Heckuva job, Scotty: McClellan writes a book Update: AOL Hot Seat Poll added; Update: McClellan chastised tell-all tomes in 2004
posted at 7:38 am on May 28, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has written a memoir of his experiences — and the political punditry has already started feasting at the appetizers. Politico’s Mike Allen gives an exclusive preview of the newest must-read, which dishes on the Bush administration and attempts to distance McClellan from its more notable controversies. Unfortunately, if Allen has properly represented it, one has to wonder why McClellan stuck around as long as he did:
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.
One has to operate with a caveat on pre-release information. Mike Allen is normally responsible in his reporting, but these kind of bullet-point revelations can leave out a lot of context. The actual release may mitigate quite a bit of these issues, or it may not, but one cannot tell until the book appears on the shelves.
McClellan says he still admires Bush, but thinks that his advisers served him very poorly, especially in the war. That will certainly gain a lot of attention, but it also calls into question why McClellan stuck around for three years of dealing “propaganda”. As Kathryn Jean Lopez notes, the honorable action would have been to resign for a press secretary who feels he or she has been told to lie. One White House insider has already stated that McClellan didn’t object during any of the meetings she attended or make his dissent known within the West Wing.
Furthermore, why wait for two years to reveal this? Obviously it makes his book a hot commodity, but the war started going badly in 2006 after he left the job. Two months earlier, AQI bombed the Golden Mosque and nearly touched off a civil war. Wouldn’t that have been a good time to open his mouth, especially with elections approaching that could have had a big impact on the war? Instead, McClellan waited until the war was almost over and the Bush administration has all but exited. The advisers he blames no longer work for Bush. What’s the point, except to cash out?
Expect all sides to redefine McClellan in order to either boost or reduce his credibility. To the Right, McClellan will have been the worst press secretary of modern times, and to the Left a man of extraordinary ability chased out of his job by Bush’s minions. The truth will be somewhere in the middle. When he left office, most people on both sides considered him a mediocrity at best. His status as favored punching bag for the hard Left can best be captured in the Keith Olbermann farewell McClellan received as he exited in April 2006. It will be particularly amusing to watch this fringe try to rehabilitate McClellan now.
We can expect more of these memoirs as the Bush administration comes to a close. The tell-all tome has become its own genre, and with mixed results except for the authors’ bank accounts. If the press secretary was that interested in truth, he took an awfully long time to tell it.
Update: ABC’s Jake Tapper recalls when a member of the Bush administration admonished another tell-all author and former official. Oh, wait — that was Scott McClellan scolding Paul O’Neill in 2004:
On the book critical of the Bush White House written in cooperation with former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill,” McClellan said on January 12, 2004:
McCLELLAN: “It appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people.”
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. …
Yeah, we can’t trust people who do that, can we, Scott?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
All this talk about Bush pushing Iraq is just nonsense. I think that too many people have forgotten the 90’s. The following is an excerpt from a speech given by Sandy Berger {of all people} back in 1998, when Democrats thought Saddam was a problem that needed to be dealt with:
As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the
world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the
Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of
potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those
who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source
of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in
which to invest.
Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free
the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and
survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on
commerce and cooperation.
For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based
on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is
clear. Saddam’s history of aggression, and his recent record of
deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive
for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in
conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons,
including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them.
Our strategy for meeting this threat has been one of containment…”
“Through constant confrontation, our policy of containing Iraq has been
successful. But that does not mean that by itself it is sustainable
over the long run.
It is, first of all, a costly policy, in economic and strategic terms.
The pattern we have seen over the last few years, of Iraqi defiance,
followed by force mobilization on our part, followed by Iraqi
capitulation, leaves the international community vulnerable to
manipulation by Saddam. Because we continue to block his advances,
“cheat and retreat” leaves him no better off in the end. But we cannot
tolerate it endlessly, either.
The longer this standoff continues, the harder it will be to maintain
the international support we have built for our policy. Even this
toughest of all sanctions regimes in history becomes harder to sustain
over time. In the meantime, the Iraqi people will live in a murderous
and corrupt police state, with no prospect for a normal life, as long as
their country is Saddam’s preserve.
