Thursday, November 22, 2007

The height of authoritarianism and abject denial: McClellan just wants to sell books

Unfreakin' believable!! Loyal apologists and authoritarian followers of GW Bush continue to fall in line and deny even his former Press Secretary, Scott McClellan's confirmation that he was passed lies by the Bush Administration to sell to the American people.

Think about this critically. A guy who spent his time as a loyal Bush staff member for 3 years is going to stick his neck out and essentially claim that Bush, Cheney and Rove committed treason ... so he can sell books? What makes makes this even more preposterous is that it was proven in a federal court that Cheney's highest ranking staff member lied and was convicted of perjury for protecting the White House liars. And now McClellan is lying too?

Doc at the Autopsy, (Mike from Wisconsin) a religious right-wing authoritarian conservative and loyal Bushie, global warming denialist, and rabid anti-abortion crusader, explains it all this way in the comments to his post:

"I’m thinking Scott McClellan is trying to sell books. ... It wouldn’t be the first time a former administration official stretched the truth to make themselves some money."

Of course Doc labels anyone that would actually believe Scott McClellan as "the rabid left." You've heard about this level of authoritarianism. "Doc" is a stunning example. Denial is an essential part of the culture of authoritarianism as clearly documented in the case of Bush. The demonization of all enemies (i.e. :"the rabid left") is another clear aspect of the psychological profile of religious right wing authoritarians.

Apparently Presidential Candidate Senator Chris Dodd is a member of the so-called "rabbid left" as he calls for an immediate investigation into the President's "fundamental betrayal of public trust."

"We need to launch an immediate investigation to determine the facts of this case, the extent of any cover up and determine what the President knew and when he knew it. If in fact the President of the United of States knowingly instructed his chief spokesman to mislead the American people, there can be no more fundamental betrayal of the public trust."

-- Presidential Candidate Senator Chris Dodd

In case you're unfamiliar with the concept of Bush cult authoritarianism, here's a good reference quote from conservative author John Dean:

"Devotion to authority and the movement's own power is supreme, thereby overriding the consciences of its individual members and removing any intellectual and moral limits on what will be justified in defense of their movement."

-- John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience

More on Doc's cult of authoritarianism.

More on the psychological profile of Bush.

Regarding the whole Plame/Libby affair, you'd have to be pretty stupid or in denial to not see what was happening:


UPDATE:
A discussion on CNN

Cafferty: "...it doesn’t really seem to me like it’s breaking news that the administration, the White House, may have misled one of their own about something. After all, they’ve been lying to the rest of the country about a whole bunch of stuff for the better part of six and a half years. You remember when the story broke about the CIA agent and President Bush said I will fire anybody in the White House who was involved in compromising the identity of a CIA agent? Well, that was a lie wasn’t it? Because Karl Rove and Scooter Libby and some of those folks, they were up to their armpits in the compromising of Valerie Plame’s identity. so the President changed and he said I will fire anybody who is convicted of committing a crime in conjunction with the outing of a CIA agent. So I mean that place has turned into an oil slick a long time ago and I don’t believe a whole bunch of anything that comes out of there these days.

Borger:
But what if he’s lied to Jack? What if somebody lied to the President?

Cafferty: Excuse me. Excuse me. The buck stops at the oval office. He’s in charge. It’s up to him to find out who’s telling the truth and who isn’t. It’s up to him to tell the American people what went on in his White House. It’s his, it’s his White House. It’s his White House.

15 comments:

DocattheAutopsy said...

Willy, you're an embarrassment because you're a walking contradiction. Let me highlight your hypocrisy.

In this post: Of course Doc labels anyone that would actually believe Scott McClellan as "the rabid left."

In this post: The demonization of all enemies (i.e. :"the rabid left") is another clear aspect of the psychological profile of religious right wing authoritarians.

And from this post: Doc at the Autopsy, (Tony from Wisconsin) a religious right-wing authoritarian conservative and loyal Bushie, global warming denialist, and rabid anti-abortion crusader,

While I did say "rabid left", I didn't spout into an accusatory diatribe filled with inaccurate statements about me while speaking in contradictory terms. Where did I hear that before? Oh yes, from your previous post: # Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
# Hold contradictory ideas leading them to `speak out of both sides of their mouths.'


Interestingly, when I brought up the idea that McClennan is a hero now that he's speaking truth to power, and that earlier, when he was the mouthpiece for Bush, he was part of the lie-ridden Bush Big Oil Machine, he was reviled. And according to your post: #Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear. #Use many double standards in their thinking and judgements.

