Bush was not "forthright" on Iraq says

[Lt_Ripley]

Bush was not "forthright" on Iraq: ex-spokesman

Wed May 28, 2008 4:43am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says in a new book that President George W. Bush "veered terribly off course" and was not "open and forthright on Iraq," Politico.com reported on Tuesday.

In the memoir due out next week, McClellan also says Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war and says the Washington press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to it, according to the Web site.

McClellan also takes the administration to task for its performance after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, saying the White House "spent most of the first week in a state of denial," Politico reported.

According to the Web site, McClellan blames former Bush senior adviser Karl Rove for the photo of the president seen observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover.

"One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term," Politico quoted the book as saying.

McClellan's 341-page book, titled "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," takes a much harsher tone than White House officials had expected from the president's former aide, Politico reported.

The White House declined comment.

In the memoir, McClellan is said to claim that Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, misled him about their role in the CIA leak case. Libby was convicted last year on charges related to the investigation into who blew the cover of former CIA analyst Valerie Plame, whose husband was an outspoken Iraq war critic.

McClellan served as White House press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. A long-time Bush loyalist and fellow Texan, he said that he still likes and admires the president and that Bush was ill-served by top advisors.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...News&rpc=69

[Rosewin]

Sadly this might be glossed over and will not break any waves. Still it will be another piece of evidence in the detracted legacy GW Bush will leave behind.

[Bill Hill]

Doesn't really help in the slogan department.

Bush was not forthright...people er flew a kite!?!

[Ignus Fatuus]

May or may not be true ... but it's just publicity to sell his book.

Crooked as the bush he beats he is.

[Bill Hill]

Crooked as the bush he beats he is.

[Mr Honeybadger]

Hopefully Mr. McClellan's book will contain some good factual evidence to support his claims. Otherwise it will just seem like he is disgruntled and angry.

He had a rough go of it there for awhile. Having to answer for Bush's actions.

[__Kratos__]

Hopefully Mr. McClellan's book will contain some good factual evidence to support his claims. Otherwise it will just seem like he is disgruntled and angry.

He had a rough go of it there for awhile. Having to answer for Bush's actions.

Why? He just got headlines across the world. People will be buying his book like crazy now just because they don't like Bush and he'll slip off into the shadows with his bundle of money like the others authors have done... Not a bad plan to get richer quick.

[questionmark]

Why? He just got headlines across the world. People will be buying his book like crazy now just because they don't like Bush and he'll slip off into the shadows with his bundle of money like the others authors have done... Not a bad plan to get richer quick.

Problem is that it is always somebody else with the idea, eh?

[__Kratos__]

Problem is that it is always somebody else with the idea, eh?

I've thought about it but I'm not an insider and I'm sure there's enough young kids out there with real feelings rather then just wanting to scam people that are writing blogs for free. They're such jerks to denying my quick cash.

[Lt_Ripley]

Hopefully Mr. McClellan's book will contain some good factual evidence to support his claims. Otherwise it will just seem like he is disgruntled and angry.

He had a rough go of it there for awhile. Having to answer for Bush's actions.

he quit as pr man cause even he couldn't stand the stench anymore.

[__Kratos__]

he quit as pr man cause even he couldn't stand the stench anymore.

McClellan said it had been "an extraordinary honor and privilege" serving the president.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/19/mcclellan/index.html

Can't find much on him or if he's even on a new job yet... This book will go nicely towards retirement funds for him and his wife I'm sure.

Edited May 28, 2008 by __Kratos__

[Fluffybunny]

As much as I dislike Bush and do not trust him, I have even less trust in people that served under him, admittedly lied for him, covered up scandals for him, but have to wait for their books to be published to release the bombshell information. It takes away any credibility in my opinion; if he were so concerned it seems like he would have left and gone to the local appropriate authorities to get his story out instead of waiting so long to make cash off the deal. He could still write a book about it and his experiencem but by wanting to hold on to the headlines to the time his book is published it makes me think he is not so forthright either...

Edited May 28, 2008 by Fluffybunny

[AROCES]

Why? He just got headlines across the world. People will be buying his book like crazy now just because they don't like Bush and he'll slip off into the shadows with his bundle of money like the others authors have done... Not a bad plan to get richer quick.

YUP, all but common nowadays to throw in some controversy in there to sell a book.

[Aztec Warrior]

Once they write a book all credibility is thrown out the window.

[questionmark]

As much as I dislike Bush and do not trust him, I have even less trust in people that served under him, admittedly lied for him, covered up scandals for him, but have to wait for their books to be published to release the bombshell information. It takes away any credibility in my opinion; if he were so concerned it seems like he would have left and gone to the local appropriate authorities to get his story out instead of waiting so long to make cash off the deal. He could still write a book about it and his experiencem but by wanting to hold on to the headlines to the time his book is published it makes me think he is not so forthright either...

Well, I guess this is the famous SYOA policy.... Nobody wanted the war in Iraq...not Rumsfeld, not Bolton, not Rice, not Powell and especially not Dubya. It just happened...and nobody did it...nobody planned for it and nobody authorized it.

The whole thing makes me want to chunder.

[acidhead]

Well, I guess this is the famous SYOA policy.... Nobody wanted the war in Iraq...not Rumsfeld, not Bolton, not Rice, not Powell and especially not Dubya. It just happened...and nobody did it...nobody planned for it and nobody authorized it.

The whole thing makes me want to chunder.

lol

[IronGhost]

Too many people think the good old profit motive explains everything -- they think McClellan stabbed his boss in the back just so he could get a pile a cash and buy a condo in the Cayman Island and enjoy a retirment of luxury and smoking cigars on the beach.

Bu there's a lot of evidence the McClellan now feels he was repeatedly lied to by his bosses, played for the patsy, and was sent out to tell whoppers to the American public -- making McCellan looking like a dishonest ass, and at his expense.

McClellan was a loyal foot soldier who genuinsely believed what he was being told by the top -- but found out later that a lot of the stuff about the war, about Valerie Plame and more was all just BS. He was also genuinely dusgusted by witnessing first hand how the Katrina response was very badly bungled.

I wonder if it's possible that McClellan wants to set the record straight for history from his perspective. Of course, the money he receives from the book will always be latched onto as the easiest explanation for why a once fiercly loyal Bushie turned against his master.

It reminds me of that saying: "Just because your paranoid doesn't mean that everyone isn't out to get you."

Is it possible in America that someone can make a pile of cash for doing the right thing?

Because if you don't believe this, you're extremely cynical. You think that the only way a guy can make a million dollars on a book is to become a traiterous "Brutus" - and that getting rich for being honest is next to impossible.

Also, maybe McClellen feels he has blood on his hands for going along with all the BS the Neocons dished out to the public to promote their war -- and now he wants to get clean -- but again, I suppose taking money for this attempt at atonement puts it in question.

[AROCES]

Too many people think the good old profit motive explains everything -- they think McClellan stabbed his boss in the back just so he could get a pile a cash and buy a condo in the Cayman Island and enjoy a retirment of luxury and smoking cigars on the beach.

Bu there's a lot of evidence the McClellan now feels he was repeatedly lied to by his bosses, played for the patsy, and was sent out to tell whoppers to the American public -- making McCellan looking like a dishonest ass, and at his expense.

McClellan was a loyal foot soldier who genuinsely believed what he was being told by the top -- but found out later that a lot of the stuff about the war, about Valerie Plame and more was all just BS. He was also genuinely dusgusted by witnessing first hand how the Katrina response was very badly bungled.

I wonder if it's possible that McClellan wants to set the record straight for history from his perspective. Of course, the money he receives from the book will always be latched onto as the easiest explanation for why a once fiercly loyal Bushie turned against his master.

It reminds me of that saying: "Just because your paranoid doesn't mean that everyone isn't out to get you."

Is it possible in America that someone can make a pile of cash for doing the right thing?

Because if you don't believe this, you're extremely cynical. You think that the only way a guy can make a million dollars on a book is to become a traiterous "Brutus" - and that getting rich for being honest is next to impossible.

Also, maybe McClellen feels he has blood on his hands for going along with all the BS the Neocons dished out to the public to promote their war -- and now he wants to get clean -- but again, I suppose taking money for this attempt at atonement puts it in question.

For 2 years her didn't say a word and not even was it a reason for his resignation.

If he is really bothered by it, then why wait 2 years and for a book???

[IronGhost]

For 2 years her didn't say a word and not even was it a reason for his resignation.

If he is really bothered by it, then why wait 2 years and for a book???

A. How long do you think it takes to write a full-length book?

B. Why should he divulge all the contents of the book before it's published, and ruin sales?

C. He almost certainly wated to do a lot of soul searching, but eventually felt compelled to come clean in his book.

Finally, I remember when George Stephanopolous took his old boss, Mr. Clinton, to the woodshed in his book -- all the Repubs were more than gleeful over that, and none were accusing him of profit motive. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and all of a sudden it's a heinous crime to make money with an White House insider's book telling it the way he saw it.

[el midgetron]

McClellan is just a rat jumping ship and covering his own butt.

Once they write a book all credibility is thrown out the window.

[Dr. D]

Bush was not "forthright" on Iraq: ex-spokesman

Wed May 28, 2008 4:43am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says in a new book that President George W. Bush "veered terribly off course" and was not "open and forthright on Iraq," Politico.com reported on Tuesday.

In the memoir due out next week, McClellan also says Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war and says the Washington press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to it, according to the Web site.

McClellan also takes the administration to task for its performance after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, saying the White House "spent most of the first week in a state of denial," Politico reported.

According to the Web site, McClellan blames former Bush senior adviser Karl Rove for the photo of the president seen observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover.

"One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term," Politico quoted the book as saying.

McClellan's 341-page book, titled "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," takes a much harsher tone than White House officials had expected from the president's former aide, Politico reported.

The White House declined comment.

In the memoir, McClellan is said to claim that Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, misled him about their role in the CIA leak case. Libby was convicted last year on charges related to the investigation into who blew the cover of former CIA analyst Valerie Plame, whose husband was an outspoken Iraq war critic.

McClellan served as White House press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. A long-time Bush loyalist and fellow Texan, he said that he still likes and admires the president and that Bush was ill-served by top advisors.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...News&rpc=69

We need to remember that we were taken to war in Iraq to protect America from the eminent danger of Saddam Hussein.

God, I almost choked saying that. How can anyone still believe this crap?

[AROCES]

A. How long do you think it takes to write a full-length book?

So he is not really bothered by it, just that he is writing a book.

B. Why should he divulge all the contents of the book before it's published, and ruin sales?

Excatly the point, he is not really bothered by it and just need to sell a book.

C. He almost certainly wated to do a lot of soul searching, but eventually felt compelled to come clean in his book.

More of SALE searching.

Finally, I remember when George Stephanopolous took his old boss, Mr. Clinton, to the woodshed in his book -- all the Repubs were more than gleeful over that, and none were accusing him of profit motive. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and all of a sudden it's a heinous crime to make money with an White House insider's book telling it the way he saw it.

Same thing, Geroge was trying to sell a book.

[Dr. D]

So he is not really bothered by it, just that he is writing a book.

Excatly the point, he is not really bothered by it and just need to sell a book.

More of SALE searching.

Same thing, Geroge was trying to sell a book.

So you believe McClellan and Stephanopolous would commit libel "just to sell a book?" If the truth was told, what importance does the motive have? From the reviews, I would say that McClellan has taken it very easy on George, whitewashing his leading this nation into a senseless war because of his "relying on propaganda." A president who has every intelligence agency at his command does not need to depend on propaganda and I firmly believe he knew exactly what he was doing.

[AROCES]

So you believe McClellan and Stephanopolous would commit libel "just to sell a book?" If the truth was told, what importance does the motive have? From the reviews, I would say that McClellan has taken it very easy on George, whitewashing his leading this nation into a senseless war because of his "relying on propaganda." A president who has every intelligence agency at his command does not need to depend on propaganda and I firmly believe he knew exactly what he was doing.

Not commit libel, but simply throw in some controversy in the book for marketing purposes.

Bush himself said it, All Senators, representatives and the UN saw and reviwed the same intelligence he saw.

[zitro1987]

For some reason I'm not interested. Unless he can back up his arguments with solid evidence, it's just a guy venting is frustration, covering his ass, and making profits.