Perhaps most fundamentally, Saddam’s continued misrule of Iraq is
harmful to the Middle East as a whole. It is partly responsible for
the pervasive sense of insecurity that prevents the region from
evolving in a positive way.”
“In his farewell speech to the State Department, Secretary Christopher
said something that applies well to the challenge we face in Iraq, and
in the Middle East as a whole: “When we are confronted by the
conflicts and tragedies of a still dangerous world,” he observed, “we
can respond in one of three ways. We can choose the easy way, taking
satisfaction … in lashing out…. Or we can choose to walk away and
wash our hands. Or, we can make the choice to persevere until a
solution is found.” That is the choice, he said, that the people who
defend our country’s interests overseas make day in and day out.
It is the choice we should make in seeking a better future for Iraq,
with patience and resolve, with determination to use effective force
if necessary, and with confidence that our goals will be met.”
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 4:07 PM
I always felt sorry for this guy and wondered why anyone thought he should take the job. Or even why he accpeted.
ThePrez on May 28, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Uh, Terrye? Where did you get that excerpt? That was supposed to go DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE!
Along with Clinton and the rest of the warmongering Democrats pushing for regime change.
misterpeasea on May 28, 2008 at 4:11 PM
We have to remember this is a memoir. And it is not out yet. So the editor does some tweaking, the Bushbashers get all excited and then the thing comes out and it just blah blah blah.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 4:12 PM
mister:
Not only that I can remember Bill Clinton on TV with Tom Daschle standing at his side when he told America that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. He went on to say that not only did Saddam have weapons of mass destruction, he would use them.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 4:14 PM
The Prez:
I always thought Scotty boy looked like a deer in the headlights.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Whoa, Terrye, Good catch. This must have been one of the documents that fell out of Berger’s socks when he was absconding with evidence.
onlineanalyst on May 28, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Wait a minute. I thought this was all Bush’s policy and his war – you know: “Bush lied, people died.” I thought we were happy, joyous and free during the 90s (er, after ‘92, of course).
Rick on May 28, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Just another book…
right2bright on May 28, 2008 at 4:47 PM
onelineanalyst:
To be honest. I saw this posted by someone called Aldo over at protein wisdom. So I looked it up and low and behold.
For a real laugh, go read the Iraqi Liberation Act signed and passed by Bill Clinton and his Democratic friends. All of whom were rattling their sabers.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 4:53 PM
right:
It is just another book. It remains to be seen if it will really be that big a deal.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Jesus, don’t turn your back on Scott McClellan. He’ll hammer a knife into it faster than you can say “MSNBC job application.”
Django on May 28, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Uh, they did want to deal with Saddam. Why do you assume it meant invading the country and installing Lord Bremer as head of an occupational government? It’s absurd to say that Clinton’s teams actually wanted to invade Iraq but never got around to it. You don’t seem to know the difference between talking tough and starting a war.
bayam on May 28, 2008 at 5:08 PM
The political rats are abandoning the ship of state in hordes?
“Former White House counsel Dan Bartlett raged at McClellan earlier today, calling the former press secretary’s allegations “total crap.” Never mind Scotty… Karen and Dan Boy helped to clean up George’s mess.
Finally there’s this compendium of infamy; certainly no joy to be found here.
J_Gocht on May 28, 2008 at 5:09 PM
bayam:
Oh please. The Democrats voted for this war. The Democrats were responsible for a great deal of the intel they now call propaganda. The Democrats called for regime change in Iraq and now all we hear is how we should have minded our own business.
You know, maybe to the anti war left bombing a country’s capitol is not a war like thing to do because when Bill Clinton did just that I do not remember anyone lighting any matches to American flags.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 5:14 PM
The whole point is that if Saddam was not a threat, it would have made a world of difference to make that point loud and clear back in 1998, rather than doing the exact opposite.
They are like the mouthy little fart that starts a fight and then when things get ugly, always sneaks out a back door.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 5:16 PM
And if the idea is that all we needed to do was start a war inside of Iraq and somehow that all would have worked out better, I fail to see how that is true. The theory of the left is that the Iraqis are too divided to come together in a reconciled government and yet somehow or someway if we had just sort of orchestrated a coup or something…all of these problems would not have come up.
That is bullshit.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 5:18 PM
You’re right, all the problems of this war can be blamed on the Democrats. Bush really isn’t to blame.
If any US politician calls for regime change, that means an invasion is inevitable. It’s never about intimidating an enemy or encouraging allies- but a call for war. Brilliantly stated. You must be right.
bayam on May 28, 2008 at 5:20 PM
You know what I find odd? Scott McClellan’s becoming a turncoat is eerily similar to Scott Ritter doing the same. Which leads me to the question – who paid Ritter?
Connie on May 28, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Correction (of course) – Who paid McClellan? Probably the same individual who paid Ritter.
Connie on May 28, 2008 at 5:23 PM
bayam:
So what exactly did regime change mean? And if there was any doubt about it, then voting for the Resolution should have laid that to rest. but it didn’t. not for the Democrats.
Have you even read Clinton’s words? He made it plain that the United States would not be safe until SAddam was gone. Now either he was bullshitting us or he wasn’t.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Zinni Feb. 2000 said the greatest threat to the US was not Osama, it was Saddam. Are these people not responsible for the outcome of their own policy?
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 5:26 PM
My jaw just hit the ground reading the update with the 2004 quotes. What a hypocrite.
12thman on May 28, 2008 at 5:28 PM
True, true. When Ollie North’s first book came out the advance on it was that it was a Reagan bashfest. I’d made up my mind not to read it but then my mother met Lt. Col. North and had him sign a copy for me. It was nothing like what the advance on it claimed. I’m been skeptical about suck “tell all” insider books ever since.
srhoades on May 28, 2008 at 5:28 PM
And bayam is not really about blame, or it should not be. We had been stuck in that situation with Iraq for years. They had violated a cease fire. It was not going to end well with Saddam, he would not let it.
And as for problems, I think that most of the blame should go to the terrorists who went out of their way to kill civilians.I also think that whatever problems there are have to be kept in perspective.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Rovin on May 28, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Well stated my friend. Shipley and monkei keep things clean unless attacked personally; they also keep things interesting.
About the only “classy” Liberal left (CQ days) to come over to HA is ck. Earth calling ck; time to come out and play once again!
Great thread folks; this story has fired up many spirits from all sides of the political spectrum. In the end, I’m pretty sure ol’ Scotty boy will simply be another who fell prey to the all mighty freezer full of Liberal cash syndrome.
Keemo on May 28, 2008 at 6:02 PM
I think we can all agree that Scott McClellan is a black racist.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 6:09 PM
The funny thing is Scotty seems he wants to follow the media’s narrative on the Bush. However, in following the narrative he’s also lessening himself. The only notable thing Scotty has done work for a lying, warmongering president. Way to go, Scotty!
terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 6:13 PM
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Wrong… Safe to say that Scott is a Russian racist…
Keemo on May 28, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Good enough for me.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 6:27 PM
You could say the same thing about Powell. I have no idea what Scott’s contribution was inside the Administration. But if it turned out that he was trying to be in the sane wing of arguably the most disastrous White House, then it’s not actually that bad.
Some people work with great leaders and accomplish a lot. Others are stuck with morons and try not to let them destroy everything. Definitely not equally rewarding jobs. But they could easily be equal in greatness.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Wow! How inspiring!
He should have named his book, “Scott McClellan, Not Actually That Bad.” Because we all inspire to “not that bad.”
terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM
You mean like “talking tough” to Kosovo? What a quagmire! How many years has this travesty taken?
onlineanalyst on May 28, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Scott has crossed over to the dark side; his walking orders will now be passed down by Mr. Soros. In the righteous battle between good & evil, Scott will now answer to pure evil in it’s purist form headquartered in DC.
Another soul lost to the dark side. Scott McClellan, meet Cindy Sheehan.
Keemo on May 28, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Looks like Waxman the Fool is going to issue a subpoena and haul his ass in to testify. This is gonna be fun.
JonRoss on May 28, 2008 at 6:57 PM
I really don’t think there is fire here. Just a lot of smoke and highly suspect innuendo. Scotty may get his come uppence yet.
JonRoss on May 28, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Come on, McClellan, Clarke, Powell, and O’Neill are all lying bastards who either have an axe to grind or are trying to maximize book sales.
