BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!

[erynthered]

This shiit is hilarious.

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...ottie-sowe.html

 

As Scottie Sowed, So Is He Reaping

May 28, 2008 3:15 PM

 

Before he wrote his own memoir, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was rather critical of those who did the same.

 

In fact, some of the same language now being used to trash McClellan he himself used to trash previous administration authors.

 

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. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. ...

 

Q: Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors.

 

McCLELLAN: Yes, and that's just flat-out wrong. …When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it's important that we set the record straight. And that's what we're doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today.

[Brandon]

The main issue:

 

THE GROSS NEGLECT/INCOMPETENCE OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE STEADY EROSION OF INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY BECAUSE OF THIS NEGLECT/INCOMPETENCE

 

Generally speaking, I agree with you.

 

However, in this particular case, it seems to me that if Scott McClellan has no credibility, then there's no story here.

[KD in CA]

What? "controversey" sells more books? No way! Who knew?

[erynthered]

 

Brian McNamee's new book on Bush. Here he is on the Today show telling everyone the real truth.

[erynthered]

And finally.

 

No book is solely an author's creation. To get your book published, you have to sell it to a publisher. Because publishers make money, usually by appealing to distinct markets, publishers have a legitimate right to tailor the book to their preferred market. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you remember that when you're reading the book.

 

McClellan left the White House with a shiny gold watch and the door slamming behind him. He's a public relations guy, and although he worked in the White House, he wasn't involved in crucial policy decisions. He certainly didn't participate in the decision process to go into Iraq. So, what can he sell? Why would a publisher be interested in a McClellan book? Or better yet, what kind of book would it have to be to attract any interest from publishers? That's the book we got.

 

• Unlike a book by a policy-maker, this book (apparently) has no details of why the decisions were made -- so instead, it focuses on McClellan's speculations on the personalities involved. Because it doesn't have the substance, it magnifies the importance of the decoration.
  
• Liberals eat that up, because they deny the substance of the argument for war. They magnify the role of personality. That why they portray Bush as stupid, and Cheney and the neocons as evil, power hungry warmongers. In their view, we didn't go to war for any reason; instead, they think we went to war because that's what warmongers do.
  

[Kelly the Dog]

Which of these scenarios is MORE likely?

 

1] A Bush loyalist and ex-Press Secretary who never complained about what he saw or told the press anything bad about the President writes a pretty truthful book about all the crap he saw but was too scared (or too gutless) to report. But most everything in it is what he saw.

 

2] A Bush loyalist and ex-Press Secretary who never complained about what he saw or told anything bad about the President just makes up a pack of lies to get back at The White House and never really saw any bad stuff when he worked there.

 

It's pretty obvious he's not making most of this up, he's just a jerk.

 

McClellan either should have quit a lot earlier or not written the book while the President was still in office. But it's kind of stupid IMO for anyone to say that he should have quit before AND he is just doing this for the money, because if he was just doing this for the money he could have made about 100 times more money had he quit four years ago and wrote a book just then while we were in the middle of it. He would have gotten about a 20 million dollar advance the day he left the office.

[DC Tom]

Karen whatserface...Gonzales...Harriett Meier....off the top of my head

 

Given that Meier was W's lawyer long before he reached the White House, I don't think she's a fair example. What, a Texas resident is going to choose a lawyer from North Dakota or something?

[Steely Dan]

Scott McClellan is the son of Carol Keeton Strayhorn or Rylander depending on how you remember her. She is the "granny" who ran for TX gov against Gov. Goodhair. She is a conservative, as is Scott. Her campaign message was basically that the GOP has gotten far astray of party values, substituting social conservatism for fiscal conservatism and building big government as opposed to minimizing governmental intrusion. She was a Bushista when he was Guv - Treasurer or Comptroller, now I don't recall which.

 

Had I still lived in TX I would have voted for the feisty ole granny.

 

I am sure she is proud of her son. As press secretary his job was to perfume the pig, not to contribute to policy decisions. But, it would have been nice if he'd dug in when he thought something was wrong. Four thousand plus US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis might have been spared.

 

Frankly there is nothing in the book that most intelligent people hadn't already surmised. The only difference is it's coming from an insider.

 

Well stated!

 

 

Man, I'm glad I read your post. I would have hated to miss a gem like "a hero like Richard Clarke".

 

Vaffanculo! If they had listened to Richard Clarke it would've been a much better start to his administration.

