McCurry was almost as good as Snow, and even the lib pressies admit Tony was the best combo of honesty and salesman—-McClellan was an outsider because he wasn't regarded as anything more than a Junior Varsity type until a true Major League candidate took the job.

McCurry was almost as good as Snow, and even the lib pressies admit Tony was the best combo of honesty and salesman—-McClellan was an outsider because he wasn't regarded as anything more than a Junior Varsity type until a true Major League candidate took the job.

McClellan served with Bush in Texas (which is why he was so loyal) when Bush was still humble and a uniter –ruling the state in a bipartisan way. He came up with Rove, Karen Hughes, Andy Card, Dan Bartlett and Harriet Miers in 2001. He might not have been the brightest of bulbs, but he had a reputation for straight-forwardness and honesty that Tony Snow lacked. Snow was wittier and had a much easier time deflecting tough questions from the press corps. I think he basically felt no obligation to reveal anything that they didn't already know. The position of press secretary, however, is supposed to be a liason not just a PR man.

McClellan served with Bush in Texas (which is why he was so loyal) when Bush was still humble and a uniter –ruling the state in a bipartisan way. He came up with Rove, Karen Hughes, Andy Card, Dan Bartlett and Harriet Miers in 2001. He might not have been the brightest of bulbs, but he had a reputation for straight-forwardness and honesty that Tony Snow lacked. Snow was wittier and had a much easier time deflecting tough questions from the press corps. I think he basically felt no obligation to reveal anything that they didn't already know. The position of press secretary, however, is supposed to be a liason not just a PR man.

No, the publisher looked at McClellan's galleys and said, let's 'tweak” this material, which was probably semi-literate mush, into salable material—-Scotty let the ultra-left ghost writer take the wheel from then on—from a friend in DC who wrote Robert McFarland's book, or rather “tweaked” it, that sounds like what SMcC did.

I think Rush wouldn't have given dull Scott's observations more than ten minutes—-even now he isn't paying much attention, just the second tier who never liked McClellan anyway, simply because he wasn't very competent.

The book I'd buy in a heartbeat is Tony Snow's tell-all, because Tony has fifty IQ points [at least] on McClellan and actually was a Bush “insider.”

Scott was a Bush insider, and was with Bush from the beginning. He was the quintessential Bush administration enabler, attacking those who dared question the WH's policies. Also Scott seems like a lifelong Republican (I don't know, so take this observation with that in mind).

So Scott decided to make a few bucks off his experiences. I'm not going to slam him for that- I think he probably took the job intending on making a few bucks (I think most people hope to make some money from their jobs), but he doesn't seem to have the ability to parlay his contacts/connections into big money. So he decided to write a book to capitalize on his experiences.

What really makes this book intriguing to me is that despite Scott's credentials and background, he became a turncoat. I'm sure he could have written a book very favorable to the WH and made money off of it. Any pro-WH book by McClellan would have been talked up on all the conservative talk shows as THE book to read this presidential campaign season). Given the sad state of the Republican Party today a lot of conservatives would have flocked to read something, ANYTHING favorable to the WH. But Scott decided to cast the WH in a dim light. So given the fact that he could have made money off either a pro-WH or con-WH book, I give him more credibility than others for being con-WH (money isn't his only motive. After he resigned he must have come realize what sleazeballs he was working for. Scott knew exactly how hard of a time the WH would give him on a con-WH book, but he wrote it anyway. My sense is that he was very careful writing the book and while he might make controversial statements, I wonder how much of it is actual fact.

As far as why McClellan didn't come forward earlier…. well he's not a leader and he was paid to do a job. He was part of the herd. While it might have been nice if he had come forward, I think this is the perfect example of how many people act, and how Bush led America to where we are now.

What I mean is that when McClellan staryed with Bush he didn't know which road Bush would lead the country down. Bush slowly and step by step took us down a road we never thought we would be on. Each successive action of Bush led us down that road that we didn't really want to be on. Taken one step at a time, Scott (and Americans) found the road bearable. But suddenly we're at the end of the road and everyone is (well, not everyone, but many are) wondering how we got here.

The same happened to Scott. He was lead down the WH path. After Scott left the WH, the distance and reflection made him realize just what scoundrels the Bush administration was filled with and his part in it. The book probably is a meant to assuage his conscience. Anyway, once Bush leaves office Americans will be able to take stock of his administration, just like Scott did, and wonder what happened.

This was heresy for the right wing, who passed along the misinformation that the only leaker was Armitage-
untrue– Libby, Rove and Fleischer also leaked to various news organizations (Novak couldn't have published w/o Rove, and Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in a court affidavit that Rove knew about Novak's article BEFORE it was published) Another myth was that Valerie sent her husband- she didn't have the authority to do so.

The right wing definitely lives in its own reality. positive affirmation of untruths doesn't make them true, but if you repeat them enough some people will believe them. Did you know due to Faux news 17% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim?

Just because you call them lies doesn't make them not true.
They could just be inconvenient truths, like os many we've seen attacked by
the asministration.
———————————————–
“Bob Dole is a great American who suffered a lot for his country”

Neither suffering nor military service transforms anyone into a brilliant thinker or agood judge of events. It might help, but then again, it might just narrow one's perspective.
–

And I lived in DC for twenty-plus years, learned a lot about how both parties lie & cheat to gain advantage. I have a dozen friends in Langley, I was an FSO, and your acceptance of the Dem version of Plamegate shows that you are a bit naif. BTW, even my Dem CIA buddies admit Plame wasn't covert when Novak wrote his article.

Libby was nailed on a “process-crime” perjury conviction that was as specious and dubious as any I've seen since the seventies. And I worked as National Staff in two Democrat presidential campaigns, so I'll match you or anyone else on this board on experience or CV .

Sadly, lawyers have taken over the Dem Party & now they're trying to take over all the judicial appointments they can. It's called stacking the deck. Lawyers do the backstairs seamy stuff better than anyone and the Dems are perfect at the insinuation and innuendo game.

Also, Bob Dole is a great American who suffered a lot for his country. McClellan was a second-rate hack who hasn't done anything except repeat DNC talking points and received thirty pieces of silver for doing so. He's almost as bright as he looks.

McClellan said the exact same things about Richard Clarke after he wrote “Against All Enemies” that Dana Perino and other cheerleaders are now saying about him. Clarke's reputation was ripped apart and his motives called into question. The distraction worked, as the media stopped focussing on what was in the book and whether or not it was true.

I could say the same thing about your buying the Republican talking points on Plamegate hook line and sinker—but I'd rather avoid a contentious personal argument out of respect for Joe- who wants us to talk about the issues not how gullible the other person is to partisan propaganda.

Let me just say that your post makes it obvious that you've had the radio tuned to Rush and Sean a little too often, who put out the red herrings about how Plame was not really covert, and how no one went after Armitage, so what crime really occurred???

1] I think he did it for money, but the book is no mine of revelations, just gossip about what he thought he heard in a conversation with Bush about drug use—what a little snitch! And of course, he doesn't know the context from being unable to hear the other side. I think irony might escape a double-digit IQ type like McClellan.

2] If he thinks now that he's another John Dean & can get jobs with the committed hard-line Marxists in DC who run the DNC, he has to have fallen more than once from a turnip truck. They will spit this rube out of their mouths toute-de-suite.

3] Of course, Scott's smarter daddy thought and wrote that LBJ arranged JFK's murder. Their turnip farm tradition brings the family to strange conclusions.

Is it better to be loyal to the end, and stay silent about obvious abuses of power? I really can't believe that others in the inner circle have had no misgivings about the Bush presidency.

McClellan may not come out looking spotless in all of this but then neither did Paul O' Neill, George Tenet, or the numerous generals and admirals who waited until retirement to speak out, or Colin Powell- who never has totally come clean with the public.

Also, I think the fact that he was kicked to the curb by the WH, who used his bland, cheerfulness and naivete to their own maximum benefit, means that he owes them nada now.

There is a lot of passing the buck going on.
Congress blames Bush. Bush blames intelligence mistakes.
The press blames Congress, and pressure from both the administration and the corporate owners of the media.

I think McClellan is far from being a hero. He is just one of the armies of people looking for absolution late in the game. He is no better, but he is no worse.

What I find interesting is the magnitude of the attacks on him by members of the administration and their supporters. It seems out of character in relation to how other storms have been weathered.. I wonder if it's just election fever or if there is something else to explain it.