Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
world

McClellan: Bush should have fired Rove over CIA leak

46 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments
Login to comment

yes McClellen cud be considered a traitor to Bush, and Bush is a traitor tot he american people, I can see why McClellen is pissed off for being used, but really anyone who takes that job of speaking to the press has to know that sometime after day 1they are going to lie to the press for the administration.

As others have said lets wait for the others who will be trying to wash the s#$t off themselves as this titanic disaster of an adminstration comes to an end. Thank god the founding fathers of the US put in that 2term limit can you imagine the damage if the dummies of america cud put this shrub in for 4 more years!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem is, Rove didn't instigate the leak. Robert Novakl claims he leaked the story, and others say it was Richard Armitage. McClellan is merely out for his 15 minutes....

Enjoy the dinero, Scotty-boy!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream:

The point is, george bush and dick cheney are the real terrorists of this country. they have lied, fabricated and deceived the American People. they used their position to advance their personal agenda.

Well if those are your qualifications, then name a country's leader that isn't a terrorist. And just what did Bush and Cheney say that was different from what Clinton, Kennedy, et al, said?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ditto that, Taka313. Liked your 3rd June post, usaexpat. As someone who abhors what W/Cheney/Rummy/neocons have wrought, I came the closest to having sympathy for the administration when listening to McClellan's interview with BillO: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/03/oreilly-goes-ballistic-on-scott-mcclellan/

McClellan: Let's look at the record. There's the question of how the intelligence was used to make the case for preemptive invasion. It was packaged to make the case seem more grave than it was.

The nuke threat: high-confidence and medium/low- intelligence was cherry-picked and stove-piped. With the nuke intelligence there was not high confidence.

Colin Powell's UN presentation re anthrax did not justify saying that Iraq constituted a grave and gathering threat to the US.

Do you think we were about to be attacked by Iraq? It may have been a justifiable mistake to invade, and can be so argued on other grounds, but do you think it was a mistake? It was not necessary.

The central theme of McClellan's book is that the permanent campaign culture of Washington DC must change. That culture was a main cause of the Iraq war.

There were many dissenters within the CIA and State, Dept. (not to mention poeple like Gen. Shinseki, who was forced out for advising the necessary minimum number of troops to carry out the postwar reconstruction of Iraq), who said "We don't believe this allows us to make a judgment" whether or not Saddam's reconstituting his nuke program (these people were shut out of the process and eased out of their jobs). The false question of whether or not Saddam had nukes put it over the top to sell the war, make the case.

The mainstream media did not do its job (ie, journalism).

Good people got caught up in the campaign culture of DC. The specific purpose of the White House Iraq Group was to sell the war--it was a marketing arm of the White House.

W had an overriding motivation to transform the ME (convinced that he was a Christian God's warrior agent, on Earth for that purpose--a fervent hope to which he clings). That, too, became part of the propaganda when it was packaged and distributed through the media (ie, pics of a "haloed" W in a church, along with the "cowboy" images), overstated, repeatedly hammered into people's brains through mainstream media.

On Valerie Plame: Rove denied "telling anyone about her," a distinction without a difference, as he did SAY her name to Matt Cooper and others in a context that revealed her secret status as a CIA agent. He revealed her identity.

W said in SOTU address that Saddam sent emissaries to Niger to acquire yellowcake uranium ("the British gov't has learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium...") but the CIA didn't stand by that because it was based on forged documents (reiterated publicly by Joe Wilson) had no evidence that he had actually acquired any. (Saddam even told his own generals that he had nukes when he didn't)

The CIA told the White House three months before SOTU not to use that claim in any of W's speeches. Yet it was used in the SOTU address to sell the war to enough Americans to give W the political clout to launch it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee, I like to look at it like this: Bob Dole is right. mcclellan is a "miserable creature."

Hey, lay of McClellan, Taka! All he wantses is his precious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee, I like to look at it like this: Bob Dole is right. mcclellan is a "miserable creature." He wouldn't have worked for the bush white house if he wasn't. mcclellan's attempt to cash in on his dishonesty is just a neo-con being a neo-con. ALL of their ilk are miserable creatures who would do anything this side of enlisting in the military for financial gain. What's funny is that there is ZERO self-reflection on the behalf of the right. Outrage, denial and blame a plenty. Self-reflection: 0.

I must admit, it is a lot more fun seeing scottie being outed by his own however. Watching neo-cons eat their own, for me, is kind of like watching MMA. I know that no real good will come from it but it definitely has a twisted appeal. Bon appetite!

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He anticipated the fierce reaction he has received from critics, including former Sen Bob Dole, who called McClellan a “miserable creature” motivated by greed.

Oh, so it's all right for him to make a fast buck hawking Viagra but McClellan is motivated by "greed." Hypocrite!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush should have fired Richard Armitage over the CIA leak - because he is the culprit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The point is, george bush and dick cheney are the real terrorists of this country. they have lied, fabricated and deceived the American People. they used their position to advance their personal agenda. And someone in the Whitehouse was willing to tell us the truth.

