Cliff LyonMcClellan Whacks Bush, White House
By now, of course, all but the inexplicable few understand that Bush and his cronies are gigantic liars.
Perhaps more egregious is the complicity of so many right-wing Senators and members of Congress. I don’t exclude democrats either. Our very own Jim Matheson played along as well.
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.
Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):
• 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.
• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”
• 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.
• 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.
Read entire article from Politico.com
Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes. McClellan defends the president’s intellect — “Bush is plenty smart enough to be president,” he writes — but casts him as unwilling or unable to be reflective about his job.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:14 am
He is RIGHT about the LIberal Media they are the BIGGEST JOKE we have currently in this country. At least the Right media know what their agenda is to support their Lame Duck President. But the Liberal media is held in fear they are afraid of losing their jobs. Thats why I LOVE people like Keith Olbermann they are NOT Objective they dont wear the guise of seeming objective and they are ON THE RIGHT SIDE. The side of the American people
May 28th, 2008 at 6:16 am
One more in a long line of enablers …appointees, cabinet members, military leaders…who toadied up to the Bush creeps and waited to reveal what they knew until AFTER they could cash in with their book deal, before exposing their horror and indignation at the corruption and lies of the Bush administration.
The nearest to real patriots are Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill, both of whom decided to quit rather than serve the evil Bush.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Scott McClellan is a loathsome character. Now that it’s too late to stop it, he wants us to pay him for telling us what we already know about the Bush administration. Why didn’t he resign in 2003 and blow the whistle?
May 28th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Hey Jd,
You were right and wrong.
Cliff started a new post without addressing the past issues, but I’m not really seeing him declaring victory.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
It’s worth adding this observation from Spencer Ackerman:
May 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Hmmmm….publisher’s leak….probably not trying to drum up interest in the book to boost sales…nope…that can’t be it.
What amuses me, assuming all this is true, is how a bunch of stupid bumpkin Right Wingers that could barely complete an intelligent sentence jmanaged to fool some of our self-proclaimed best and brightest.
Kerry
Clinton
Feinstein
Biden
They all got smoked by a down home hayseed like GW.
Frickin hysterical….
May 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
jd:
As Norman Mailer put it in 2004 following the re-election of Chimpus: America has become a country of stupid and susceptible people.
But at the same time, many, but not all, of those that were smoked were smoked based on information provided them and controlled or manipulated by Chimpus and his corp of criminal minions.
Regardless, I fail to see the humor you do, and I am certain that neither do the families of 4,000 dead and countless injured US soldiers.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
This is what we’re up against, folks! Following is a comment posted at ksl.com today:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=3409590&comments=true
Read the comments that follow Maryanne’s comment, and that give me hope that our LDS brethren and sisters are coming out of the BushCo haze.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Thanks to Albert, I have walked through the valley of the shadow of KSL.com. I hope you’re right about people becoming unhannitized or something similar. That would be a good thing, indeed!
May 29th, 2008 at 1:21 am
I just can’t see buying a book written by a guy who said “I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation” so many times, I wanted to blow by brains out.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Albert, thanks for posting that KSL comment. First of all, Bush wears “garments”? Who knew?
One of the amazing stories about the run-up to the Iraq invasion: Pope John Paul II sent a personal envoy to Washington, Cardinal Pio Laghi, to tell Bush to call it off. I was brought up a Catholic. That’s as close to a message from God as you can get– and God said, don’t start a war of aggression.
What did Abraham Lincoln say? “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”
May 29th, 2008 at 8:07 am
And if God has the least bit of sphagetti monster in it, well…the entire kit -n-kaboodle could find itself in a major league tizzy.
My 13 year old son asked the other day, why it was that when people speak with God, they’re simply being prayerful, but when God speaks to someone, it’s schizophrenia? I speculated that it might be the prayerful pray-er, in this riteous ‘dialog’, that he or she may mask the schizo. I do not know.
An observation about Bushes visit: Our president is not an individual, more of a swarm, with hundreds of security and sycophant, advisor and chef. That sort of swarm and swarm-mind is difficult for the common man to apprehend, and must therefore be, if not God, at least closer to God.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:17 am
If Scott McClellan had any integrity then why did he allow all these things he alleges to have occurred but did not say or do anything about it at the time or at least resign? He either lied at the time he was in the White house or he is lying now. Either way he is a liar. So why should we believe a word in his self serving book?
May 29th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Ken:
All you are doing is attacking the messenger. Maybe you should try and digest some of the message, instead. After all, it is pretty much just confirmation of what has been said here at 1U for the past several years.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
May 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Albert - You may feel that the folks who elected GW were “a country of stupid and susceptible people”. I’ve more faith in them. I think that they weighed their options and made decisions based on what was important to them. What’s wrong with that?
I think that one of the problems with your statement above, is that you project your priorities onto others. For instance, “abortion” isn’t a big issue for me - though, I can see from the existance of organizations like NARAL and Emily’s List and the Right to Life Foundation that it is a priority for some.
If someone votes for a candidate based on their views on abortion, are they “stupid and susceptible”? - Or do they just have different priorities? And why can’t you respect them?
Regarding my “humor” - it was sarcasm. And I do know some of those families, and did know some of those men who’ve been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also know quite a few that are still serving there. I can say with confidence that they have quite a different perspective on the war than the majority of the One Utah folks.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
jdberger:
Then Bush stole the election, making them look stupid. It’s people like you who support him because you don’t want Democrats to take your gun away that perpetuate the myth of stupidity.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Well, Larry, if Democrats didn’t have the abridgement of one of my Constitutional rights as part of their party platform, maybe I’d be more inclined to support them.
Both Gore and Kerry stated that they would push, not only for a continuance of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, but to expand it. Those words alone lost my vote. If they were willing to abridge that right, what’s next? Are they like Cliff? Are they going to go after freedom of speech, next?
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 am
I don’t follow the gun issue as closely as other issues, so I have to take your word for it that Gore and Kerry don’t like assault weapons. Even if they don’t, I guess I just consider the right of Americans to choose the leaders that represent them even more important then assault weapons, (yes, it’s true).
If most Americans elect leaders who want to restrict assault weapons because they think they will improve our system in other areas, that should be their right. I’m quite sure the NRA and others will try make sure they don’t get their way under the law as it is interpreted by the cronies placed in the Supreme Court by Bush. I mean, what are you worried about. The deck is stacked so much in your favor now, it’s ridiculous. Can’t you throw us liberals a bone now and then so the rest of the worlds people don’t laugh us off the face of the planet for being so cowardly that we can’t get any sleep without having a machine gun beside us in bed?
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 am
No Larry, in face the face of the contempt shown by you and cliff for the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, which guarantees inalienable rights, one of which is the right to bear arms. It doesn’t matter who is in power, even if we elected by vast majority leaders that want to ban guns, the Bil of Rights would disallow it, and any such movement towards such an act would be the clarion call of a coming tyrant.
No bone, not even a table scrap you dogs.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 am
Larry,
Can you define what an “assault weapon” is?
Do you know what the “Assault Weapon Ban” actually banned?
The Right to elect leaders as they choose is equal to and supported only by the 2nd amendment. The fact that many people want to do something doesn’t mean it’s legal. It took years to resolve that issue with slavery and we are still working out the lingering discrimination.
Tyranny, either of the Majority or Minority, should not be tolerated. Wouldn’t you agree? But if our government decides to trample our rights (guess that should be even more than they are trampled now), what is the final check point?
You guessed it, the 2nd amendment.
What are we worried about? How about an ultra-liberal being in office for 8 years and appointing 3-5 Supreme Court Justices? Still think that we would have nothing to fear? If Congress passed laws with even greater restrictions than now, it would take years for the court cases to get to the SCOTUS.
The gun confiscation of Katrina, whichever Party did it, is a great example. The people’s rights were trampled; many of those folks still don’t have their property back. The law enforcement didn’t provide receipts for what was taken and than set up rules requiring proof of ownership. Most folks don’t keep proof of ownership for their firearms. Mine were actually gifts from my father, no proof available.
Others have pointed out Cliff’s comments about search and seizure, freedom of speech, freedom to peacefully assemble. What’s to say in a couple of years he’s not elected to office at state or national level. Should we suspend belief and just hope people like him aren’t going to follow though with their stated intentions?
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:33 am
You gun-nuts become laughable when you raise the issue that the Dems want to take away a so-called “inalienable right” guaranteed by the Constitution yet you stand idly by without concern or voice when BushCo tramples over several other so-called “inalienable rights” afforded by the same document.
Selfish hypocrites!!!
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 am
Albert,
I don’t say this often, but stop being an jerk.
You don’t know me, you don’t know what I’ve protested or have done to protect my rights. You can’t read my mind.
You have absolutely no idea if I “stand idly by” or have protested.
Read some of the gun bloggers, see the issues they’ve raised and have taken action on. You will find that those interested in “gun rights” are just as interested in all the rights.
And my “so-called inalienable right” is just such a right.
Let me try some of Cliff’s syllogism
1. I have a right to life and to defend my life using legal means.
2. Firearms are legal.
3. I have a right to defend myself using firearms.
How did I do Cliff?
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 am
Albert - I’m not seeing Democrats do much to restore those rights, either.
Dems have had a majority in the House and Senate for a couple of years now. Why haven’t they repealed the Patriot Act? Why haven’t they tried?
Why haven’t they stepped forward with legislation to moot the Kelo decision? Why haven’t they repealed NCLB or any of the other “egregious” legislation that you folks are constantly whining about?
Why haven’t they moved to impeach the President? Why haven’t they defunded the war?
Don’t give me some bullshit about how I’m “standing idly by” while the Executive “tramples” the Constitution. What’s the Democrat majority CONGRESS doing?
Nothing. Sitting on their collective thumbs, complaining that the big bad mean Republicans aren’t playing nice. Promising REFORM and CHANGE and HOPE and producing NONE OF THE ABOVE.
I focus on 2A issues, because that is where I can make a difference.
What are you doing?
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
Jees, if 50% of us are deathly afraid of a conserVative appointing 3 to 5 supreme court justices, and the other 50% of us are equally afraid of a liberal appointing the same, what does that say about the state of our ‘dis’union?
Will you meet the challenge: High noon. The city square. You with the constitutionally protected assault weapon. Me with a stupid grin on my face? I bow to the superiority of your weaponry.
Or should we continue to talk?
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:40 am
If we can just get past the ‘a-gun-in-every-hand’ issue, like we’ve transcended the race and gender issues, our evolution might begin to takes huge leaps! I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Why haven’t the Democrats repealed the Patriot Act? Maybe they’re afraid they’re going to get anthraxed with weapons grade anthrax, like Leahy and Dashle did when they had the power to stop it from passing in the first place.
Can you guys tell me why the Democrats didn’t take away your guns when they had all that power Gingrich had to take away from them in 1996? Are you going to let them put another right wing judge in the Supreme Court so fascism can live forever?
What does it take before people realize we’re losing everything. EVERYTHING! But make sure you worry about God, gays and guns, because that is the only thing that matters. It’s time for the Democrats to have a chance to govern, with a solid majority that believes in the kinds of governance we had when they were in power, not this complete farce you guys got us into.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Larry,
What is it with folks like Albert and you? What makes people like you think that you know what we do, what you can read our minds, know what we do or don’t do?
First, if you read my posts you will see that I often mention that all of our rights are being eroded. I agree with you on that completely. Read some of the gun bloggers out there for what they are talking about, what the other “gun nuts” are talking about. You’ll find that we are very aware of what rights we are losing, most of us are very active in maintaining all our rights.
Second, I try to focus on rights issues and avoid the liberal/conservative political issue. I have also stated that I think both political parties are trying to take away our rights. Only the focus is different on what rights they want to take away first.
Third, I’m not a conspiracy theorist and won’t engage in that type of debate most of the time. Those that believe in conspiracies are harder to convince of anything, more so than the average left/right wing nuts (that covers all of us on this blog)
Fourth, I agree with JD. I focus on the 2nd amendment because that is where I feel I can make a difference.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Larry’s just affected with a martyr complex. He’s sees it all as a grand conspiracy - a giant cabal of Ivy League fraternity brothers controlling the world.
What’s so baffling, is if you have this sort of worldview, wouldn’t you favor the insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment?
After all, soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box, eh?
June 4th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Still hoping to fix things at the ballot box. But that’s just me. Nobody else cares.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Larry,
Of course no one else cares. You are the only person in the world left that cares about trying to fix things using the ballot box. You are a giant among all the people for keeping on doing something that no one else will do or even care about.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Dang,
My attempt to be truthful in my post didn’t work
Should have read something like this
[sarcasm on] Of course……even care about [sarcasm off]
June 4th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Megalomania is treatable, Larry.