Those who say good things about Bush, however, are great messengers of the truth.
bayam on May 28, 2008 at 7:06 PM
The worst White House? In your dreams. I listen to Obama yammer on and I realize that a lot of Americans do not know jack about history.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 7:08 PM
bayam:
You could say the same thing about Clinton, or any president for that matter. I do know this, there is money in books like this and where there is money there is motive. That is human nature.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 7:10 PM
After 8 years of shit-for-brains, I’d take “not that bad” in a heartbeat.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 7:14 PM
For instance in terms of history, this is not the Great Depression. In fact Carter’s term in office was rougher in terms of the economy. This is not Watergate, even though the Democrats want so badly to return to those happy days…and drag America with them. Iraq is not Korea or Viet Nam.
And this decade there have not been the genocides we saw in the good old days of the 90’s.
But the thing is, people have become so partisan and so sensitized to all this that I wonder if any president will be able to maintain an approval rating or a loyal staff.
There is 24 hour news. We blame natural disasters on governments. We expect government to make us rich and happy and safe and we expect our leaders to be perfect. And they are not. Already McCain is being hounded by the left and the right and how many gaffes have we caught Obama in?
The truth is if Clinton could do it all over again, I imagine Osama Bin Laden would never have lived long enough to plan 9/11. If Bush had it to do over again, I imagine he would send in federal troops to evacuate New Orleans before Katrina ever made land fall. He would probably do things differently in Iraq as well.
But that is the past. Now we have some little weasel like McClellan coming along and talking about stuff that can not even be verified, some of it personal. That just sucks.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 7:18 PM
But somehow he managed to propagandized the American people into a war. What is it: Is he an idiot or an evil genius?
terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 7:19 PM
free village:
That is a shitty thing to say.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 7:20 PM
terryonline:
I have noticed that. On one hand Bush is a moron, on the other hand he can control the world and everyone in it.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Does it make you feel better call people names? I hope it makes you like a BIG PERSON to say stuff like that. Please take pride in yourself for being childish.
terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 7:22 PM
sounds like you’ve been like that all your life, not just the last 8 years.
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 7:23 PM
notice these left-wing wackos can only mouth talking points. and they have to lie and twist history ala 1984, to make their political points.
their whole life is a lie…when they say ‘bush lied’ its projection.
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Saddam did!
On January 25, 2004, a daily newspaper in Iraq called al Mada published a list of individuals and organizations who it says received oil from the now-deposed regime. Among those listed is Shakir al Khafaji, an Iraqi-American from Detroit, who ran “Expatriate Conferences” for the regime in Baghdad. Al Khafaji also contributed $400,000 to the production of Scott Ritter’s film “In Shifting Sands.” Finally, al Khafaji arranged travel and financing for the “Baghdad Democrats”–Jim McDermott, Mike Thompson and David Bonior–last fall. Following the trip, al Khafaji contributed $5,000 to McDermott’s Legal Defense Fund. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has contacted McDermott’s office about returning the contribution. McDermott spokesman Mike Decesare said this morning that he had not yet spoken with McDermott, since it’s three hours earlier on the West Coast. Asked about the contribution and the subsequent allegations about al Khafaji and oil, Decesare said, “I don’t know anything about it.” THE WEEKLY STANDARD will post a response from McDermott’s office as soon as we get one. In the meantime, it’s worth taking a second look at “Saddam’s Cash.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/605fgcob.asp
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Not really. I in all honesty have no emotions when I say that. This is an observable fact. I note it and move on. What would have made me feel better is Bush losing in 2000 and 2004. Or realizing he’s no longer in the WH in 2009.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 7:33 PM
yeah Clinton set up a nice muslim base for al-qaeda in europe!!
its interesting how all these libs take the side of the muslims.
just like with the communists, the libs cannot stand to see the US win against radical islam.
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 7:34 PM
glad you’ve had 8 years of hell!! you really are a BDS wacko…bet you blame bush for your being fat, ugly and stupid.
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 7:35 PM
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 7:25 PM
terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Nailed it, both of you!
Keemo on May 28, 2008 at 7:35 PM
I’m pretty sure you’ll be on blogs calling the next president names. You’ll never be happy unless you are belittling people. Have fun!
terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Your question assumes something that I have never said. Which is that Americans very much hesitate going to war but Bush has managed to turn that around. This isn’t true in my opinion.
Americans (and I’m not saying they are worse than others. I know there will be idiots who will accuse me of saying that.) are fairly content with the idea of the “pass me another burger” war. The sacrifice is now to put a magnet on the truck.
People say how we’re in the middle of an existential struggle and they seriously argue that Romney’s kids have a right to choose their career. Really? Would that logic have worked during the WW2? No. Why? Well, it’s because “if you don’t fight, you and all of your family may no longer exist very soon” was then a plausible proposition. People in many countries including Europe and North America actually believed it, which showed.
People are people, and they only care about thing that affect them. Which makes people with access to information that much more responsible for misleading the public.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Do you have a masters degree from Yale?
Johan Klaus on May 28, 2008 at 7:43 PM
LOL! You clowns on the left called McClellan a liar for years. Now all of a sudden, when he says something that supports your political agenda, he’s a “messenger of the truth”.
As a poster noted over at Power Line, when talking to a hypocrite just like you (h/t to Power Liner “Bowman”)
“I consider finding someone to be believable just because he starts agreeing with you is showing that you are a poor judge of character.
All McClellan has done here is to confirm that you were right when you thought he was a dishonest person.
Since you’ve confirmed that, why would you accept anything he wrote in the book as being the truth…other than that what he says conforms to what you want to believe.
You’ve confirmed in his previous job that he’ll lie for money.”
Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2008 at 7:46 PM
I think you’re sick, but that’s between you and your pediatrician.
No, I haven’t had 8 years of hell. My life has actually been pretty good for the most part. But yeah, I would very much prefer a different President. Luckily, the end is near.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 7:46 PM
No.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 7:46 PM
There would have been a 9/11 even if Bush had not won. And like Al Gore said back in 2002, it was time for a day of reckoning with Iraq, on our terms.
People seem to think that if they stub a toe it is Bush’s fault. A category 5 hurricane is Bush’s fault. etc. But once Bush is gone, there will be no natural disasters or terrorists.
I don’t think it will be that simple.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 7:47 PM
the only people misleading the public are left-wing wackos like you.
lets see, Saddam was partnering with Al-qaeda during the clinton years, but all of sudden during the Bush years, he was ’saved’ and didn’t anymore!!!
same with WMDs, he ‘converted’
you libs are laughable.
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 7:47 PM
its pretty obvious….
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 7:48 PM
freevillage:
Yes, it is. And then when something goes wrong you will have to find someone else to blame.
But what am I saying, there will be at least a decade of retroactive Bushbashing.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Heh. I’m pretty sure during WWII we also didn’t have people in front of their computers writing that FDR has “sh** for brains.” Yes, a lot has changed since those days, huh?
terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 7:49 PM
I hope so. I’m much more educated than a holder of Master’s degree from Yale. And I work for MIT. Enough throwing labels around?
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 7:49 PM
You can’t be serious. What we are facing in the war against Islamic extremism is every bit as deadly, if not more so, than the enemies we fought in World War 2. After all, despite the fact that Germany, Japan and Italy had armies and navies, they were never able to attack and kill American civilians on American soil.
Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2008 at 7:50 PM
No. I don’t claim that the WW2 was anything like the war that we have now. My point was that the “proponents of the war” don’t think so either. Their actions speak for themselves.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 7:50 PM
The thing the guys like freevillage etc always ignore is that the evidence on Saddam was not just a product of the Bush White House or the Bush years. It might be profitable for weasels like McClellan to cash in on this, but I can actually recall TV news shows about Saddam working with AlQaida back in the 90s. Now unless Bush got in his way back machine…
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 7:51 PM
We can not really compare this war to WW2. There was no 24 hours news then, no internet.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 7:53 PM
yeah they would have been in jail. or dead
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 7:53 PM
the part that is very different, is we are a much richer country, and can afford to fight a war and not ration anything now. and we could not before.
but the germans never killed anyone on our soil.
people who think this isn’t a clash of civilizations are clueless.
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 7:55 PM
freevillage:
This is the internet, you can say you are anything. Maybe you work at MIT, maybe you are a stripper.
But Patreaus is an educated man. So is Abizaid. The Sec of Defense Gates has a PhD. And yet a lot of people would call them tools or fools because of their professions or their politics. It is all relative.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Really? Where did I “ignore” that? Did I say anything to the effect of what you’re trying to ascribe to me?
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 7:55 PM
yeah everyplace needs janitors.
professing to be wise, they have become fools…
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 7:56 PM
I hope so. I’m much more educated than a holder of Master’s degree from Yale. And I work for MIT. Enough throwing labels around?
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 7:49 PM
If this is true, then why do you stoop to such low levels with your comments directed at our president? I didn’t vote for Clinton, however when Clinton won the election he became my president and was given my support. I’m an American before I’m anything else.
Keemo on May 28, 2008 at 7:57 PM
~> traceroute hotair.com
traceroute to hotair.com (72.32.51.13), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 B24-RTR-3-54.MIT.EDU (18.83.0.1) 0.515 ms 0.489 ms 0.716 ms
2 EXTERNAL-RTR-1-BACKBONE-2.MIT.EDU (18.168.1.18) 1.257 ms 1.236 ms 1.465 ms
3 ge-6-23.car2.Boston1.Level3.net (4.79.2.1) 0.880 ms 0.871 ms 0.870 ms
4 ae-2-5.bar2.Boston1.Level3.net (4.69.132.250) 0.564 ms 0.812 ms 0.804 ms
5 ae-8-8.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.140.98) 14.182 ms 14.177 ms 14.159 ms
6 ae-71-71.csw2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.134.70) 5.847 ms ae-81-81.csw3.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.134.74) 6.632 ms ae-61-61.csw1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.134.66) 16.562 ms
7 ae-23-79.car3.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.16.69) 6.580 ms ae-33-89.car3.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.16.133) 5.895 ms ae-43-99.car3.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.16.197) 6.516 ms
8 att-level3-oc192.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.127.150) 13.870 ms 12.916 ms 13.483 ms
9 tbr1.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.0.90) 46.016 ms 45.984 ms 45.695 ms
10 cr2.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.16.141) 45.299 ms 45.288 ms 44.954 ms
11 cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.3.38) 45.833 ms 45.896 ms 45.496 ms
12 cr1.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.1.173) 45.663 ms 45.640 ms 45.617 ms
13 cr2.dlstx.ip.att.net (12.122.28.174) 45.442 ms 45.633 ms 45.607 ms
14 tbr2.dlstx.ip.att.net (12.122.18.230) 47.435 ms 45.767 ms 45.740 ms
15 12.122.100.97 (12.122.100.97) 45.506 ms * 45.175 ms
16 12.87.41.178 (12.87.41.178) 64.827 ms 61.771 ms 61.421 ms
17 vlan903.core3.dfw1.rackspace.com (72.3.128.53) 48.452 ms 48.923 ms 48.375 ms
18 aggr114a.dfw1.rackspace.net (72.3.129.104) 48.638 ms 49.003 ms 48.852 ms
19 87021-app1.hotair.com (72.32.51.13) 48.828 ms 48.651 ms 48.774 ms
That’s true. I think I would let it slide if such a remark were made in the heat of a debate. If you cool down and write what you think is dispassionate analysis, and you use those terms, then it becomes problematic.
In the case of Bush, I think it’s demonstrable fact that the guy isn’t bright, to say the least. I think that’s had real consequences on his policies. I’m not prepared to write a book on the subject right this minute, but when I say (and I do) that Bush doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to be an effective President, my intention isn’t just to call him names.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 8:00 PM
At the end of WW2 a full 45%of the budget was going to the war. No way today would people tolerate that kind of expenditure. We had a population less than half of what it is today, but look at those casualties.
I know a lot of these old veterans. I am a visiting nurse and I have taken care of many of them. I had a client who survived 3 and a half years in a Japanes POW camp after the disastrous fall of the Philippines. Thousands of men left to die. Heads would roll today.
I had a client who was in the Battle of the Bulge. We lost 81,000 men in that battle, some of them to exposure.
No, these people for all their socalled nuance and humanity could not stand up to it today.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Does this book actually bring any new facts to the table? I ask because all I have seen so far are a lot of opinions, like this:
History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.
How profound!
Buy Danish on May 28, 2008 at 8:01 PM
sorry, the first part was a response to this:
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 8:01 PM
of course not! libs don’t have any facts, they think we should just believe whatever they say…as if its from sinai….the arrogance.
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Well, I’m certainly not “American before anything else”.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 8:04 PM
usually the maintenance staff at schools work in the evenings.
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 8:04 PM
why state the obvious?
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 8:04 PM
freevillage:
Settle down?
I think attacks and assaults on Bush’s intelligence are sophomoric cheap shots by someone who assumes that smart people can control events. Life is not like that.
I think Bush is an intelligent man. He is not responsible for other people’s bad behavior or partisan silliness.
If all those other smart people out there had been able to figure out that AlQAida was dangerous back in the 90’s, or that Saddam was lying about his wmd or whatever…we would not be having this discussion.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Because somebody in the thread clearly addressed me with what they sincerely thought would be viewed as a legitimate argument. I wanted to make sure they knew I disagreed.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 8:06 PM
oh they knew that. but to act decisively is not in democratic DNA. they really don’t want to protect america since they think america is ‘guilty’ and should be punished.
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Just imagine, back in the late 90s when they started making all those low interest loans, if some smart people, like Greenspan had thought about what the long term effects of all that we might have avoided a credit crisis.
But the smart people said it was okay, until it was not.
The smart people did not bother trying to create alternative energy sources when oil was cheap, even though we would be better off today if they had.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 8:09 PM
just heard dick morris say that Scotty’s father wrote a book that blamed LBJ for kennedy’s assasination…
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Well, no. Some just observe Bush directly and make determinations as to his apparent intellectual abilities. I’m certainly not a liberal partisan, seeing as how I supported Romney and now McCain for President. Neither am I a Republican partisan, so I don’t feel the need to defend them.
I agree and have stated as much that the Democrats, for instance, are largely responsible for the war. So it’s not about one individual screwing it up. I think a specific comment made by me is taken as an indication of my position on every subject, which is just wrong.
I’m defending a very narrow proposition that Bush is a moron. I am not defending a proposition that he’s singlehandedly responsible for everything bad in the world.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 8:11 PM
to the ’smart’ liberal people, us being ‘better off’ is not burning oil, so we can save Gaia.
They want high gas prices, to reduce our carbon footprint.
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 8:11 PM
right4life:
Ah, it is genetic then. I think it is the money myself.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 8:11 PM
What a coincidence! The publisher of this idiotic book is PublicAffairs who also publish George Soros.
I’m shocked, I tell ya.
I wouldn’t be surprised if George Soros owns this publishing company and uses it as a vanity press for his propaganda.
Buy Danish on May 28, 2008 at 8:13 PM
don’t know, but the more I hear from left-wingers, the more I think their irrationality is genetic. They all say the same thing: ‘bush did it’!!
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Well I hear that the smart educated folks like Obama. He is chic, and smart like them. Not dumb like Bush.
It is true that Obama does not know how many states there are in the Union. Or who liberated the Nazi death camps in Poland. Or what Memorial Day was established for. And it is also true that he can sit and listen to some hatemonger rave about the US creating AIDS just to kill black folks and somehow not take exception. But he talks purty and he looks good in a suit and he makes them feel all smug and self righteous. But don’t call him dumb.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM
They did. Hence memos to Bush titled “Al-Quaeda is right behind you!!!1″ The moron chose to ignore them.
freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM
What does Scott McClellan know of intelligence reports? I doubt that he’s ever had one in his hands. By necessity, you don’t want your press secretary to know anything important so that they might dissemble innocently and truthfully. Geez!
thegreatbeast on May 28, 2008 at 8:16 PM
And some have observed Bush directly and made the judgment that he is an intelligent well educated man. But that is the trouble with some people.
Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 8:17 PM
you’re the moron. Clinton had 8 years and did nothing, and Bush had 9 months, and you think he could have taken out al-qaeda?
oh and the memo said that al-qaeda could hijack a plane…duhhhhh like we didn’t already know that. nothing ‘actionable’
tell me, are you a liar, or just a fool?
right4life on May 28, 2008 at 8:18 PM
What! I’m this seriously asking this and I’m not trying to start a fight but: How in the world can you support McCain when he’s supported the War in Iraq (one that you think was a mistake) since the beginning? He also seems to agree with Bush on several issues.
terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »