Posted on 05/28/2008 6:14:20 PM PDT by COBOL2Java
Personally, I think the story behind this book can probably be traced from looking at each of the drafts.
I bet he secured a deal and then turned in his manuscript, only to have it returned with the comment “there’s nothing here, you need to spice it up if you want a best seller”
this led him down a path to more and more outrageous assertions until the publishers were happy with the product.
This would explain why his former colleagues are saying “this isn’t the Scott McClellan we knew”.
Bush brought some of this on himself. He has pushed alot of the Democrat agenda. No Child Left Behind, signing Campaign Finance, Prescription Drug, massive deficit spending, illegal immigration. Not fighting the Iraq War correctly from mid 2003 until early 2007.
He sent this guy McClennan out to the wolves and didn’t defend himself so Scott looked like a fool. I’ll give you that some of this maybe payback for mom. But some of this is payback and cahing in for himself.
In any case, he never came off as a quick thinker even it was his job, so now he'll probably talk himself into legal trouble.
McClellan writes: “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided — that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder.”
In fact, “history” is poised to do no such thing. Al-Qaida is on the run, and the U.S. is on the cusp of victory in Iraq (for another view of our success in the War on Terror, see “Verbatim,” page A11). Years from now we think Americans will see this as a turning point in history, a time when an American leader stood up to protect Western Civilization following the barbarous attacks of 9/11.
We don’t have space here to refute everything. But one charge in McClellan’s 341-page tome stands out, so we’ll focus on that: The Bush White House conducted a dishonest “political propaganda campaign” to sell the war to the American people.
Start with the obvious: Wasn’t it McClellan’s job to resign in protest if he thought the American people were being misled? If so, this was his own failing, not Bush’s.
Moreover, contrary to the common wisdom, Bush’s rationale for taking out Saddam Hussein was about many things — not just one.
Yes, he expressed concern Saddam would get a nuclear weapon with which to blackmail both his neighbors and the West.
But Bush also wanted to halt the spread of terror, deny a possible haven for al-Qaida, and promote democracy in the Mideast, among other things. As ex-Pentagon official Doug Feith recently noted, Bush delivered 24 major speeches on Iraq from Sept. 2002 to Sept. 2004. In them, he made a wide-ranging, nuanced case for getting rid of Saddam. It wasn’t only about WMD.
Yet, McClellan claims Bush was “shading the truth.” Well, what truth did he shade? WMD? In fact, the CIA assessment of Iraq that Bush used was made during President Clinton’s final year in office. It said that Saddam had a WMD program and, quite possibly, a nuclear weapon. Every major intelligence agency — Britain’s, France’s, Russia’s, Germany’s, Israel’s, even the U.N.’s — agreed.
Yes, as it turns out, some of that intelligence was wrong. Even so, reasons for getting rid of Saddam were too numerous to ignore. In October of 2002, Congress cited no fewer than 23 reasons when it overwhelmingly gave Bush the right to remove Saddam.
Bush was clear from the start, and dead honest: This was about defending our nation from the insane jihadists who had declared war on us from their safe-havens in the Mideast. McClellan, blinded by his anger, can’t see this. The American people someday will.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=296866878266430
If the Bush White House was so horrible, why didn’t Scott McClellan rush right out after he quit and tell Congress all of the shenanigans that were allegedly going on?
He's a freelancer and knows which way the wind is blowing. He can ride the tide quite happy.
So who do the Republicans nominate to run against one of two of the most socialist, anti-American, DemonRat candidates ever to be nominated?
A guy who was seduced by that culture starting in 1982 (Elected to House) and being fully seduced by '86 (first elected to Senate). Yea, that gonna work out real well.
I don't care. I am the one who doesn't care who likes me or dislikes me. I used to,but I don't any more. I doesn't matter to me. I am at the stage of my life and what I do, I'm actually proud of the people who hate me as I am of my friends,because they hate me for a good reason.That's because I'm a problem. That's because I pose them a great problem and because they can't turn me.
Wise words indeed. Words worthy of an elder statesman. Possibly they will go unheard by some Republicans. I have seen well meaning persons in Canadian politics, oh yes, Mr Nice Guy. Keep all the old party hacks in important non elected positions. Next comes the dagger in the back. (Hello Joe Clark). So neatly put, it hardly is noticed. The Canadian Liberal has an affinity with the American Democrat. Ah, cunning, devious, smiling and obsequious reaching across the aisle, nice guys.
John- laddie beware.
There they are, almost chortling with well professionally concealed glee. A cheering section for old Scotty.
Damn their hides.
In CA, in 1994, conservatives won a small majority in the CA assembly and many city and county elected positions. I well remember the attempt to indoctrinate, coopt and even intimidate newly elected county supervisors at the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) in San Diego. They even had members of the MSM there to "coach" us on how to "deal" with them as newly elected supervisors.
Rush's insight today into the human nature aspect of people winning new positions becoming obsessed with media attention and acceptance by previously established liberals is so thick at functions I described above, you can cut the tension with a knife!!!
Conversely, if one doesn't capitulate and suck-up to these liberal lions and even began to move in a conservative direction, the disdain gets so thick you can cut it with a knife!!! If one pokes fun at them with some rhetorical questions the mood can swing to outright open hostility, or a complete shunning in return... It is truly an intensely interesting study in sheep and sheep dogs!!!
It is the reason I keep telling all of you... "Never fall in love with a politician. They'll break your heart every time!!!" (Lee Rodgers, KSFO AM560)
On the money!
This is NOT good. Tony admitted he lost weight during the last hospitalization for nearly one week in Washington state about a month ago, but wouldn't specify the problem. Not good at all...
I hope it was not a premonition.
Prayers going up for a Very Good Man.
That sounds kind of religious.
Do you have a little shrine set up where you pray to him?
Oh, my. I hope it’s not another recurrence of his cancer. I’ll keep Tony in my prayers.
It doesn't matter to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.