No - not by “those kinds of drugs“.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Larry, listen to Bob S.
Bob, your sarcasm was pretty apprehensible (even funny), though the postscript will never hurt.
jd, ya think Larry could split a dose with our CiC?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
What’s a CiC?
June 5th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Commander in Chief
June 5th, 2008 at 5:45 am
Larry,
Let’s see if you care about this:
Care to guess the politcal party of the Mayor of D.C.?
Here is a hint
Hmm, sounds like there are conspiracies to deprive Americans of their Constitutionally protected rights, perhaps? Maybe us “gun nuts” aren’t so crazy.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Bob:
Did you forget to take your meds this morning?
June 5th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Albert,
Nope, just what I’ve been saying all along. There is a conspiracy, I usually don’t call it that though. It’s normally called the “Democrat Party” or the “Republican Party” agenda. That is why I’ve repeatedly addressed the problems as “rights issues”.
Personally, I don’t care who is trying to infringe on my rights.
What do you think about the Safe Neighborhood plan itself?
How about you Cliff? This is right up your line - violating people’s rights; freedom to assemble, search and seizure, etc.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:31 am
This is similar to HUD’s plan to conduct door-to-door searches for “illegal guns” in Housing Projects in the mid-90’s.
Is there a 4th Amendment issue, here?
I can’t remember if it was a Democrat or a Republican president at that time.
(Rights issue - not a Political Party issue)
Is there a 4th Amendment issue, here?
The San Francisco District Attorney is a (a) Republican; (b) Democrat?
(Rights issue - not a Political Party issue)
NB: the picture attached to the linked story above is of a “for sale” case at a gun show. Those yellow tags attached to the trigger guards are price tags - not evidence tags.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Bob S:
Believe it or not, I’ve already done a posting on “Project Safe Neighborhoods” which is a direct product of the present Justice Department staffed by Republican cronies. Since you seem to be a white man, I wouldn’t worry too much. The effort is obviously aimed at the same people the drug war has been focused on for over seventy years. Brown people.
jdberger:
Be sure to keep demeaning people who do, or used to do recreational drugs, but be aware that it is undermining your own case for the 2nd amendment. If they can come in to the homes of black people to see if they’re using their guns properly, it’s just one more step to harass white people in the same way. Of course the quote you highlighted above is outrageous whether it came from a Democrat or a Republican because it follows the Republican platform of preemptive strikes and zero percent solutions. A Democratic Justice Department would be MUCH more unlikely to bend the rules of the constitution by starting with “the other”.
Cav:
I wouldn’t want to have a beer or a joint with the commander in chief, let alone, an acid trip. Obama would provide a much better “set and setting” for a responsible reflection on life. I’m praying he can do something about our heinous war on drugs/people.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Larry,
This is a different project altogether. This isn’t asking if police can come in and search. That is repugnant but not a violation of civil rights.
This is a newly announced plan in our Nation’s capital to cordon off a neighbor, demand identification papers and establish if someone has a “legitimate” reason to be in that area.
This is a local police plan; it has nothing to do with the Justice Department. As for as my skin color, you may or may not be right but it doesn’t matter. If I don’t protest this today, it will be something else tomorrow.
I posted the party affiliation to show it’s not just the Republican cronies that are taking away our rights, it is both political parties.
Please understand that I don’t care if it’s republicans or democrats proposing it; it is absolutely outrageous and a direct violation of our constitutionally protected civil rights. Don’t you agree?
June 5th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Not sure what recreational drug use has to do with the Second Amendment, Larry.
Really, now?
You mean bending the rules of the Constitution like this?
Or this?
Or maybe this?
It’s not a political party thing. It’s a civil rights thing.
Take off your blinders, Larry.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
jd:
He said much more “unlikely”. Thus, it is you running around with the blinders on, as evidenced by your ability to read only the words you prefer , while ignoring the rest.
Get a grip, dude!
June 5th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Albert, I bolded the “MUCH more unlikely”.
And provided example of how unlikely it was.
Are you going to start arguing definitions again? How about some more “stale beer” comments?