Of course, McClennan couldn't have ulterior motives, could he?

And since you brought up your previous post, let me illustrate your reflection on the Zogby poll on music. You think that the liberal mind is more open to music, and it just goes to show how great liberals are. # Believe they have no personal failings.
# Avoid learning about their personal failings.
# Be highly self-righteous.


But a little critical thinking would have gone a long way there, Willy. Where do many conservatives live? In the Midwest and South. As you could probably attest, what is the predominant radio choice in these areas? Country/Western, Classic Rock, and Classical. The reason Conservatives don't appreciate that music is that they are never exposed to that music. But don't let that stop you on making judgments on all conservatives.

Oh, does that show up in your previous post? It sure does! #Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs. #Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation

And one last retort to your attacks on me. You scolded me that I didn't "care" about the Bagladeshi victims of the cyclone in my post about Chile. And in that post I wondered if you'd post something in your blogs about the thousands affected by the natural disasters. You didn't. You dared to criticize me for not caring about all victims of disasters around the world where you didn't even mention anything about them in your posts on either of your blogs. In fact, you were too busted up about the loss of some aged Jack Daniels to even show an ounce of compassion for those affected by these disasters!

So there it is, Willy. Your hypocrisy highlighted for all of your world to see. That's why I called you the "rabid left". You're projecting what you actually are onto others. It's something people get treated in therapy, Willy. I think it's time you get an appointment.

William said...

Doc, you've proved your authoritarian loyalty to Bush by trying to throw life long Republican and long time Bush loyalist, Scott McClellen under the bus.

The bottom line here is for you and your neocon hero GW Bush to save face, you must cast McClellan as a liar, no matter how improbable and ridicluous your case looks, you'll stand by your failing neocon ideology to the end. Part of this ideology is to demonize anyone, like me or McClellan, who may call the competence or integrity of Bush into question.

Your examples of my so called hypocrisy are ridiculous, grasping at straws to order to convolute the issue and carry out the authoritarian agenda of attacking anyone who questions the great Bush's integrity. Me citing a survey on music, me noting a local story on Jack Daniels as examples of hypocrisy, absurd. Pathetic. Yes folks, read and learn. Mr. Millevote is a religious conservative authoritarian that believes loyalty to a failed leader and saving face in a failed policy must be accomplished at any and all expense to this great nation.

"The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue....There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma... It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. ... One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."

--William F. Buckley, National Review founder and father of American Conservatism

pam said...

you gotta be shittin' me... the dude has the balls to compare a music survey, a story on Jack Daniels to Bush & Cheney knowingly covering up the leaking of a CIA agent's identity? What planet is he living on??????? obviously his nose is so far up Bush's asshole it's affecting his brain.

DocattheAutopsy said...

"Your examples of my so called hypocrisy are ridiculous"

No, they're accurate. I've clearly lined out how you're accusing the right of doing what you're doing. It just shows the state of your delusion that you wouldn't recognize how you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

The fact you don't address these examples and merely label them as 'ridiculous' merely highlights the degree of your self-delusion.

"The bottom line here is for you and your neocon hero GW Bush to save face, you must cast McClellan as a liar"

As you must now cast him as a truth-teller.

"Part of this ideology is to demonize anyone, like me or McClellan, who may call the competence or integrity of Bush into question."

I'm demonizing you? All I said was you were part of the "rabid left". You said, and I quote, "Doc at the Autopsy, (Tony from Wisconsin) a religious right-wing authoritarian conservative and loyal Bushie, global warming denialist, and rabid anti-abortion crusader"

Who's demonizing who, Willy? I think after that diatribe, my statement about you being rabid is rather accurate. It's typical of your posts to include attacks and insults and inaccurate labels, which is part of the "rabid left" profile. You're not so much Juan Williams as you are Marcos Moulitsas.

As for your preaching....
"Yes folks, read and learn. Mr. Millevote is a religious conservative authoritarian that believes loyalty to a failed leader and saving face in a failed policy must be accomplished at any and all expense to this great nation."

You sound like the fundamentalist preachers you hate so much, preaching to your crowd while oblivious to your contradictions.

William said...

Any rational person, looking at the situation, the Plame affair, where a crime was committed, a coverup with motive ensued, would not doubt the statements of McClellan.