I don't see any debate about the truth, I see more debate that the republicans are more upset that their great leader was outed as the liar and cheater towards this country then they want to admit.

Explain Badsey. Patriot Act? Is it a Patriot Act crime to tell the truth? Are you telling us that it's illegal to push the truth to the surface? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe this book constitutes a felony under the Patriot Act. McClellan should be locked up in G-Mo with the other terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's the point of this article and the responses?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most definitely should have, but honestly Bush needed Rove's support so they threw Libby under the bus instead. I will say it again my whole problem with this adminsitration is that they have weakened America. I am all for a war if it has benefits to the wealth or security of America. Iraq never passed the smell test in my book. The neo-cons believed their own rhetoric and thought they could create a stable democracy in Iraq and that it would spread. This was never about WMD or anything else that was used to sell the war to the public. The problem that Bush had was Ameircans would't have supported a war for his little democracy experiment alone so other things were made up to get the public to go along.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That Pillsbury Doughboy McClellan is a traitor!

He's not the one who started the lies. He only repeated the lies that dick cheney and doug feith created. george bush reinforced the lies and Scott McClellan just repeated what he was told. He's not the traitor, george bush, dick cheney, condi rice and doug feith are the liars. Scott repeated what he was told.

It's just horrible that george bush is so much a liar and a traitor against the American people. george bush and his band of cohorts created the lies and Scott McClellan just repeated the very lies. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why in the world would the people who dis-like Bush, and those who have continually disapproved of his disasterous tenure actually miss him when he's gone?

It's called "projection." Some people have such a need for those they hate that it's like a security blanket for them. And they assume that normal people feel just like they do. Bush has been an abject failure as a leader and I won't miss him one bit when he's gone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

super - why in the world would the people who dis-like Bush, and those who have continually disapproved of his disasterous tenure actually miss him when he's gone?

I've heard of backwards logic, and in all fairness I've seen a lot of it from those that still support Bush Co - especially towards the fight against terrorism, but still.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"You'll get used to it after a while"

How long is a while? Heh, he's been with us since 2002.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why?

Are you suggesting corporate sponsorship in US presidency's shouldn't be mentioned?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"She too was called a traitor."

For good reason - she made out she was a consoling friend when she turned out to be doing it all for personal gain.

McCellan's treachery doesn't run as deep - I don't think he joined Bush Co with the notion of betraying them later - it's just politically and more importantly finacially interesting for him to do so now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That Pillsbury Doughboy McClellan is a traitor!" In a way, he is - I mean about being a traitor, but the resemblance is there though...

Kind of reminds me of Linda Trip who exposed Bill Clinton and Monica. She too was called a traitor.

I know what I want to do for the rest of my life now. I want to get into politics, run with a team and then write a book about them. Since so many are so obsessed about American politics, I think I could come up with a few appetizing ideas once I am in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bush.is.not.eligible.for.a.third.term"

When.have.I.said.he.is?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I guess that's a fair indication of how you and other members of the Bush sect will deal with his demise, again."

Again, you prove my point, madverts. You are really going to miss Dubya. I have tried to tell you this before:

Bush.is.not.eligible.for.a.third.term

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then again, most radicals already have their game-plan for Denial.

There will be a democrat in the oval office in January 2009.

They'll be able to heap the blame for Bush's disaterous tenure on them, as they attempt to pick up the pieces.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan - "I'd like to see you comment on the article at hand"

Yeah, OK, I admit I should have done that instead of comment on your post, which runs the risk of being yanked for being "off topic."

That Pillsbury Doughboy McClellan is a traitor!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Supwe delegate - "who are going to miss Bush more than the Americans here who vote mostly Republican."

Reality says record numbers are voting Democrat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Roll on the January enema. "

Clearly, it's Brits like you and Canadians like smith who are going to miss Bush more than the Americans here who vote mostly Republican.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: "Smith... Bush could invade Canada and still not be the worst president in history."

Actually, Bush could stick his head further up his a%%e, do nothing, and still be the worst president in history. Anyway, he could attack Canada, sure, but we'd send you back in bags like the war of 1812 (and paint down the White House, which is where it got it's name, by the way).

Anyway, sargie, I'd like to see you comment on the article at hand, instead of imploding over your anger of your failed president. McClellan proves it for a fact, you can only cry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"So McClellan thinks Rove got him booted?"

Who cares - they're all rats anyway. All the shrieking and ankle biting is typical now the failed regime is coming to an end.

Roll on the January enema. Heh, no doubt there are more turn-coats that will scurry from the woodwork ike McCellan as the ship sinks - let's face it, not all of them will be taking their disarerous legacy's back to Crawford TX living out their wicked lives under secret service protection...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So McClellan thinks Rove got him booted?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ichirou I agree with your last paragragh.

From the time that george bush took office the media just fell into lockstep. That's why the Wilson accusations and claims were so startling. It was like nobody talked against george bush. I never even heard from the media before we attacked, where's the proof. Inspectors have been in country over 30 days. WHERER'S THE PROOF.