June 5th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
The comment clearly inferred that Dem control of Justice would not be perfect.
Your response suggested otherwise. My response to your comment thus stands.
Drink all you want, but it ain’t helping you much, that’s for sure.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Albert,
Here is what I see on this board as a theme:
Republicans are evil and bent on world domination but Democrats are just trying to make the world better and sometimes step over the line.
I realize that is an oversimplification and generalization, but it summarizes the consistent positions taken by many on this board.
JD & I have consistently stated this isn’t a political issue; but it’s a rights issue. Over and over again that’s been said. In return we get comments about the Republican party.
As for the Washington D.C. proposed infringement of our rights: Do you agree with the Police Chief or not?
It’s pretty easy to believe that the police won’t be asking party affiliation before they decide to violate civil rights. This makes it simply a civil rights issue, not political.
Maybe we can focus on keeping the government from taking all of our freedom instead of pointing fingers at who’s doing it faster or better.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Larry, me neither. Somehow George is much more the coke and boose head. I can’t imagine him on those you mentioned.
My notion of splitting a dose was a reference to what ever pharmacutical jd. thought might curb Megalomania, and it was for Bushes sake alone. You’re OK in my book.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Bob S:
I think it’s weird that you won’t tell us whether you’re a woman or a colored person. That puts us at a slight disadvantage as to where you might be coming from. If you prefer not to debate about whether Republicans are worse then Democrats at protecting our civil liberties and constitutional rights, knock yourself out, but I think it’s a silly argument after seeing what Bush and his justice department have done since they took office. Oh, sorry, I forgot you don’t really like to talk about election theft in preference to ammo boxes.
You said:
That’s actually a pretty good summation of my beliefs at this point. Thank you.
It’s absolutely true that the Democratic party has people in it that act more like Republicans then Republicans, but get rid of them and we’ve really got something to build on. The Republican party leadership has nothing whatsoever to build on. They are shameless thugs. Corrupt to the bone.
You and jd won’t give your name, sex, or party. I’m a man and I’m voting for Obama this year. Who are you going to vote for, or are you ashamed to say?
Cav:
I was trying to imagine what Bush would act like on acid. Have you ever tried to shampoo a cat?
June 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Larry,
The name should be a give away to my sex. It is not a name that is normally accepted for either gender. As for as my skin color, what differences does it make.
To use very profound words:
Please tell me how it puts you at a disadvantage.
This Bush Derangement Syndrome is what I’m talking about, what has only the Bush administration accomplished? Patriot Act- Pass by Congress, right? Other laws taking away our freedom, passed by Congress and not vetoed by Bush.
This is the point that I’m trying to make, Political parties not mean jack when it comes to taking away our freedoms. Both sides do it. I resent every effort to take away our freedoms.
As far as stolen elections, every bit of research I have done on the 2000 election shows Bush as still wining; legally.
If there was credible evidence, why hasn’t it been brought to trial?
As to who I’m voting for; a gun blogger said it best:
How about we agree to throw out all the current politicians and start over?
Or better yet, make a national lottery and pick people at random. That’s a better choice than letting people who want to run the country do it.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
For the thousands of people disenfranchised by voter caging lists in the 2000 election, the color of their skin meant everything. The content of their character meant nothing.
Research harder Bob!
June 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Right about now is where Larry tells us that the WashPo and NYT are part of the “Right Wing Media”.
This is hysterical. The perils of identity politics.
Note, that I’ve also not told you my sexual preference, whether I’m a property owner or renter, whether I have children, my marital status, what national brand of fried chicken I like, what stocks I own, if I own a car, preferred adult beverage or what hand I use to sign my name.
So what?
You’re not at any disadvantage, Larry. Just argue your points with conviction and seriousness - and leave the conspiracy stuff at the door.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Larry,
Sorry, but I don’t find repeated statements that the election was stolen to be evidence.
Again, where is the proof. Investigation into the voting irregularities in Ohio
Show the legal evidence of the “stolen election” not editorials or opinions. In order of fairness, also show an election where there wasn’t claims of voter fraud. I’m betting you can’t find that on the national level, perhaps even state level.
Consider what JD says carefully, because you will note that we don’t require disclosure from you or others, we accept at face value what you claim to be. Imagine that, acceptance, equality, tolerance from the “other side” of the political / philosophical views.