Scott McClellan's Book

by **Dan Wishengrad** on Thu May 29, 2008 7:38 pm

Like many Americans, I have been reading the stories on former White House Press Secretary McClellan's explosive new book, and while sitting here watching his interview with Olbermann a few questions immediately come to mind:

1) Will Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald now re-open his investigation and seek immediate indictments of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney? We now have testimony from inside the Bush White House that corroborates the allegations that the leaking of Valerie Plame was a coordinated conspiracy at the highest levels of the administration, but only Scooter Libby to date has been tried and convicted.

2) Will McClellan testify to Congress about his charges that the rationale for going to war was purely contrived, and that the campaign to mislead the American people was motivated by Bush's desire to acheive "greatness" by being a "war President"?

3) If McClellan does testify, will Congress then have the guts to start immediate impeachment proceedings against the President and the Vice-President? Lying to the public and taking us into an unneccesary war is certainly a "high crime", and if there ever was rationale to impeach an administration and remove it from office this is certainly it. Doesn't justice for the 4,000 U.S. dead and tens of thousands of wounded demand impeachment of those responsible and now with blood on their hands?

4) What does this all mean for the current Presidential race? Senator McCain has been unswerving in his support for the war and it's continuation. McCain only will criticize the plannning of the war and the lack of planning for what would happen after major combat was concluded. He steadfastly supports the war in Iraq as a necessary one. But now that we know what has long been alleged -- that the war was not only unneccesary but forced upon us in a campaign of propaganda and outright lies -- and we know this from the President's own former spokesperson and long-time confidant. Won't this truth change the debate and shouldn't it be an important factor in the election?

**Sponsor**

by **Zamboni_Driver** on Thu May 29, 2008 8:12 pm

I have only seen limited stuff on this book and its claims. But what I've seen it has all been in the relm of "Scott McClellan believes now he was lied too, feels that there was a conspiracy, now realizes he was misleading the public"...I haven't seen -- and that might just be my limited knowledge -- where he actually was in backroom discussions where plans where made. For those more in the know - is his allegations first hand, or stuff he's pieced together after the fact??

by **laxfan25** on Thu May 29, 2008 8:27 pm

Zamboni_Driver wrote:For those more in the know - is his allegations first hand, or stuff he's pieced together after the fact??

This is all just BS concocted by the liberal media, designed to embarass the President with baseless allegations. Let's hear these same accusations from someone that actually worked in the White House for an extended period.
What's that you say?
Oh, never mind. :oops:

It's obvious that the writer resigned/was fired in disgrace as the White House Press Secretary and now has a vendetta against the administration. He was never in the loop on any of the matters that he writes about, he was just given a script of talking points at the same time they were handed out to the newsmen at Fox News.

I can only imagine the sounds of jaws hitting the floor when word hit the White House about the contents of the book. I'm sure this is just the first in a series of embarassing tell-alls that will eventually be penned.

by **Jana** on Thu May 29, 2008 9:14 pm

McClellen wasn't comfortable being lumped in with the Bush group think "Stay on message", so he wrote the book. But I doubt he was in the Strategery room that decided to leak Valerie Plame. Based on his interviews so far, it sounds like Bush believed his aides, and since they batted away any contradictory evidence (the only yellow cake they found was at Jenna's wedding), Bush believed his aides as well.

As memory serves Stephanopoulis wrote a less than flattering portrait of the Clintons, along with many other staffers. In 8 years, we may see the same from Obama's former aides.

I think it's more interesting how few aides or political figures have children choosing to serve in the wartime military. The twins certainly did not. Nor did Cheney's daughters. Chelsea is not. Both the British Royal grandsons are currently serving. McCain's younger son returned in February from Iraq, I think he is a Marine.

by **StrykerFSU** on Fri May 30, 2008 8:16 am

Come on Wish, you and I both know that this book changes nothing. It hardly qualifies as testimony and I really don't think that the White House's PR rep was privy to the decision making process...and I only hope that he doesn't have the security clearance to be present at discussions of high level intelligence. Get this guy under oath and have him produce some evidence and then we'll see what we see.