 

 

"Insider." Right. The guy was easily the most incompetent press secretary I can remember and only got his job because W. likes Texas people with connections. He was a complete embarassment (who it was fun to forget about) but now he wants to make a little money appealing to the Left since the Right wants nothing to do with him. I find it hard to believe that someone who had more trouble than W. stringing sentences together could ever write a book.

 

Not that it matters. The press will cover this like its a huge story and I wonder how many of the "mainstream media" will bother to wonder why McClellan only had the fortitude to do the right thing and speak out after he got paid to write a book.

 

Nevermind. Let's all pretend this guy was ever competent, let alone important.

 

I would agree with you on that assessment and to a certain extent I still do but he's only reiterating things that many of the Bush insiders have said already. It is odd at it's timing and publishers do pay more for evil conspiracy type things but that doesn't mean it isn't true either. He was there as an insider. Why is he saying it now? Because he has no fear of losing his job. Everybody I know has to compromise their morals in one way or another for their jobs.

 

 

You crack me up. Most everyone in that administration "got their job because W likes Texas people with connections". A lot of them were recycled Bush I people who eventually had no stomach for W and left.

 

Still, the administration as whole is incompetent so why would this guy be any different? Or is he only NOW incompetent because he's saying things the right doesn't like?

 

He promised before he left that he'd write a tell-all book, and that's just what he did. There were probably tell-all books after Clinton left that of course, to people like you, could only have been gospel truth (assuming they said bad things about Bubba).

 

That's the funny thing isn't it. There a more than a couple of books or interviews with former Bush insiders stating pretty much what I've heard McClellan is stating. (I haven't read the book) The problem here is it looks like it's coming from a very reliable inside source. The damage control people have gotten into high gear on this one. As soon as anyone prints something like this their motives and character come into question by those who need to obliterate any thought that this might be true. The problem is that so many of these, evilly motivated and low character, people are saying the same things from their different perspectives. How many people have to come out and say the same things before it can be considered believeable?

[Steely Dan]

This shiit is hilarious.

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...ottie-sowe.html

 

As Scottie Sowed, So Is He Reaping

May 28, 2008 3:15 PM

 

Before he wrote his own memoir, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was rather critical of those who did the same.

 

In fact, some of the same language now being used to trash McClellan he himself used to trash previous administration authors.

 

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. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. ...

 

Q: Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors.

 

McCLELLAN: Yes, and that's just flat-out wrong. …When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it's important that we set the record straight. And that's what we're doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today.

 

Looks like the playbook hasn't changed.

[DC Tom]

Vaffanculo! If they had listened to Richard Clarke it would've been a much better start to his administration.

 

So sayeth Richard Clarke. And yet, Clinton didn't exactly do a bang-up job when HE listened to him, did he? Fact is, Clarke was and is a joke, and is only now "heroic" becacuse he couldn't be bothered to do his job competently when it counted.

 

That's the funny thing isn't it. There a more than a couple of books or interviews with former Bush insiders stating pretty much what I've heard McClellan is stating. (I haven't read the book) The problem here is it looks like it's coming from a very reliable inside source. The damage control people have gotten into high gear on this one. As soon as anyone prints something like this their motives and character come into question by those who need to obliterate any thought that this might be true. The problem is that so many of these, evilly motivated and low character, people are saying the same things from their different perspectives. How many people have to come out and say the same things before it can be considered believeable?

 

Little know fact: press secretaries aren't often privvy to the decision-making process. I would particularly expect that to be true w/r/t McClellan's claims about the Katrina response. They manage the press, not policy. But on the other hand...they're generally smart guys, and know when they're being asked to spout off a line of sh--, too. And like I've said before: this administration SUCKS at marketing, so it's not like it's difficult, when they're giving you nineteen different reasons for invading Iraq, to figure out that just maybe they don't have a single coherent one they can sell.

[Steely Dan]

So sayeth Richard Clarke. And yet, Clinton didn't exactly do a bang-up job when HE listened to him, did he? Fact is, Clarke was and is a joke, and is only now "heroic" becacuse he couldn't be bothered to do his job competently when it counted.

 

 

 

Little know fact: press secretaries aren't often privvy to the decision-making process. I would particularly expect that to be true w/r/t McClellan's claims about the Katrina response. They manage the press, not policy. But on the other hand...they're generally smart guys, and know when they're being asked to spout off a line of sh--, too. And like I've said before: this administration SUCKS at marketing, so it's not like it's difficult, when they're giving you nineteen different reasons for invading Iraq, to figure out that just maybe they don't have a single coherent one they can sell.

 

This administration SUCKS at marketing?? Explain how Dubya became a two termer!?

[SD Jarhead]

This administration SUCKS at marketing?? Explain how Dubya became a two termer!?

 

John Kerry...need I say more?

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Man, I'm glad I read your post. I would have hated to miss a gem like "a hero like Richard Clarke".

 

"Perfume the pig," I kinda like that. But I don't see how a press sec could have changed the fate of four thousand soilders. That's a bit of a reach. But shoot, we've seen this before. How about Dick Morris's assessment of the Clintons? He was tight with them at one time. Politics is just ugly. It's even ugly when we talk about in here. It's probably about the money. The book will probably make a lot of money. Maybe he needs it, or something. Though I do believe he had some problems with what ever happened. I think Colin Powell did too. Hey, how about this spin: Bush only hired people with such high principles and standards, that when the upholding of those standards was not met, they became disenfranchised. Can you say the same thing about Clinton? Maybe I could spin my way into politics. UHHH.... no.

[Steely Dan]

John Kerry...need I say more?

 

Even as a staunch Republican I can't see how you could possibly believe Bush is doing better than Kerry would have.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Perhaps its just me, but isn't it just a little bit hypocritical to only now believe the guy because he tells you what you want to hear? I'm sure that the liberals running around didn't believe a word that came out of his mouth a week ago.

 

IMO, Scott McClellan has absolutely no credibility. He was either lying then, or he's lying now.

 

[Chilly]

Generally speaking, I agree with you.

 

However, in this particular case, it seems to me that if Scott McClellan has no credibility, then there's no story here.

 

Not necessarily - it would just mean that corroboration would be needed.

 

Given what all this administration has done, I'd think that could be pretty easy to corroborate or not (though I haven't read McClellan's claims yet).

[DC Tom]

This administration SUCKS at marketing?? Explain how Dubya became a two termer!?

 

Because John Kerry "had a plan".

 

Seriously. This administration sucks at marketing. They tried to sell a war by giving NINETEEN different and often contradictory justifications for it, and instead managed to get the entire world to support a dictator that EVERYONE hated. They still can't explain their counter-terrorism policies. They have purposely and intentionally alienated the media. They can't even begin to explain Guantanamo detainments beyond "Well...they're bad men." Despite actually forging a multi-national diplomatic effort to resolve both the Iran and North Korean nuclear issues, and despite having ambassador-level talks with Iran for the first time in 30 years, they still can't figure out how to explain to the public that yes, they actually ARE pursuing alternatives to invasion. Despite supplying, financing, and equipping multinational African forces to police Darfur, people still ask "When are you going to do something about Darfur?"

 

And to run against an administration THAT completely incompetent at getting their message across, the Democratic party nominates the ONE candidate who's actually MORE clueless than George W. Bush. Freakin' amazing. A carrot could have beaten Bush. How do you !@#$ up that race?

[DC Tom]

Perhaps its just me, but isn't it just a little bit hypocritical to only now believe the guy because he tells you what you want to hear? I'm sure that the liberals running around didn't believe a word that came out of his mouth a week ago.

 

IMO, Scott McClellan has absolutely no credibility. He was either lying then, or he's lying now.

 

Probably lying then. The job description of a press secretary isn't to tell the truth, it's to deliver the statements you're given to deliver, and do it with a straight face.

 

So I don't hold it against him...the fact that he was lying then would indicate a certain integrity of sorts, in that he did his job as it was supposed to be done. It's the task that's slimy, not the man.

[Adam]

Even as a staunch Republican I can't see how you could possibly believe Bush is doing better than Kerry would have.

Have to say I'm impressed.

Although I really think John Kerry was an idiot even before he allowed the Clintons to "aid" his campaign

[Kelly the Dog]

Probably lying then. The job description of a press secretary isn't to tell the truth, it's to deliver the statements you're given to deliver, and do it with a straight face.

 

So I don't hold it against him...the fact that he was lying then would indicate a certain integrity of sorts, in that he did his job as it was supposed to be done. It's the task that's slimy, not the man.

White House Press Secretary has got to be one of the worst jobs in the world. You're just a ventriloquist dummy out there, paid to lie (as well as your better definition up top), can't say what you think, a lot of times can't even stick up for yourself, everyone knows you're full of schitt, and you get no credit for anything. Sign me up for that job.