No one ask. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McClellan's position is that he was lied to by administration officials and was basically parroting their lies to the White House press corps, believing it to be the truth. As such, he doesn't consider himself being behind any of the lies, but being more of a dupe than anything else.

I think, more than the predictable Republican reaction to the book, what's interesting has been the media's reaction to McClellan's accusations that reporters failed to do their job. You've got some people like Wolf Blitzer and Mike Allen trying to shrug it off and act like they did nothing wrong, while others like Howard Kurtz are acccepting culpability.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, I can't believe Rove and Bush did that. Obviously Rove should have been fired immediately.

Wow, I can't believe Rove and Bush did that. Obviously Rove should have been fired immediately.

Wow, I can't believe Rove and Bush did that. Obviously Rove should have been fired immediately.

Wow, I can't believe Rove and Bush did that. Obviously Rove should have been fired immediately.

Sorry, I think I didn't post the above in a previous identical thread so one of them is to take care of my balance. The second one is for this thread. JT, can you kindly keep the last two on file and post them for me the next time you decide to drag this horse from the grave and beat it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All jokes aside and I am asking a legitimate question: In fact, Rove and Libby did help leak Plame’s identity, as confirmed in a later criminal investigation."

Sorry, am I missing something? If he didn't do it, why the fuss?

If he was behind all these lies, as he states, and calls for legal action, isn't he implicating himself?

He would donate some profits from the book to families of those killed in the Iraq war." Sorry, but I don't think he should be in a position to make cash off of this. If, as he states, he was behind much of the so-called lies, why should he be allowed to make cash off his book? Kind of like a killer who writes about their victims, they shouldn't get paid for it.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reading that is like hearing that McCain ("McSame") is actually different than Bush.

They're not exactly the Bobsey twins. I mean the 26-second shot of them during the furtive Phoenix fundraiser looks like it was culled from a surveillance video. And it wasn't made available to the networks until after prime time.

Much to the consernation of McCain campaign operatives, GWB no doubt is relishing the prospect of addressing the conventioneers. Maybe even regaling them with another befuddled "now where are those weapons of mass destruction, must be here somewhere!" run through since it brought down the house last time. But then again, that was a few years ago and a different venue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

super delegate, you've run that wrong-headed argument many times before and failed every time - no one buys it but it's still good for a laugh :-)

BTW, I know my taxes paid here fund the U.S. government's activities in Iraq, which is something I am real slacked about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Garsh, betzee.

Reading that is like hearing that McCain ("McSame") is actually different than Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

super delegate - "As Bush's presidency nears its end the ankle-biters, in the terminal phase of their collective BDS, are chasing and biting their own tails."

Whereas yourself, who belived it all and more, now try to get yourself off the blame hook by - not surprisingly at all - trying to get us to look in the other direction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

< y a w n >

Is that how you would characterize John McCain's approach to the incumbent? I mean, from the same source linked above, "[w]hen the McCain campaign abruptly moved last Tuesday’s fund-raiser with President Bush from the Phoenix Convention Center to a private home, it was the next best thing to sending the loathed lame duck into the witness protection program."

And that was before the McClellan book revelations became news. GWB will want a prime time speaking slot at the RNC in Minneapolis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

< y a w n >

Back to the lame Plame name game?

Used to rack up two to three hundred posts on the old JT.

As Bush's presidency nears its end the ankle-biters, in the terminal phase of their collective BDS, are chasing and biting their own tails.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, you believed Bush.

The incredible thing is you still do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know about worst in history, but he's certainly completely incompetent. I don't think anyone could rationally argue that he's been a GOOD president by any measure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith... Bush could invade Canada and still not be the worst president in history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah... and as Bush goes down in print as the worst president in history, the republicans run for cover saying, "b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but you can't believe this guy!"

Funnier and funnier.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's interesting how the Republican talking points on the whole Scott McClellan debacle boil down to "He sounds like a Democrat" or "He sounds like a left-wing blogger," and neither deny the substance or the content of his remarks. Lest we forget, this is not the first time a member of the Bush administration has left after being burned (Colin Powell is the most prominent example, though he's sort of tried to stay above the partisan fray).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is there any democrat polemical talking point that he has not picked up yet? This is ridiculous.

As the McClellan circus shows, unexpected bombshells will keep intervening — detonating not only on the ground in Iraq but also in Washington, where more Bush alumni with reputations to salvage may yet run for cover about what went down in 2002-3.

As F. Scott Fitzgerald would have it, we will be borne back ceaselessly into the past. Or so we will be as long as Americans continue to die in Iraq and as long as politicians like Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton refuse to accept responsibility for their roles, major and minor, in abetting this national tragedy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01richedit.html?hp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pleeeease...

This wasn't the first time that george bush didn't keep his word.

Remember, if there are no WMD I won't attack. (There must be 100 lies all tied with-in this one.)

Scott McClellan isn't the first person who felt that george bush failed to keep his word. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is there any democrat polemical talking point that he has not picked up yet? This is ridiculous.

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