The swiftboating of Scott McClellan by people who haven't read his book

... like Bob Dole, Dana Perino, and GW Bush.

In typical Republican smear method of operation, Bushies are piling on Scott McClellan and attacking him personally without even considering the substance of what he is saying or even having read the book.

Why is this viewpoint which has been verified time and time again, by previous insiders, Clarke and O'Neil, by a documented Pentagon propaganda program, by military generals, why is this so hard for Bushies to admit or accept? From the book:

Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East. ... Rather than open this Pandora's box, the administration chose a different path -- not employing out-and-out deception but shading the truth; downplaying the major reason for going to war and emphasizing a lesser motivation that could arguably be dealt with in other ways (such as intensified diplomatic pressure); trying to make the WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable, than they were; quietly ignoring or disregarding some of the crucial caveats in the intelligence and minimizing evidence that pointed in the opposite direction; using innuendo and implication to encourage Americans to believe as fact some things that were unclear and possibly false (such as the idea that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program) and other things that were overplayed or completely wrong (such as implying Saddam might have an operational relationship with al Qaeda).

Yea, you can call him every name in the book, put up clever photoshops, link to websites that try to discredit McClellan through dubious circular reasoning (he lied then, must be lyin' now, follow the money, etc...), but in the final analysis, you have to listen to what he says and by every indication - he is 100% right. Unlike this post, you won't find links or substance in these attack posts. They don't document or refute anything, they just smear - pathetically, that's all they can do - carry out an authoritarian agenda.

I can't wait for more polling data to come out to show who is more believable, Bush or McClellan.

McClellan: 'I'd be happy' to testify about Bush White House

McClellan on his book: What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception -

"My comments are sincere and honest and absolutely the truth..."

RS:

Lawyers working for the House Judiciary Committee are meeting with former White House spokesman Scott McClellan regarding the explosive revelations contained in his new tell-all memoir, and the committee's chairman says he may renew hearings on the administration's leak of a CIA officer's identity now that new details have been published.

CNN

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Friday he would be willing to comply with a possible congressional subpoena to discuss the administration’s handling of pre-war intelligence, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer he’d be “happy to talk if I am asked to testify.”

The reason why conservatives are so ill informed

A high ranking Bush staffer and long time associate - Scott McClellan says on the Today Show that the President admitted an impeachable offense and committed a crime; but what do the conservative news sources say about it? Almost nothing! If you get your news from Drudge, Fox News , World Net Daily ... you are living in another world.

No, it's not important to Drudge that McClellan verified that Bush admitted committing a crime - what is important to Drudge is this headline:

MCCLELLAN MIGHT VOTE FOR OBAMA...

What's important to FoxNews? On their front page they report stories like: Thong-Faced Thieves Rob Gas Station. Forget about Scotty! You'll find him well off their front page, buried deep in the political section with this headline:

White House Officials Decry McClellan Claims

World Net Daily - would we find an intelligent discussion of McClellan's allegations? Hell no! Just misinformation, swiftboating, bullshit peddling, and chasing wild geese:

Soros linked to hate-Bush McClellan book

Now, you can understand why these idiots suffer from a basic lack of knowledge. They willingly submit to manipulation, spin, and denial. Pathetic... and very telling.

UPDATE: Bob Dole called McClellan a 'miserable creature' and guess what, he had not read the book.

Bush admitted to McClellan that he authorized illegal intelligence leak - Today Show interview

UPDATE - Breaking: RS - Lawyers working for the House Judiciary Committee are meeting with former White House spokesman Scott McClellan regarding the explosive revelations contained in his new tell-all memoir, and the committee's chairman says he may renew hearings on the administration's leak of a CIA officer's identity now that new details have been published.

In other words - Bush at the very least committed an illegal and impeachable offense. The case could be argued that this would be tantamount to treason. Instructing underlings to selectively leak information resulting in a breach of national security, damage to US counterintelligence, and the outing of a CIA agent - Plame, who was working to monitor Iran's nuclear program. This was done to undermine a critic of the Iraq war.

It had long been suspected that Bush illegally leaked 'cherry picked' information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate and subsequently feigned ignorance of his involvement, keeping the public and the investigators from being able to seek accountability. Now it has been proven by Scott McClellan in his Thursday May 29, interview on the Today Show with NBC's Meredith Viera:

McClellan: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

McClellan: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He [the reporter] was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he [Bush] said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.

Why this is illegal:

It violates specific procedures on declassifying intelligence as detailed in an Executive Order that Bush signed on March 25, '03. To see more specific info on the law violated, the time line, and the statements [lies] Bush made on the record after authorizing the leaks (according to Libby's sworn testimony on pg. 39 of his filing), SEE THIS LINK.

Scott McClellan stated today in the same interview his noble motivations for telling the truth:

"I have a higher loyalty than my loyalty necessarily to my past work. That's a loyalty to the truth and it's a loyalty to the values I was raised on. I talk about my upbringing in a political family that talked about the nobility of public service and the importance of speaking up and talking about making a positive difference. I hope that this book will help do that."

95% of people surveyed on CNN this morning believed McClellan more than Bush. It's time for Bush supporters to do a gut check. What is more important to you, authoritarian loyalty, or the truth and the rule of law? Time to take a stand, which is it? Integrity and ethics, or loyalty, lies, and abuse of power?

Bush loyalist and top aide Scotty McClellan: White House ran a culture of deception

New book by Former White House Press Secretary, Scotty McClellan:
“What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”

This excellent inside source, Bush staffer observed the way Bush used propaganda to deliberately lie to the American people about the Iraq War. On the war, McClellan remarked:

"the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. ... What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

He further confirmed the story that the NYT broke in April, that Bush used lies in the form of carefully crafted propaganda to sell the war.

He commented that the tone of the presidency was set by: "...decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.”

To anyone who is remotely aware of the repeated pattern of deception that has marked the way the Bush White House has operated, none of this would come a s a surprise... (except maybe for those whose awareness doesn't extend beyond American Idol).

UPDATE: McClellan's book is a #1 best seller on Amazon with a 3 week waiting list.

Former McCain supporter and star prosecutor: Bush should be tried for murder

Consider the source. Vincent Bugliosi knows law. In his career at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial was the Charles Manson case.

Bugliosi, who supported John McCain's 2000 presidential bid, believes President GW Bush should be tried for murder and is publishing a book next week that outlines his case: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. Considering his 100% conviction record, I'd say he probably has a good case.

Naturally, the wingnuts will scream "BDS... BDS." To that, Bugliosi offers this about his book and his case:

"... whether I'm giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read"

Regarding the crime:

" ...in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. "

Bugliosi suggests that the death penalty would be appropriate for Bush.

Read more...

Also, consider the fact that there are a huge number of impeachable offenses committed by the Bush administration in addition to the intentional lying about the rationale for war.

Make no mistake, Bush's lies about Iraq were clearly impeachable offenses.

here's a short list list of ten impeachable offenses:

1) torture/ illegal incarceration - violation of Geneva Convention
2) illegal domestic spying
3) politicizing the Justice Dept.
4) illegally manipulating environmental policy
5) destruction of and/or failure to maintain presidential records
6) ignoring subpoenas, oversight/bogus claims of executive priviledge
7) subverting law by profuse use of signing statements
8) involvement in the Abramoff case
9) involvement in the Plame outing (treason)
10) Illegally transferring $700 million from the budget for the war in Afghanistan for war preparations in Iraq in July 2002, without Congressional Approval. This is a Constitutional violation.

There are other offenses that will come to light in the future, probably vote fraud and suppression, dereliction of duty before 9/11, and others.

McCain uses misconception on Iran to sell himself through fear

Doing what Republicans do best, McCain rallies support for himself by repeatedly stoking fear of Iran's belligerent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Playing upon the ignorance of the American people, and exposing his own, McCain often incorrectly portrays Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as if Ahmadinejad has a significant role in formulating Iranian foreign policy. He doesn’t. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iran’s National Security Council set Iran’s foreign policy, not Ahmadinejad. This gaffe even seems to be calculated at influencing the American people since McCain said:

I mean, the fact is [Ahmadinejad’s] the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that’s a uh, that’s your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know.

Well, as long as Americans think that Ahmadinejad is the boogeyman, and McCain is the boogeyman killer, that's all that matters to McCain. The impression is more important than the reality to McCain. Focusing on the rants of Iran’s lunatic president enables McCain and other ignorant war hawks to create the impression that Iran is an irrational enemy with whom negotiation would be pointless. Not surprising from the same ignorant bunch who had no clue of the dynamics of Iraqi Sunni and Shiite sects before launching an invasion into the country.