We have sooo many documented examples of Bush misleading the public on Iraq, only a true delusional authoritarian would continue to believe Bush/Cheney in the face of all these circumstances.

As Doc carries out his authoritarian mission of demonizing me and 'the liberals' - he uses the example of me "demonizing him" as one of hypocrisy.

Ahh excuse me? I called Doc a a religious right-wing authoritarian conservative and loyal Bushie, global warming denialist, and rabid anti-abortion crusader.

Who left a 14 emotional anti-abortion rights comments on my post - comments that compare a zygote with a slave?

Who uses industry funded junk science skeptic groups (like the Oregon Institute of science and medicine) to 'prove' global warming is a fallacy?

Who posted an elaborate theory to 'prove' that biogenesis could not have happened without some 'outside force' (ie a creator) and uses classic creationist criticisms that evolution theory is somewhat inadequate?

Who blogs about praying and religion where he states the belief: "No other religion teaches the peace that Jesus sought"?

Who believes the integrity of an administration that has lied to the American public repeatedly?

Yes, that's Dr. Tony Millevote (aka Doc). Sorry but demonizing someone is not the same as describing them accurately and specifically - which I have done. And now he's on the record.

As Pam pointed out, how dare he compare my post of a music survey as evidence of my faulty reasoning when he believes hook line and sinker the president whose lies are clearly documented? I would think that the way the President leads America is little more important than a music survey.

Poor Tony, he wanted to be a critical thinking scientist but alas, he's just an authoritarian wingnut whose views are inextricable tainted by the dogma of his politics and religion, just like he wanted to be hairy but he is bald.

Anonymous said...

William:

Could you just edit Dickattheautopsy's posts to say:

"You bad people JESUS and his servant George W. Bush will all burn in hell." It would just free up some electrons.

Scott MCClellan is a lying sack of shit--that he's telling the truth about Bush and his inner circle, NOW, notwithstanding.

However, just because he was making such a good living for helping to ease the Bushbase and other credulous boobs into their delusional support of the Meatpuppet-in-Chief doesn't mean he can't know the truth. It's just that until it's profitable to admit that it exists he will keep the wraps on.

Doctony:

Take a break.

democommie

Anonymous said...

Should have read "You bad people who defy JESUS and his servant..."; my bad.

democommie

Doc said...

Here's what I posted on my blog in response to Willy's accusation that there's no critical thinking on my part about Scott McClellan:

"Well, Willy, he didn’t stick his neck out back when he worked for Bush. Why would he wait until now to publish such a bombshell of a revelation?

Let’s get out the critical thinking, shall we?

1) The special investigator has finished his investigation. After everything that was out there, the only evidence he could bring against Bush, Cheney, McClellan, Rove & Satan was a perjury/obstruction charge against Libby.

2) Had McClellan come forward and cooperated with Fitz, it certainly would have precipitated an impeachment.

3) As everything has been concluded, legally, McClellan can come forward and say whatever and know it has no legal ramifications. He could say Bush raped Hillary on the White House lawn, and because there’s no evidence (you’ve heard of evidence, haven’t you, Willy?), the charge is effectively garbage. But it’s such gloriously good lookign garbage, anyone who’s inclined to believe it, will believe it.

4) So, now that there’s nothing that will damage the Bush administration, McClellan sees it as a way to make some money. If it was out of concern for justice and doing the right thing, he would have done it far earlier– before the midterms, to be sure. Not now, when there’s no political fallout from such a statement."

To which Willy said:

"No evidence? The fact is that there wasa enough evidence to impanel a Grand Jury to investigate the deliberate outing of a CIA agent that caused damage to US counterintelligence. Libby went down obstructing justice (lying) to protect his superiors.

You’ve just proven you don’t know what you’re talking about and remain in denial of the facts.

McClellan testified in Feb 04, while employed by the White House. He obviously did not know at that point he had been lied to.

McClellan didn’t speak out any earlier for the same reason Gen Sanchez, Gen Batiste, Gen Newbold, Gen Odom, Gen Swannack and a host of others didn’t speak out earlier. They were protecting the credibility of their employer while employed."

And I replied:

“No evidence? The fact is that there wasa enough evidence to impanel a Grand Jury to investigate the deliberate outing of a CIA agent that caused damage to US counterintelligence. Libby went down obstructing justice (lying) to protect his superiors.”

The Grand Jury was convened and found there was only enough evidence for an obstruction charge, Willy. I mentioned that in my post above.

“McClellan testified in Feb 04, while employed by the White House. He obviously did not know at that point he had been lied to.”

Or, he was lying back then because he knew what the score was. (Bear in mind this contradicts every instinct of the “rabid left”, as McClellan was already one of the “lying liars” who helped sell the Iraq war.)

“McClellan didn’t speak out any earlier for the same reason Gen Sanchez, Gen Batiste, Gen Newbold, Gen Odom, Gen Swannack and a host of others didn’t speak out earlier. They were protecting the credibility of their employer while employed.”

So you think that the entire leadership of the Armed Services was so loyal that they’d let a President get away with TREASON because if they didn’t they’d lose their jobs? Does this mean the conspiracy to keep secret involvement in the Plame affair embodies the CIA, the FBI, the Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs and the POTUS/VPOTUS, but not the WH Press Secretary?

It’s amusing that you’d say I was the one willing to believe anything that Bush says, but you’re willing to say all of this BS with a straight face."

Now, you tell me who's the one with the pathological authoritarianism?

William said...

Or, he was lying back then because he knew what the score was.

Doc is telling us what McClellan knew and was thinking. Bogus. He was lied to just as we all were. If he knew the truth and lied to Fitzgerald, he would have committed perjury. This on it's face proves he did not know the truth when he testified.

So you think that the entire leadership of the Armed Services was so loyal that they’d let a President get away with TREASON because if they didn’t they’d lose their jobs? Does this mean the conspiracy to keep secret involvement in the Plame affair embodies the CIA, the FBI, the Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs and the POTUS/VPOTUS, but not the WH Press Secretary?

What the hell are you talking about? How in hell would anyone know outside of the presidents small circle that he was lying to cover his ass or Cheney's ass?

I am astounded at the mental twists and gymnastics you are doing to present a scenario where Scott McClellan is lying to sell books. McClellan is a life long republican conservative whose relationship goes back to Texas with governor Bush. He's going to lie and betray a sitting president...merely to SELL BOOKS? Under the circumstances, if that is not a desperate delusion, I don't know what is. You really are a desperate man, grasping at straws here Tony.

Everybody, listen to what this lunatic is saying!! He keeps verifying my point. There is no end to which an authoritarian will go to protect his leader.

I wouldn't count out an investigation here.

Doc said...

"If he knew the truth and lied to Fitzgerald, he would have committed perjury."

Which is why he's saying what he's saying now, genius. "They lied to me" absolves him of guilt and it makes him out to be some sort of persecuted hero. One who's written a book.

"What the hell are you talking about? How in hell would anyone know outside of the presidents small circle that he was lying to cover his ass or Cheney's ass?"

What the hell am I talking about? What the hell are you talking about?

Quote from willy:
McClellan didn’t speak out any earlier for the same reason Gen Sanchez, Gen Batiste, Gen Newbold, Gen Odom, Gen Swannack and a host of others didn’t speak out earlier.


But they're all liars if they didn't speak out earlier, unless Bush/Cheney are acting alone in all of this. Well, Bush, Cheney and their chiefs of staff. And Rummy. And a few other secretaries. And some generals, too.

Don't you see where your silly logic goes?

"McClellan is a life long republican conservative whose relationship goes back to Texas with governor Bush. He's going to lie and betray a sitting president...merely to SELL BOOKS?"

Precisely. Imagine that, a politician who's lying. You see, Willy, this particular lie absolves him of guilt AND it drops enough interest that it promotes his new book.

Remember that book published by Kathleen Wiley. She says she suspected the Clintons had her husband killed. I didn't put this on top of my blog because all it was was hype for an upcoming book release. People do this all the time. Kitty Kelly, Bob Woodward-- all of these books have some kind of bombshell statement, too, because if they didn't, there would be no impetus to sell the book.

Doc said...

"Who left a 14 emotional anti-abortion rights comments on my post - comments that compare a zygote with a slave? "

Ok. Just as an example, let's look at the stereotyping and accusations on that post.

Willy:

--Your argument against abortion choice is based on the fact you are a religious conservative parent... the key word being 'religious.'
--You obviously have no empathy for those who are born into circumstances
--Clearly Doc, you are showing your true colors, a person whose world-view is tainted with a religious agenda.
--Your anti-choice nuttery is counter to laws, ethics, and practices of most modern industrialized nations.
--Your self-righteousness is not satsfied by living under your own set of rules
--Are you working on a quiverfull up there?
--Just as those advocates of intelligent design committed perjury by trying to cover their religious motivations in the Dover trial.
--Perhaps you are the type of guy who sees women subservient to men as a biblical model and that women's paramount duty is to breed?
--You must be one of those fanatics we read about
--Dude, you are an extremist.
--A GW Bush ass-kisser to the core.

Me:
--Perhaps you're the type of guy who's too busy trying to impress women about how sensitive he is by playing guitar and supporting "rights" that you're blinded to any actual intellectual pursuit? Perhaps you're so devoid of the ability to debate on scientific grounds you'd rather resort to ad hominem attacks? Although I did give Willy the benefit of the doubt here, something he's never done for me in the good, liberal, tolerant way
--Idiot. Learn how to debate instead of slandering your opponents.
--You're not happy, Willy, unless you can pigeonhole people into various preconceived categories.

So, given that list, who's really injecting the emotion into the argument? Who couldn't refute my points. I reread the thread, and Willy did a great job about propping up a point for me to shoot down, just to switch gears and prop up another point. And his final post on the subject was so completely off-topic and meandering, it truly showed an emotional investment in the discussion that he had. I discussed and defended every single point of mine, and all I ever got from Willy were attacks and attempts to paint me as something.

He did it 11 times, at least, by the count I brought here.

Tell me who is rational and who's emotional.

William said...

Fascinating conspiracy theory Doc.

Of course Bush/Cheney acted alone in the protecting of the leaker. Who else could have know besides their inner circle? Giving credit to the chimp, it's possible that Cheney and Rove kept their knowledge of the leak to themselves, but doubtful.

I cited the generals in a seperate issue of strategic competence. They wouldn't question the competence of the plan while trying to execute it. They trusted their leadership and their leadership failed them.

Doc said...

"Of course Bush/Cheney acted alone in the protecting of the leaker. Who else could have know besides their inner circle?"

The leaker being a deputy secretary in the State Department. You didn't include Rice/Powell in that conspiracy theory, either.

I'm wondering why people aren't calling for his head, given that he was the one who "blew" Plame's cover?

Also, I wonder why you haven't responded to my illumination of your sterotyping and aggression in the previous post?

Hard to respond when someone hits you in the face with the truth.

William said...

Doc, I'm beginning to lose patience with you. Your ignorance is simply a symptom of your problem. What I've stated from day one... most conservatives like you, who live in Rush Limbaugh Faux News land, simply suffer from a lack of knowledge of the facts.

IF you had read Woodward's book, IF you had watched the two PBS Frontline documentaries on Cheney, IF you had listened to the interviews with the insiders including John McLaughlin (deputy director of the CIA 00-04 and acting director following George Tenet's resignation in July 2004), Tenet, John Brennan 99-05 Tenet's Chief of staff first, then director of the National Counterterrorism Center)... you might have some clue as to what you're talking about.

YES, Powell and Rice were clearly out of the loop.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/18/1082226642150.html

Powell, the only real military man Bush had, advised him not to invade and was ousted from the loop.

I know Doc, it's hard when facts hit you in the face but let me give you some homework:

Watch this award winning documentary and let's see if you can handle the facts without demonizing the messenger.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

Be a good boy, watch and learn.

Doc said...

"YES, Powell and Rice were clearly out of the loop. "

Willy, they might have been out of the loop as far as the initial planning of the Iraq campaign, but I was (and still am) referring to the Plame leak. All of the people I mentioned had some kind of oversight of the Deputy Secretary of State (either through the NSA or the State Department). Yet all of these people are now blameless in the release of information? They are as far as the special prosecutor was concerned (with the exception of Libby).

Don't get your crusades confused, Willy.

Bush and Cheney probably did have a pre-9/11 plan to invade Iraq. I think that was one of the promises Bush Jr. made to GHWB to get his father's support for a run at the Presidency, so it was one of the reasons Cheney and Rumsfeld were brought into the fold for the White House.

Had there not been a 9/11, we probably would have never gone to war in Iraq. But as fate would have it, there was, and the Iraq strategy was pushed forward. And the war was mismanaged after the initial ground victory.

Now it seems to be running far better-- something that was mandated by the 2006 midterms (although many still think it was a referrendum on removing the troops, most Americans would really like to see a successful resolution to the Iraq invasion).

Had this change been made in 2004, I don't think there would have been a Democrat victory in 2006. All thanks to the man I worship unconditionally, George W. Bush.