Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush �veered terribly off course,� was not �open and forthright on Iraq,� and took a �permanent campaign approach� to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

McClellan charges that Bush relied on �propaganda� to sell the war.

He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

McClellan asserts that the aides � Karl Rove, the president�s senior adviser, and I. Lewis �Scooter� Libby, the vice president�s chief of staff � �had at best misled� him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame�s identity.

The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them � and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.
--------------------------------------------------
Of Course, Olbermann had something to say about this, enjoy...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/29607/1/Countdown-McClellan-Book.wmv/
-------------------------------------------------
I personally love it when the bad guys own people turn on them, it takes away the Numbskull Neocon tactic of screaming "LIBERALS" whenever they see the facts and don't like them.

Money Money Money Mooooney.... Money

Oh yes, don't believe one thing a conservative or the Bush Administration (acting like they are conservatives) tells you, but immediately, without question believe anything someone else says about them, especially when they are former Press Secretary, never said a THING while in service, and are trying to sell a book.

You could easily flip that the other way, some never disagree with anything that Bush Loyalists say until they finally turn on him, then it's all about money and none of it truth.

I never said that I do or don't believe the man, as a matter of fact, he spent how long telling fibs on behalf of Bush?

Like the "secret" meeting of Rove and Libby? He said, She said, in my book.

Propaganda to sell the war, not hard to prove, the entire lead up to Iraq was full of fallacies, rhetoric and the false notion of it's us or its them. That covers the comment about Bush not being open and forthright about Iraq. The Downing street memos prove that.

Veered off course? No problem proving that, While Bush Co. is having a great deal of fun playing with their erector sets, Nation Building in Iraq and Afghanistan, Where's Bin Laden? Just that alone covers that one.

I have to say, I also find BoyGeorges governing style leaves something to be desired.

Why would Scott McClellan say something negative about the President while he was working for him?

So we are not to believe anything the man wrote just because he wants to sell a book?

If anything, we should not believe anything this administration says because they have lied to us all along!

I suspect the neo-cons wont read a word of this either war!


They have (SRI),selective reading impairment!!

What does it say about a man who thinks Bush and all the guys are evil bastards to then go out and be a mouthpiece for those evil bastards for years? He raised no objections to any of the Bush team during his tenure, had no problems. And, after he EVEN LEFT the job for months he did a Press thing to talk about his duties and praised the administration. This book coming out is the first time anyone seemed to hear him say a single negative thing. It's really odd.

Plus, his facts and points are all screwy. He blames Rove for Plame when it was Richard Armitage who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak.

And, he goes on about Katrina as well, saying how dare Bush not land in a disaster area the day afterwards. Rove stated the ridiculous nature of such an idea. The place was no tornado zone, this place was flooded out, destroyed completely, and tens of thousands were involved and STILL trapped by the waters being rescued by helicopters and such. Had the President and his team landed there would have been all those national reserve and other assets pulled from rescue operations to provide security. They chose on that account that to land and divert assets would be a very poor decision, as Representative Jefferson did do, DURING the storm, using national reserve and coast guard to get papers out of his place that dealt with his pending case dealing with bribery and such.


"Why would Scott McClellan say something negative about the President while he was working for him?"

Because it would have been the right thing to do? If this man had such a moral outrage and felt so much was wrong, how could one be a mouthpiece for 'propaganda' as he called it? That says horrible things about ones character to dislike something yet do it because you are a wuss, save it for later to get huge publicity and sell massive amounts of books to enrich yourself.

"Because it would have been the right thing to do? If this man had such a moral outrage and felt so much was wrong, how could one be a mouthpiece for 'propaganda' as he called it? That says horrible things about ones character to dislike something yet do it because you are a wuss, save it for later to get huge publicity and sell massive amounts of books to enrich yourself."

You'll find no arguement from me there. I thought similar things about Colin Powell when he started talking about how Cheney and Bush mislead him too.

I wonder how much of this is just Scott McClellan trying to cover his own butt in the event of criminal prosecutions and impeachment preceedings?
If he has evidence of Rove and Libby colluding about Valerie Plame, then he should face a subpeona to testify to Congress.

Timing is everything when it comes to hanging your butt out for misdeeds. Timing is prime right now. Bush is on his way out. Whether prosecution of the war criminals will happen or not the time is coming now for all of them to come out. It will get worse before it gets better. There is alot to tell.

Bush allies lash out at former flack's tell-all
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Published: Wednesday May 28, 2008

President Bush's onetime lapdog has decided to unleash his bark -- and more than a few bites -- in a scathing new tell-all about the deceptive inner workings of the White House.

Casting aside more than a decade of loyalty, former Bush spokesman Scott McClellan has blown the whistle on the propaganda peddling that preceded the invasion of Iraq, the dishonesty top officials used to obscure the CIA leak case and even George W. Bush's own capacity for self-delusion. Still-loyal members of Bush's inner circle are none too happy with McClellan's new book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, and they are doing everything they can to try to save face.

"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad -- this is not the Scott we knew," current White House mouthpiece Dana Perino said Wednesday.

"The book, as reported by the press, has been described to the president," she said. "I do not expect a comment from him on it -- he has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers."

Politico reporter Mike Allen, who first reported details from the book Tuesday night, says none of McClellan's revelations or observations are particularly novel, but the fact that they're coming from someone who was so close to the president gives them particular weight.

"He's put on a historian's hat; he's not an administration flack anymore. And that's why there's such great unhappiness with him," Allen said on CNN's American Morning Wednesday. "People say he's given up the only good quality he had, in their view, which is loyalty."

The book came as a surprise to many in Washington who thought McClellan's book would be much tamer, despite a blurb last year that revealed he passed along untrue information about the leak of Valerie Plame's identity.

Fishbowl DC, a blog covering the Washington press, speculates one reason McClellan might have been so tough:

Our take: We're sure that McClellan means what he says, but lots of Washingtonians think poorly of their successors but bite their tongue and play the role of a good soldier. So why didn't McClellan do this? Simple: Speaking out against the Bush administration in such harsh tones is simply a smart career move by McClellan. He never became a stand-alone brand. He was never adored by the press corps. He was never adored by the Bush White House and Republicans generally (especially not now). He never developed his own schtick like Tony Snow (charming, funny, cancer survivor) or Dana Perino (hot, snippy, cute dog).

So what does this get him? Some John Dean-like street cred and the business opportunities (books, speaking engagements, consulting gigs, etc.) presented to a "reformed Republican" who possesses a rather rare quality nowadays (and one loved by the Left): A willingness to speak out against the Bush administration's march to war.
Whatever his motive, McClellan's book has created the kind of stir that the White House used to rely on McClellan to tamp down. Further revelations are likely once the tell-all hits store shelves come Monday. McClellan's writes that the Bush Administration used propaganda to sell the Iraq war and that Bush Administration officials encouraged him to lie in the Valerie Plame scandal.

Former top Bush advisors Karl Rove and Fran Townsend have disputed McClellan's claims. Rove accused McClellan of sounding like a "left-wing blogger."

Of course when there is no defense use the old tired excuse of left, liberal, socialist, etc....

Oh, I've gotta read this book, its gonna be hilarirous!

Check this update!

Bush 'didn't remember' whether he'd tried cocaine, McClellan writes
In a new tell-all memoir on sale next week, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes that President Bush depended on propaganda to sell the Iraq war to the American public, The Politico reports.

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, McClellan also reveals new details about allegations regarding Bush's former drug use that shadowed his 2000 campaign.

McClellan tracks Bush's penchant for self-deception back to an overheard incident on the campaign trail in 1999 when the then-governor was dogged by reports of possible cocaine use in his younger days.

The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.

"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."

"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious � political convenience."

In the years that followed, McClellan "would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment." McClellan likened it to a witness who resorts to "I do not recall."
McClellan's "surprisingly scathing" and "often harsh" What Happened: Inside the Bush White House... also contains, as Mike Allen writes for Politico, other standout revelations such as:

Bush and his aides "confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war";

Some of McClellan's assertions before the White House press corps were, in retrospect, "badly misguided";

Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby "had at best misled" McClellan about their roles in the notorious CIA leak case, even as McClellan publicly defended them;

The White House was in a "state of denial" during the first week after the Hurricane Katrina disaster;

Bush was "steamed" about his top economic adviser telling The Wall Street Journal that a possible Iraq war could cost as much as $200 billion. "He shouldn't be talking about that," said Bush, according to McClellan;

The press was "probably too deferential to the White House" when it came to public discourse over the choice to go to invade Iraq. McClellan also says the "White House press corps went too easy on the administration," reports Allen.

Despite the book's criticisms of the administration he once worked for, McClellan writes, "I still like and admire President Bush," reserving most of his rancor for Bush's top advisers, especially Karl Rove.

Excerpts from the Politico article, available in full at this link, follow...

#
The book begins with McClellan's statement to the press that he had talked with Rove and Libby and that they had assured him they "were not involved in ... the leaking of classified information." ...

"[President Bush] too had been deceived, and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth � including Rove, Libby, and possibly Vice President Cheney � allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie."

McClellan also suggests that Libby and Rove secretly colluded to get their stories straight at a time when federal investigators were hot on the Plame case. "There is only one moment during the leak episode that I am reluctant to discuss," he writes. "It was in 2005 during a time when attention was focusing on Rove and Libby, and it sticks vividly in my mind. ... Following [a meeting in Chief of Staff Andy Card's office] ... Scooter Libby was walking to the entryway as he prepared to depart when Karl turned to get his attention. 'You have time to visit?' Karl asked. 'Yeah,' replied Libby.

"I have no idea what they discussed, but it seemed suspicious for these two, whom I had never noticed spending any one-on-one time together, to go behind closed doors and visit privately. ... At least one of them, Rove, it was publicly known at the time, had at best misled me by not sharing relevant information, and credible rumors were spreading that the other, Libby, had done at least as much."

What are you talking about? The whole article is based on their opinion and defense of his accusations and criticism of motives. Included in this defense are observations that it looked like a leftwing blog, but that is not the main theme. Wise up. And, what is it with the smilies all the time? Do you think that adds wisdom or real purpose to your arguments or lack thereof?

What it takes away your MAIN defense to the wrong doing if it can't be called liberal or left? Please. That excuse is so old and tired.

As for smilies, I like smilies and I was laughing my ass off so laughing smilies fit the bill.

You mean, like the smilies and your excuse for them take away your main argument? Or when you call people the most evil on Earth and criminals, who were elected by half the US, and have been convicted of no crimes? Or, using the normal neo-con label, meant as a great negative and so forth? Don't think your are holier than thou. You continue to come off as your some great moral being better than all others on your grand crusade.

You don't know me so you are talking out of your ear.

How do smileys have anything to do with my argument? I laughed that the only defense they had was that he sounded like a left wing blogger, that is funny to me. I can laugh if I want to, I know that irks you but I can do whatever I want.

Yes neocon comes off my lips with a bad taste but only from what they have proven themselves to be.

Warmachine has opened my eyes to the fact that the current neocons are not real conservatives so therefore I have to say that neocons are the reason for the problems in this country.

You don't have to read my posts if they bother you so much but I will not stop, ever.

I have the right to my opinions. I have the right to share them until someone takes that right from me.

Can you make up your mind? Flipping all over the place. You are either lying, or just saying what sounds good to make you look good. The example:

First you said: "Of course when there is no defense use the old tired excuse of left, liberal, socialist, etc"

Then you said: "What it takes away your MAIN defense to the wrong doing if it can't be called liberal or left? Please. That excuse is so old and tired."

Finally, you said: "I laughed that the only defense they had was that he sounded like a left wing blogger, that is funny to me."

So, first you said the only defense they had is that they used labels. I call you out on it, and you decide to back up, saying it took away from the main defense. And, then I call you out, saying you do the same tactics as them and how essential condescending and labelling you are of others. So, you finish up by covering yourself again and revert back to say it was there only defense.

Make up your mind. It really looks like you are saying whatever it takes to make yourself look good rather than taking a position you stand behind.

Dragoness, I'm sure you just forgot about this thread and nothing more.

Okay, to only strengthen the points I made against Mcclellan and this books, check this out:

"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. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made....

Q: Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors.

McCLELLAN: Yes, and that's just flat-out wrong. …When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it's important that we set the record straight. And that's what we're doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today." - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/as-scottie-sowe.html


Insert foot in mouth McClennan.

There's a real easy way to handle this, Fox has this show, called Moment of Truth. Imagine the Ratings coup if they could make friday nights: Government Truth night!

hahaha, dude, you'd see red laser beams all over that dark set.