an additional air of lieing out of the Whitehouse.

So let's see here. The right is going ballistic about this book. I love it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the NYT's got it right:

There are several kinds of Washington memoirs: “I Reveal the Honest Truth,” a kiss-up-and-tell designed to settle scores (nod to honesty optional). “I Was There at the Start,” designed to make the author appear to be the linchpin of history. And, most tedious: “I Knew It Was a Terrible Mistake, but I Didn’t Mention It Until I Got a Book Contract.”

This book, based on the parts which have been released, contains very few revelations for me. I'll wait for the Senate report, which will be issued next month, comparing Bush administration statements about Saddam's capability to make war against the information that had accss to in making those statements.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenil, what "radicals". Most ordinary people understood back in late 2001 that Bush & Co. wanted war in the worst way (and they got it). It was plainly obvious that when traditional American allies who supported Bush going into Afghanistan balked at going into Iraq that there were serious credibility problems with the Bush push to war in Iraq. There is no mystery to McClellan's book and the so-called reaction from the WH is merely mock shock as a way to cover what they think no one can see.

It isn't even all that interesting theatre, perhaps as farce, but mostly sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It isn't even all that interesting theatre, perhaps as farce, but mostly sad."

True, but those still loyal to the sect just keep on shrieking, whatever Reality is slapped in their faces.

Finding a bush supporter in a few years will be like finding a Nazi supporter in post-war Germany.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"those still loyal to the sect just keep on shrieking"

Heh, the shriekers are the Bush haters.

"Finding a ( Bush ) supporter in a few years will be like finding a Nazi supporter in post-war Germany"

Heh, Bush hands over power to the next president in a little over 8 months.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But keep on whining uh, sarge. It must really grind your gears to have supported Bush Co all these years to now find yourself in a tiny minority of fidels that still think there's a milligram of scruples at the helm of the bush sect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well I have no reason to question the truth of McClellan's accounts. I think he is coming out with what most people already realise. The fact that he has been generous enough to say that Bush didn't set out to lie to the public and that the war was the result of a greater plan poorly made lends credibility that he is not just bashing his former boss. My wife had read this tory elsewhere on the net and we both joked that he must have been told he was dying and wanted to save his soul for all the lies he told. Anyway, the only "shocking" thing about this book is that one of Bush's circle has finally decided to break ranks and tell the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anyone with an IQ over 50, that is higher than bush in other words, knew the whole invasion was a sham. the liberals on this this board made that clear before the invasion. The same deadenders who brayed about the WMD of that didnt exist now bray about facing reality once again as outlined by the former insdier mcclellan. Truth is a about as natural for them aa a polar bear in the mojave.

Its all was simply propaganda to cover for getting the oil and jacking up the prices as we see them today. Thata all. Story over. Wingers jacked yet once again by their dear leaders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium

Its all was simply propaganda to cover for getting the oil and jacking up the prices as we see them today.

It was to grab the oil before Saddam sold it on the europeon market. Saddam threaten top sell it for euros instead of USD. This is the same threat that Iran has made and the US threatens war over WMD just like Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts ( 11:20 PM ) - "tiny minority of fidels"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McClellan would make Judas proud!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmmmm, what did he say about Richard Clarke a few years ago? Heh, can you say hypocrite?

"McClellan also took issue with the book by former Bush White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," on 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. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. 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."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/index.html

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Shoot messenger! Ignore history!

6/97: PNAC drafts a statement of principles to make the case that the US should use its position as the world's only superpower to shape the events of the 21st century...that the use of military power and bold global leadership will be essential elements of any plan to bring peace and security to the world....The 25 original signatories of the statement included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and former Minnesota Rep. Vin Weber...as the group became more active in their pronouncements, their motives became highly questionable..." http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2003/10/iraqiinvasion.html 7/11: FBI agent Kenneth Williams sends memo to bureau brass in Washington and New York warning that a cadre of Osama bin Laden disciples might be training at U.S. flight schools in preparation for future "terror activity against civil aviation targets." Williams suggested a nationwide FBI review to determine whether such a "coordinated effort" could be seen in other localities. The Williams memo was roundly ignored, of course, until after the World Trade Center was leveled. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/04/nobody_told_us.html 9/11: How it was possible for four commercial airplanes to pierce the most formidable air defenses in history?...The commander of NORAD says those planes could have been stopped had there been order within the chain of command. ...W was in a grade school reading a children's book as the second plane struck the Towers...it was Cheney who gave the shoot-down order, way too late. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/18/politics/18PANE.html

The administration switched its focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein five months after 9/11.

The road to war took place over three phases: Sept. 12, 2001, to December 2001; January 2002, from Bush’s State of the Union address, to April 2002; and Sept. 12, 2002, to Oct. 11, 2002, the period from Bush’s address to the United Nations to Congress’s approval of the resolution to use force in Iraq.

The five main rationales: war on terror, prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, lack of weapons inspections, removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Saddam Hussein is evil.

Other rationales: Sen. Joe Lieberman’s “because Saddam Hussein hates us,” Colin Powell’s “because it’s a violation of international law,” and Richard Perle’s “because we can make Iraq an example and gain favor within the Middle East.” http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/05/study_says_bush.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Suddenly, McLellan is god. For the same people who thought he lies through his teeth. Amazing how things can change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Suddenly, McLellan is god. For the same people who thought he lies through his teeth. Amazing how things can change."

I haven't rea anyone saying that. For those that knew what Bush Co were about from the start, it's simply another confirmation....it's not simply shock and damning allegations coming soley from a former regime member.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

there is no real news here, the smart people knew all this about bush and his phony invasion and the so called liberal press, doesnt exist, that gave bush cover to commit warcrimes of the worst sort.

Its just that one of the bush co-conspirators is coming clean and telling the truth about the corrupt and totally incompetent bush administration. Heck of job Scotty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its a shame that most Americans still dont understand that this is all a game. Bush Jr., Sr, Cheney, and the rest of them are all pawns...people actually think these men are decision makers. They are rich executive puppet-slaves for the new world order. Their orders come from the Rockefellers, Bilderberg group, CFR and the like. Whats the golden rule?? "Whoever has the gold makes the rules"..or in this case, whoever owns the federal reserve... In terms of the trumped up reasons for war, everyone knows it was about the oil. 911 being blamed on terrorists(as a basis for war) is the equivalent of the Reichstag fires being blamed on communists in Germany....Oil in Iraq, heroin in Afganastan, cocaine in South America..hell, Al Queda is just another CIA front in my opinion. America is all about money and control. And it doesnt matter who or how many are killed for that to be gained. After the plan is devised to get what they want, then they create some deceptive propaganda, put a patriotic spin on it that shows the "good Americans" defending the helpless, and "ridding the world of evil"(when in fact the opposite is true), and feed it to the people who watch the news and digest the mis-information into their consciousnesses..Never fully understanding that it is pure entertainment...public policy fodder! **The rules dont apply to those who serve the rulers**. One lie has to be covered with another, and another, and so on...To paraphrase Hitler.."The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it". Bush Sr. gave a speech about the new world order and what it would mean to the country on Sept. 11, 1991..exactly 10 years to the day of that horrible tragedy. Maybe it was just a chronilogical coincidence..maybe George Orwell wasnt so far off the mark afterall...McLellan`s story is just another piece of evidence, of a much deeper truth. ****The facts defend themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites