“Miserable creatures:” “There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues,” Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. “No, your….

1. Clearly, a book by a former Press Secretary accusing the President of the darndest things is gonna make a ton of money.

2. That’s not a sufficient reason to discard the content of the book.

But INTRIGUE refers to conspiracy and espionage.
That defines Berry-puppet’s masters. Soros evidently wears the word as a badge of honor. MASTER OF INTRIGUE.

puke.

What is true satire is Berry’s reference of BITTER people GRASPING their guns and religion–because that definition fits his own congregation so much better than it applies to anyone else. LOL.

McClellan is his mamma’s boy. She’s one tough gramma, and one lousy mother. That family amounts to herpes now.

Bush may find his personal affinity for the Gen.6:6 reference.

That’s the word you use to describe what’s going on in the mind of a little kid, who’s just been given a box that says, “Do Not Open”

heh,heh,heh

It just doesn’t add up.

I predict that this guy will die on self loathing.

fantastic link

Too many Administrations pay too little attention to personnel, and especially to the second wave of appointments after the first wave gets tired and leaves.

Calling Obama a Rock Star, wanting to meet him, and predicting a landslide, dissing McCain, what’s that about?

Beta boy Scott has gotten more attention in a few days than
the war we are succeeding in has in months:

As Surge Succeeds– Iraq Coverage Declines 92% In One Year

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/as-surge-succeeds-iraq-coverage.html
Democracy Project analyzes a recent report published at the American Journalism Review titled: “Whatever Happened to Iraq?”

In a media shocker…
This past year Iraq has disappeared from the front pages of the nation’s newspapers and from the nightly network newscasts.

Network news devoted to Iraq dropped from 23% to 3% (92% decline) compared to last year:

Cable news dedicated to Iraq dropped even further from 24% to 1% over last year:

Print news dedicated to Iraq dropped 70% over last year.

It would be nice to see this much attention paid to the war that has apparently now passed the liberal’s “Global Test”.

World praises progress in Iraq as Baghdad seeks debt relief
18 hours ago
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iPmfoMR0GDFx8KkGeO3BPlY4qsGg

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — World leaders, including UN chief Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Thursday hailed Baghdad’s progress in combatting violence and stabilising Iraq.
A declaration adopted by 100 delegations at a Stockholm conference said the participants “recognised the important efforts made by the (Iraqi) government to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across Iraq.”
It also acknowledged political and economic progress made, and said that “given the difficult context, these successes are all the more remarkable.”

But Harry Reid said the war was “lost”!!

It depends on what the meaning of “all” is

Yesterday, I said it will be interesting to compare the degree to which the MSM reports on Scott McClellan’s new book, including its discussion of the Iraq war, with the negligible extent to which it has reported on Douglas Feith’s inside look at the same war, as well as the overall war on terrorism. The early returns are now in, and they come as no surprise.

As this report by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post shows, McClellan’s book is a topic of intense discussion not just at the Post but at USA Today and the New York Times. The latter two organs have refused to report on Feith’s book (the Times turned down three separate stories by star reporter James Risen), and the Post has refused to review it. Yet, for reasons discussed below, there can be little question as to which book is more valuable when it comes to understanding why we went to war in Iraq and whether it made sense to do so.

Kurtz refers to McClellan’s book as an example of the “tell-all” genre. Now, it may be true that McClellan is revealing all of his current opinions about, say, the war in Iraq, along with whatever he happens to know about the decision-making relating to that war and the evidence supporting the ultimate decision. But whether this amounts to a “tell-all” depends on how much McClellan actually knows, and this is the subject of considerable doubt. Though I haven’t read his book, I do know that it is devoid of footnotes, endnotes, and supporting documentation. Nor, as John has pointed out, do McClellan’s media appearances suggest that he’s knowledgeable enough to have written a tell-all,at least on this subject.

Feith’s book stands in sharp contrast. First, unlike McClellan, Feith was at the center of the policy-making at issue. Second, his book provides detailed accounts of key meetings based on contemporaneous notes. And it includes more than 30 pages of original source material plus almost 90 pages of endnotes. Readers can thus determine for themselves whether the author is providing a reliable account or merely settling scores and/or trying to make a buck (Feith, by the way, is donating all proceeds from his book to help Iraq war veterans). Yet the MSM is breathless over McClellan’s book, while it continues studiously to ignore Feith’s.

For Kurtz and the rest of the MSM, then, the concept of “tell-all” has little to do with the amount of actual information revealed, or its quality. The key, instead, is the amount of vitriol directed at (in this case) a president the MSM dislikes.

Though newspapers were once thought to be in the information business, politics, not information, seems to be the touchstone when it comes to dealing with books by public figures. I can think of no other explanation for the disparity in the treatment of the recent works of McClellan and Feith.

Imagine that… a book slamming the president, then interest in the liberal candidate? Who woulda thunk it?

Rhinoboy on May 29, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Nixon lied—-Journalist died!

The profession of journalism evolved into a new level of degradation when “deep throat” began feeding two young reporters the inner workings of an administration. The feeding frenzy that followed produced a thinking that the media had as much power to manipulate the course of events as the power-brokers that were elected by hiding behind the first amendment. The “my source must not be revealed” became a valuable tool that allowed “journalist” to distort the facts to shape their own bias or agenda. Scott McClelland is just part of a long list of incarnated Jason Blairs that found a willing public, (and a disgruntled publisher) to line their pockets. Who would have thought 30 pieces of silver would have stood the test of time.

Frankly, I thought McClellan did an absolute lousy job as press secretary and was glad to see him go when Bush finally, yes finally, through the dreg out. He was absolutely terrible as press secretary. Probably the most forgettable of the lot.

I don’t believe a ward of what he says … Not surprised he would ass-kiss Comrade Obama, look who is paying him.