Source - LA Times
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.
Conservatives, I'd like a few moments of your time...
- Thread starter Tab
- Start date
Source - LA Times
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'm not sure the part of the article you highlighted is even relevant. The fact of the matter is that he wrote a book to make money now that his gov't career is long over. And I'm totally okay with this too. He appears to be credible too.
As one of the readers who posted feedback that follows the article mentioned -- "I would tell the truth as seriously as I would serve the president. He did both."
I think that's damn right. I am a conservative but I have NOT been happy with Bush and his band of free-spending Republican earmarkers in Congress for a long time. I'm all for getting this out in the open so we never have another "conservative" administration that acts like this one has and if McClellan's book is a vehicle to expedite this house-cleaning process, I'm all for it.
As one of the readers who posted feedback that follows the article mentioned -- "I would tell the truth as seriously as I would serve the president. He did both."
I think that's damn right. I am a conservative but I have NOT been happy with Bush and his band of free-spending Republican earmarkers in Congress for a long time. I'm all for getting this out in the open so we never have another "conservative" administration that acts like this one has and if McClellan's book is a vehicle to expedite this house-cleaning process, I'm all for it.
There are many in the right-wing/conservative/GOP group that are claiming he's only released a "nasty" book in order to make money when infact he [Scott] accused Clark of doing the same thing in the 2004 elections.
I find it rather amusing.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,639
- 2,032
- 126
I'm not quite sure I get your point.
- Conservatives criticized Clark for releasing a "nasty" book in order to make money.
- Conservatives are criticizing McClellan (sp?) for releasing a "nasty" book in order to make money.
What is your point in bringing this up? Are you criticizing McClellan for being a hypocrite? Are you somehow criticizing conservatives for something here? It seems to me that conservatives are pretty consistant here. Where exactly are you going with this?
Anyways, I think I would take McClellan a lot more seriously if he had released this book immediately after leaving the White House, instead of repeating the same stuff for years, then all of the sudden right before Bush is about to leave office he decides to come clean. I think you'd have to be pretty naive to believe that money isn't the driving factor behind this book. I'm not saying that he is being untruthful, just that the timing seems a little suspicious.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yeah, we find it rather amusing(hypocritical) that he's doing what he once denounced. And? I thought the left said McClellen was a liar but now he's telling the truth? I find that rather amusing too... so?
He was a strong advocate of the President and the administration because that was his job! He mentioned those things about Clark back in 2004 while still working for Bush. He's not a hypocrite at all. He and his publisher are being smart about maximizing his earning potential for this book during an election year, since he no longer works for the gov't. Again, I'm totally okay with this. Got bless Scotty -- hope you get rich. That's what this country is all about -- capitalism.
<Yawn> Another ex-Admin official writes a book with some slop and it races to #1. Profit. </Yawn>
I never said McClellen was a liar but I don't find it amusing the things he said now turn around and bite him right in the ass.
Well, I don't see how anyone could right an entire couple hundred page book after leaving office...
Let's sum it up like this...
2004 - When the whole Clark thing was going on...
Random Reporter - Clark book says you guys did X, Y and Z wrong. What do you have to say?
Scott M - Seems a suspicious considering he'd release it at a time like this. He must be doing it for the money.
2008 -
Random Reporter - The Scott book says you guys did X, Y and Z wrong. What do you have to say?
Various Fox News/Whitehouse/etc - Strange that'd he'd release it right now. Considering the timing... Must have done it just for money...
You don't find this the least bit amusing? The GWB Admin sure as hell has a lot of scandals... They ALL must be doing it for money, fame, popularity or whatever...
Who the fvck cares? If you have a problem with it or can't look at yourself in the mirror when you come home at night, find another line of work. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Sorry if I'm a little blunt Tab, but I work on Wall St. and I've long ago shed that sensitive side of me.
You tend to say odd things. If the left said he was a Liar because he said A, why would the left still think him a liar if he now says NOT A?