Besides, what does a guy named McClellen know about winning a war?

And yes, Sen. McCain's son is a Marine.

by **KnoxVegas** on Fri May 30, 2008 9:00 am

StrykerFSU wrote:Besides, what does a guy named McClellen know about winning a war?.

Union General references are always welcome.

by **norway** on Fri May 30, 2008 9:13 am

I'm sure he knows just as much as someone working for "the department of oceanography" knows about politics.

GOT 'EM!

by **StrykerFSU** on Fri May 30, 2008 9:44 am

norway wrote:I'm sure he knows just as much as someone working for "the department of oceanography" knows about politics.

GOT 'EM!

Touche norway, touche.

I just read up on the politics when I'm done with my Dirk Pitt adventures.

by **OAKS** on Fri May 30, 2008 12:04 pm

I do find it interesting that the administration, rather than argue the points McLellan is bringing up, pulls ad-hominem attacks & talks about his character.

These are the exact same talking points (almost word for word) as were said about George Tenet, Richard Clarke, etc - that they are disgruntled & had no idea what was really going on in the administration.

Also, if you think this is going to change anything, like bring indictments, impeachment, etc, then you've got a rosy view of politics. The Democrats are spineless & looking out for themselves, their constituency, and worried about getting re-elected, and the Neocons are doing business as usual, far out on the left wing making the government bigger than ever & throwing away money and lives like it's going out of style.

by **Dan Wishengrad** on Fri May 30, 2008 12:27 pm

StrykerFSU wrote: It hardly qualifies as testimony and I really don't think that the White House's PR rep was privy to the decision making process...and I only hope that he doesn't have the security clearance to be present at discussions of high level intelligence. Get this guy under oath and have him produce some evidence and then we'll see what we see.

If you are right Cliff, then why should the media even bothering covering future White House press conferences? If the Press Spokesman is really so clueless about what is going on in the Administration then how can he or she speak for it?

by **dgr01002** on Fri May 30, 2008 1:01 pm

I don't give two cares about McClellan or Bush, but, as expected, George Soros and his big money is behind this book. George Soros has so many media-related companies which he is connected to it's ridiculous. He always keeps his name just a few degrees separated from the actual source.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article ... McClellan_

You could have almost called this before someone did the research. Or, what should be known as "journalism".

by **KnoxVegas** on Fri May 30, 2008 1:23 pm

Does the name Rupert Murdoch ring a bell? He owns a little thing called NewsCorp.

by **dgr01002** on Fri May 30, 2008 1:53 pm

KnoxVegas wrote:Does the name Rupert Murdoch ring a bell? He owns a little thing called NewsCorp.

Um, Rupert Murdoch isn't an avowed marxist/socialist.

So...yeah.

by **KnoxVegas** on Fri May 30, 2008 2:23 pm

So what does Marzism/Socialism have to do with this then? Is it because Soros is an avowed follower of the doctrines? Or that you have a problem with his politics?

How is something like this different than the Swift Boat group or any other 527 group?

by **dgr01002** on Fri May 30, 2008 3:08 pm

KnoxVegas wrote:So what does Marzism/Socialism have to do with this then? Is it because Soros is an avowed follower of the doctrines? Or that you have a problem with his politics?

How is something like this different than the Swift Boat group or any other 527 group?

I'm sorry, this was a forum about Scott McClellan's book. Soros funded it. Soros is a marxist/socialist. That's what it has to do with this.

Rupert Murdoch, however, has nothing to do with this. You might as well have irrelevently mentioned GE owns NBC News or Ted Turner founded CNN. Soros, however, this IS his M.O. He's a marxist. Subversion?Propaganda?...is sorta part of the doctrine.

So...yeah. A major problem with marxism and socialism.

As for the Swifties and 527s, um, huh? Did I miss the news that McClellan is running for office? That comment was way outta left field. No pun intended.

You might wanna read up on Soros and 527s before offering it up. He was fined $750,000 in the '04 election for one of his 527s.