McClellan's now a liberal because he's critical of the Bush admin?? His book bascially confirms exactly what liberals have been complaining about for 8 years, meaning they were right, meaning there was substance regardless of spite, assuming you take Scotty at his word.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Regarding McClellan's book, the reason I continue to defend the Bush administration is because liberals continue to raise the same accusations, which I believe to be born more of spite than actual substance.Originally posted by: Tab
Source - LA TimesSpeaking of defending the administration, McClellan had a few words of his own in 2004 for Richard A. Clarke when the former counter-terrorism expert penned his political memoir "Against All Enemies":
MR. 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.
Is this really just another liberal witch hunt? I'm seriously confused how you can continue to support or even defend the Bush Administration or Republican Party.
I am also confused as to what point you are trying to make here. You demonstarte McClellan's hypocracy (now that he is out of office and all-but forgotten) and then by some extention of sorts you charge that this discredits the GWB admin and all Repubs?Originally posted by: Tab
-snip-
Is this really just another liberal witch hunt? I'm seriously confused how you can continue to support or even defend the Bush Administration or Republican Party.
This whole affair is odd for many reasons. I watch a lot of MSNBC (the Obama network) and CNN (the Clinton network) these days; everybody seems to be in agreement on a number of things:Originally posted by: Lemon law
We are somewhat missing the one redeeming aspect of the McClellan book, namely that it was not the President but his adviser's who were the evil ones. And by extension, McClennan somewhat says he was similarly duped.
I for one do not buy it, but I think a strong argument can be made for that case.
I suppose it redeeming in the sense he isn't throwing GWB under the bus, just the rest of the gang. Apparently he was real angry about the Plame affair, particularly with Rove. Otherwise I feel his *story* supports the contention by many that GWB is a puppet and Cheny is really the "Decider"![]()
As for McClellan, for a fairly young man, his life is now effectively over. He will not find any welcome in the GOP camp and its doubtful that the democrats will have him either once they have sucked all of his book PR dry. He may make a small fortune off his book and in speaking engagements, but in a few years those speaking engagements will lose current relevancy, and he is likely to become a mere footnote in history. And in terms of private employment, he is likely to get the radioactive Alberto Gonzales treatment.
Sounds to me like his carrer was already over. Others in the GWB admin (even those who've left well after him) all have lucrative jobs; e.g., Rove at Fox or wherever. Sounds like he's been unemployed since leaving. Look at the other former ex press people - Deedee Myers and a whole slew of others whose names I'm forgetting ATM.
Seems he was not thought highly of, and I've been hearing a lot about his (perceived) lack of ability from the left & right. Basically, another example of GWB not being able to choose highly competent people (cough cough Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Myers etc). Loyalty is necessary, but also competence and GWB has chosen poorly on many occasions. I can only assume that he is incapable of recognizing it himself.
A White House press secretary needs only three job skills:Originally posted by: Fern
* * *
5. Who *wrote* his book? He's said not to be able to converse intelligibly or in full sentances (hanging around with the Bush's too much?). More of the "this doesn't sound like SM" or "puzzlemet" remarks we hear from everyone including people like David Gregory (WH correspondant for MSNBC IIRC).
* * *
Fern
It's being made all over the place.Originally posted by: Thump553
A White House press secretary needs only three job skills:Originally posted by: Fern
* * *
5. Who *wrote* his book? He's said not to be able to converse intelligibly or in full sentances (hanging around with the Bush's too much?). More of the "this doesn't sound like SM" or "puzzlemet" remarks we hear from everyone including people like David Gregory (WH correspondant for MSNBC IIRC).
* * *
Fern
(1) being articulate,
(2) being intellectually nimble, ie, can think on his feet, and
(3) be able to speak persuasively (ie, spread BS like it is gospel truth).
I cannot conceive of any White House, even GWB, hiring a spokesman who is not able to converse intelligently or in full sentences. That is, simply put, a ridiculously preposterous charge.
You're right. I left that out of my post, forgot about it.Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
-snip-
On the other hand, it is a cheap and easy shot for McClellan to jump on the one band wagon - blame the media. It's a great game, and everybody plays it well, even the media.
I think they are more concerned with how complacent they became at WH press conferences post 9/11 and how they didn't put a full court press on the admin's story. I doubt if doing so would have stopped the war, but if someone investigated the funneling of intel and wondered where the contrary reports were going back then, there might have been a little more discussion. But everyone was afraid of being called a terrorist sympathizer, and the "you're with us or against us" rhetoric was already in full swing.Originally posted by: Fern
Oddly enough, I've heard some in MSM confess to their guilt in this :roll: Taking responsibility for not uncovering that there wre no WMD, as if they should've interviewed Sadam to get the bottom of the matter.
Well let's not judge too hastily seeing as how we haven't read the book yet. Here's some quotes from what he released so far, and it's not exactly singing either his or GWB's praises. I'd bet there will be even more critical quotes in the book itself. He clearly admires and likes W and has known him for years, so outright slamming would probably be almost impossible for him to do. I do think the greatest critique will be levied at W's staff (Cheney, Rove, Rummy, Rice). Plus he strikes me as rather weasely cowardly kinda guy.Seems ol Scotty blames everybody but himself & GWB.
Fair enough.Originally posted by: sirjonk
-snip-
Well let's not judge too hastily seeing as how we haven't read the book yet.
Hmm.Originally posted by: Fern
I am also confused as to what point you are trying to make here. You demonstarte McClellan's hypocracy (now that he is out of office and all-but forgotten) and then by some extention of sorts you charge that this discredits the GWB admin and all Repubs?Originally posted by: Tab
-snip-
Is this really just another liberal witch hunt? I'm seriously confused how you can continue to support or even defend the Bush Administration or Republican Party.
I suppose you feel the same about Dems as one of them has been caught hiding bribe money in his freezer at home?
Fern
Why conservaties? Dubbya isn't a conservative. He isn't running a conservative administration. So why address this thread to conservatives?Originally posted by: Tab
Topic Title: Conservatives, I'd like a few moments of your time...
Topic Summary: Concerning Scott McClellan...
Because the people who call themselves conservatives overwhelmingly supported George Bush for president.Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Why conservaties? Dubbya isn't a conservative. He isn't running a conservative administration. So why address this thread to conservatives?Originally posted by: Tab
Topic Title: Conservatives, I'd like a few moments of your time...
Topic Summary: Concerning Scott McClellan...
Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever, up there alongside FDR and Lincoln. And he had the charisma that allowed him to work with a Democratic congress and actually get things done.Originally posted by: Craig234
In other words, you 'conservatives' have shown you are not to be trusted with the vote. You gave us Reagan, too, and you still even think he was good in many cases.
The rest of us are getting a bit sick of watching the right-wing corporatists get elected with their enablers who think they're 'conservatives' who then say "oh we didn't mean THAT".
I wouldn't put FDR up there with Reagan and Lincoln, seeing as he threw over 100,000 Japanese into internment camps. I'm sure Craig will have an excuse for that one though, just give it some time.Originally posted by: brencat
Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever, up there alongside FDR and Lincoln. And he had the charisma that allowed him to work with a Democratic congress and actually get things done.Originally posted by: Craig234
In other words, you 'conservatives' have shown you are not to be trusted with the vote. You gave us Reagan, too, and you still even think he was good in many cases.
The rest of us are getting a bit sick of watching the right-wing corporatists get elected with their enablers who think they're 'conservatives' who then say "oh we didn't mean THAT".
Typically I know exactly who I'm voting for (though I've already admitted to you that Bush has gone off the deep end with spending), but priority #1 for me is taxes and how much money the candidate plans to take out of my wallet. Ergo...Hillary/Obama: bad, McCain: good.
Are you serious?Originally posted by: brencat
Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever, up there alongside FDR and Lincoln. And he had the charisma that allowed him to work with a Democratic congress and actually get things done.Originally posted by: Craig234
In other words, you 'conservatives' have shown you are not to be trusted with the vote. You gave us Reagan, too, and you still even think he was good in many cases.
The rest of us are getting a bit sick of watching the right-wing corporatists get elected with their enablers who think they're 'conservatives' who then say "oh we didn't mean THAT".
Typically I know exactly who I'm voting for (though I've already admitted to you that Bush has gone off the deep end with spending), but priority #1 for me is taxes and how much money the candidate plans to take out of my wallet. Ergo...Hillary/Obama: bad, McCain: good.
:shocked: Are you serious? Elitist much? Are you going to sit there and ignore all the nut-jobs that liberals have elected over the years to national public office?Originally posted by: Craig234
Because the people who call themselves conservatives overwhelmingly supported George Bush for president.Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Why conservaties? Dubbya isn't a conservative. He isn't running a conservative administration. So why address this thread to conservatives?Originally posted by: Tab
Topic Title: Conservatives, I'd like a few moments of your time...
Topic Summary: Concerning Scott McClellan...
Many have criticized him since, as I and others predicted.
Few have admitted personal error, ironically in contrast to conservative 'principles'.
In other words, you 'conservatives' have shown you are not to be trusted with the vote. You gave us Reagan, too, and you still even think he was good in many cases.
The rest of us are getting a bit sick of watching the right-wing corporatists get elected with their enablers who think they're 'conservatives' who then say "oh we didn't mean THAT".
Until you can realize you're being manipulated, just as the religious right is being manipulated (with their leaders often part of the problem), why are you complaining?
Let people who knew Bush was bad all along pick next time.
It's not worth responding to a post that throws around the word 'elitist' for holding people accountable for making a disastrous choice for president.Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
:shocked: Are you serious? Elitist much? Are you going to sit there and ignore all the nut-jobs that liberals have elected over the years to national public office?Originally posted by: Craig234
Because the people who call themselves conservatives overwhelmingly supported George Bush for president.Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Why conservaties? Dubbya isn't a conservative. He isn't running a conservative administration. So why address this thread to conservatives?Originally posted by: Tab
Topic Title: Conservatives, I'd like a few moments of your time...
Topic Summary: Concerning Scott McClellan...
Many have criticized him since, as I and others predicted.
Few have admitted personal error, ironically in contrast to conservative 'principles'.
In other words, you 'conservatives' have shown you are not to be trusted with the vote. You gave us Reagan, too, and you still even think he was good in many cases.
The rest of us are getting a bit sick of watching the right-wing corporatists get elected with their enablers who think they're 'conservatives' who then say "oh we didn't mean THAT".
Until you can realize you're being manipulated, just as the religious right is being manipulated (with their leaders often part of the problem), why are you complaining?
Let people who knew Bush was bad all along pick next time.
Sure, conservatives were lured in by the whole conservative concept that Dubbya put forth. Yup.. we were fooled. I've said many times what a crap president he turned into. But given the alternative who else was a conservative going to vote for? It's not like people like you would ever vote for anyone who didn't sound off on your ideals. His second election wasn't so much about conservatism as it was about that elitist goofball Kerry. I don't know if you can blame conservatives as a whole considering all the independents who had to vote for him to get him elected twice.
Reagan was a good president. AND he was not the product of conservatives alone. If you'll recall, he won two of the biggest landslide elections in US history. Ever heard of a Reagan Democrat? Conservatives didn't pick Reagan... Everyone picked Reagan.