By odd I mean illogical.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Wow, what a mindfvck. All these guys writing books are either telling the Truth thus showing the Immorality of the Bush Admin or are willing to turn on anything making them all opportunistic assholes. Either way it seems supporters of the Bush Admin lose.
You have sure delineated some lines between us. Who cares about the truth?
Even the lame argument that is has some connection to the biblical rendering to Caeser what is Caesar's falls flat - that was money, the ten commandments say not to lie.
If you have long since shed that 'sensitive side' then you have long since shed some important principles.
The Wall Street culture can be bad for that, and apparently is has been for you?
For example - Wall Street stands to make hundreds of billions, at least, if Social Security is somehow 'privatized' under a Republican plan.
*If* you knew Wall Street was backing that for its own profit and knew it would hurt the average citizen, would you see that as a good idea, something just fine to do?
I think there are limits for the press secretary's advocacy for the president, and they include not lying to the American people for political reasons.
For example, take the Monica scandal - if Clinton's press secretary had said she personally knew he had not had sex, that she had been with him at the time it was claimed (lying), that Monica had told her she was lying about the sex (lying), or some other fabrication that helped Clinton with a lie, is that ok? No. The secretary's job is to represent the administration's viewpoint, but within some limits, like not lying for politics.
We don't want the non-liars resigning, we want them there, not lying.
Note, not even McClellan admits lying or defends the idea of the press secretary lying - I'm having to argue the issue with the posters here who say it's fine.
I shouldn't even wast much time on the posters who don't understand why McClellan was repeating lies he was given before, and telling the truth now. The people who question that lack common sense, and understanding of the idea of 'statement against interest'. If OJ says tomorrow he did not kill Nicole, low credibility. If he said he did, high credibility. If Bill Clinton said he did not have sex with that woman, maybe. If he said he did, high credibility.
The 'trying to sell books' attack is one of the oldest and most fallacious for any claims you don't like. It's far from any proof of anything. A lot of accurate books are written for money.
*Ding* You hit the nail on the head. He lacked the courage to do what was right when the timing was critical.
I think we would all like for our White House representatives to emmulate the best of what we see as moral and virtuous, but that's a perfect world.
If McClellan had spoken up and given his opinion in private with the rest of the White House staff he would've been searching for another job, only he'd be black balled/listed.
His job is to spin the policies and defend the views of the White House to make America feel better about the job it's representatives are doing. Not necessarily to give us the whole truth, though it is what the public would expect.
A benefit of the doubt would be that he was given only the information they saw fit to give him to spin what he needed. It may be naive to do so, but it's another opinion. Now, McClellan may have seen some things and heard some things he found questionable but maybe it wasn't enough for him to stand on, so he goes on with business as usual.
Even if he had said something then, he'd still be out looking for another job, because let's face it who wants someone bucking the bronco on your team? His reputation would have been smeared same as now.
So this way he got to keep his job a little longer and make a book at the end, instead of getting fired and having to look for another job and still possibly making a book.
Moral fortitude. He just didn't have the courage to do what was right when it mattered. Would it have made a difference? Who knows! I can't really blame him for something I ,more than likely, would have done as well had I been in his position.
Scotty sez to Bush/ Cheney/ Card et al- "Tell me you love me and respect me, then you can fvck me."
They reply- "Yes, Scotty, we luvs fvckin U- now go tell the American people we luvs them the same way."
So he does, putting his best spin on the whole thing... Only later does he realize that he didn't hear what they said, only what he wanted to hear...
Been a lot of that going around. There remain, sadly, those who never do get it, never catch on, who never realize that being used and being loved/respected aren't the same...
They reply- "Yes, Scotty, we luvs fvckin U- now go tell the American people we luvs them the same way."
So he does, putting his best spin on the whole thing... Only later does he realize that he didn't hear what they said, only what he wanted to hear...
Been a lot of that going around. There remain, sadly, those who never do get it, never catch on, who never realize that being used and being loved/respected aren't the same...
FFS, are you kidding me? How much proof do you need before you WTF up? :disgust:
Just following in daddy Bush's footsteps.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter