What Happened?

[Gypsea]

Scott McClelland has a new book out ~ "What Happened"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6994.html

Just wish he would have spoken up sooner ~ but I guess that was not allowed. :pissed:

[hnooe]

"Scottie" as Bush referered to him , like "Brownie," like "Scooter," and even like Colin Powell were all duped and forced to spin misinformation purposefully. None of this is new information. That is what happens when you only value "loyalty" over doing the right thing for the American people, whom you suppose to be serving, in addition to the President. If you are loyal to the head Liars, you're in the same boat as they are.

McClellan's timing is perfect as far as book sales are concerned $$$ ca-ching--so, having to lie on a daily bais for his bosses Bush and Cheney will ultimately make him rich, right?

Very sad.....

[goofer44]

I wish he had resigned earlier out of honor. I remember that Jerry Terhorst (sp) who was Ford's press secretary, resigned out of principle, when Nixon was pardoned. I do not begrudge McClelland's making money from his memoir. He is setting the historical record straight, as I am sure many others will do through their memoirs in the years ahead. McClelland is a young man with his future ahead of him. To some degree I think he was brave to come out now with his story so I would be hesitant to shoot the messenger.

[Gypsea]

I wish he had resigned earlier out of honor. I remember that Jerry Terhorst (sp) who was Ford's press secretary, resigned out of principle, when Nixon was pardoned. I do not begrudge McClelland's making money from his memoir. He is setting the historical record straight, as I am sure many others will do through their memoirs in the years ahead. McClelland is a young man with his future ahead of him. To some degree I think he was brave to come out now with his story so I would be hesitant to shoot the messenger.

I am glad that McClelland has written his book ~ better late than never. But that being said, it would have meant more to have expressed his feelings a couple of years ago when it wasn't quite so popular. I have always admired Richard Clark and Paul O'Neill for doing so. Of course, they were attacked by the Bush administration. Paul O'Neill had the best line. I can't find the exact quote but it went something like this: I'm old and rich and he (Bush) can't hurt me. Now those two guys and a few others are the real heros of this story.

[Bob]

Scott must have met Jose Canseco at an airport lounge somewhere.

[scooterbug44]

I question the motives/true honesty level of people who knowingly participate in something immoral for years, then spill the beans after they leave their job and write a book.

Long list of people who claim it wasn't their fault (even though they were highly involved) once they leave and get a book deal - how refreshing if they decided to be honest AT THE TIME!

What's the quotation - "All that is required for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing" or similar.

[Gypsea]

Scott must have met Jose Canseco at an airport lounge somewhere.

:floor:

[Gypsea]

I don't know what he did but the good thing is is that he is still alive!!! :D

[rapunzel]

I think there are two interesting bits of fallout from this book --

1. The Bushies totally pushed McClellan out the moment he tried to start being honest...when he admitted he'd lied, but said he'd believed the lie at the time -- well, they had Tony Snow in there before the ink could have dried on a resignation. His disloyalty was punished swiftly and absolutely, with no worry about where that might leave him. Now, he writes this book and you can almost hear Rove shouting, "Unleash the hoooouuunds!" The rabid attacks on someone who held his tongue for so long out of loyalty, and still tried to defend and justify the President in his tell all -- well, it just shows how little class this administration has, and how much of a bunker mentality it has going....

2. I think it's funny how SHOCKED the media seems by the suggestion that they were too easy on the administration when it came to Iraq.

From MSNBC:

We begin with the bombshell book from former White House press secretary Scott McClellan. The tell-all, What Happened inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception. In it, McClellon claims, among other things, that the president used propaganda to sell the war in Iraq.

The Washington Post:

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."

McClellan includes the charges in a 341-page book...

Bloomberg:

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan says in a memoir that President George W. Bush manipulated public opinion through a ``political propaganda campaign'' to justify going to war in Iraq.

It's cute that everyone seems so taken aback by McClellan's shocking revelation of the use of propaganda by an administration that thinks of the American public as sheep. Of course, the NYT reported months ago about the whole Pentagon prepping of the media's "military analysts."

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as "military analysts" whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance...

[Bob]

I believe the expenditures for the Whitewater investigation will be dwarfed by the coming Iraq War hearings by the Dems. I want to see Cheney chained to a chair, being questioned by his "go eff yourself" buddy from the Senate, Patrick Leahy. Leahy..."Mr. Vice President, I remind you you're under oath". Cheney "Patrick, may I remind you to go eff yourself"!

[rapunzel]

I hope that there is no long, drawn out partisan spectacle about all of this. After all, America is a democracy, and the majority of the people supported this war in 2003. As a matter of fact, I lived in Shreveport at the time and my office overlooked a park where they practically had a pep rally (complete with steamroller to run over the Dixie Chicks cds people were encouraged to bring). It was frightening to watch the whole Nuremburg rally atmosphere.

Historically, when people argued against democracy and universal suffrage, they invoked the image of a disengaged public being swayed by propaganda.

We can all hope that most Americans have seen the folly of their ways, and that they will think more deeply about issues in the future, and recognize when they are being manipulated by propaganda about patriotism and flag pins. We can hope that the tolerance of buffoons and people who think it's okay to lie to the American people because the end justifies the means and people are too stupid to understand the real reasons for war or suspension of civil rights and privacy is at an end.

To scapegoat administration officials would absolve the American people of their responsibility for what has happened. It would allow all of those who still love W to escape the soul-searching they need to do about their own role in the deaths of 4000 soldiers, the extended and repeated tours that tear apart families, the burden being shouldered by 1% of the population, a major American city rotting on the vine, and an economy in shambles. And if they don't have to see the connection between their blind devotion to a leader and willingness to be swayed by propaganda....well, they'll just do it again someday.

[6thGen]

I hope that there is no long, drawn out partisan spectacle about all of this. After all, America is a democracy, and the majority of the people supported this war in 2003. As a matter of fact, I lived in Shreveport at the time and my office overlooked a park where they practically had a pep rally (complete with steamroller to run over the Dixie Chicks cds people were encouraged to bring). It was frightening to watch the whole Nuremburg rally atmosphere.

Historically, when people argued against democracy and universal suffrage, they invoked the image of a disengaged public being swayed by propaganda.

We can all hope that most Americans have seen the folly of their ways, and that they will think more deeply about issues in the future, and recognize when they are being manipulated by propaganda about patriotism and flag pins. We can hope that the tolerance of buffoons and people who think it's okay to lie to the American people because the end justifies the means and people are too stupid to understand the real reasons for war or suspension of civil rights and privacy is at an end.

To scapegoat administration officials would absolve the American people of their responsibility for what has happened. It would allow all of those who still love W to escape the soul-searching they need to do about their own role in the deaths of 4000 soldiers, the extended and repeated tours that tear apart families, the burden being shouldered by 1% of the population, a major American city rotting on the vine, and an economy in shambles. And if they don't have to see the connection between their blind devotion to a leader and willingness to be swayed by propaganda....well, they'll just do it again someday.

Actually, the US is a republic. But I won't stop you, you're rolling.

Oh, and McClellan was the worst press secretary of the modern presidency. No one can really deny that, and most conservatives were screaming it when he was there.

[hnooe]

Actually, the US is a republic. But I won't stop you, you're rolling.

Oh, and McClellan was the worst press secretary of the modern presidency. No one can really deny that, and most conservatives were screaming it when he was there.

And the current Pess secy., Dana Perino, has my vote as the second worst.....as in "Bay of Pigs? What was that?"

[Mermaid]

From today's paper, drawn by Gary Varvel:
************************************************** ***********
Beam Me Up, Scotty (http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/archives/2008/05/beam_me_up_scot.html)

http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/05292008.jpg

Scotty wants us to believe what he says now, but not what he said before he was canned?
************************************************** ***********************

(commentary above and below cartoon also from newspaper)

[rapunzel]

Actually, the US is a republic. But I won't stop you, you're rolling.

Oh, and McClellan was the worst press secretary of the modern presidency. No one can really deny that, and most conservatives were screaming it when he was there.

Just like a conservative, to nitpick the one small error in a whole long post and act as though that discredits everything else....and then attack the enemy of the day.

Rhetoric over substance...as always.

[LuciferSam]

From today's paper, drawn by Gary Varvel:
************************************************** ***********
Beam Me Up, Scotty (http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/archives/2008/05/beam_me_up_scot.html)

http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/05292008.jpg

Scotty wants us to believe what he says now, but not what he said before he was canned?
************************************************** ***********************

(commentary above and below cartoon also from newspaper)

The Bush administration paid him to lie, now he's getting paid to come clean. Happens all the time.

[Gypsea]

I don't know how anyone could be the White House press secretary under that administration and still be able to sleep at night!

[6thGen]

Just like a conservative, to nitpick the one small error in a whole long post and act as though that discredits everything else....and then attack the enemy of the day.

Rhetoric over substance...as always.

Calling an enthusiastic political organizer when they mistake the form of government is nitpicking? Too your larger point, I agree for the most part, that pure democracy is a bad idea due to the potential for totalitarian rule of the majority. It's one reason I've railed against the 17th Amendment, created by the same folks who brought us prohibition and the income tax. Solid line of work there.

Again, I didn't like McClellan when he was press secretary and I don't like him now. If he took a principled stand, I could appreciate his integrity. He's selling books in an election year. Before you go praising McClellan, you should read what he said about Clarke who said nothing while serving, was out of the loop on major discussions and decisions, then waited two years to sell an election year tell all book.

McClellan pointed to the timing of Clarke's book.

"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/bush.clarke/

[Gypsea]

Calling an enthusiastic political organizer when they mistake the form of government is nitpicking? Too your larger point, I agree for the most part, that pure democracy is a bad idea due to the potential for totalitarian rule of the majority. It's one reason I've railed against the 17th Amendment, created by the same folks who brought us prohibition and the income tax. Solid line of work there.

Again, I didn't like McClellan when he was press secretary and I don't like him now. If he took a principled stand, I could appreciate his integrity. He's selling books in an election year. Before you go praising McClellan, you should read what he said about Clarke who said nothing while serving, was out of the loop on major discussions and decisions, then waited two years to sell an election year tell all book.

McClellan pointed to the timing of Clarke's book.

"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/bush.clarke/

I certainly agree with you in that it would be best if they didn't profit from book sales. For the profits to go to charity would be best in a perfect world.

[6thGen]

I certainly agree with you in that it would be best if they didn't profit from book sales. For the profits to go to charity would be best in a perfect world.

Completely disagree there. I'm all for profit, likewise I'm all for charity, but in certain cases such as this you question motives, esp. when the author did in a similar situation.

[LuciferSam]

Calling an enthusiastic political organizer when they mistake the form of government is nitpicking? Too your larger point, I agree for the most part, that pure democracy is a bad idea due to the potential for totalitarian rule of the majority. It's one reason I've railed against the 17th Amendment, created by the same folks who brought us prohibition and the income tax. Solid line of work there.

Again, I didn't like McClellan when he was press secretary and I don't like him now. If he took a principled stand, I could appreciate his integrity. He's selling books in an election year. Before you go praising McClellan, you should read what he said about Clarke who said nothing while serving, was out of the loop on major discussions and decisions, then waited two years to sell an election year tell all book.

McClellan pointed to the timing of Clarke's book.

"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/bush.clarke/

The truth of the matter is what's important, not McClellean's motives. He is simply an insider who confirmed what most people already knew. This is remedial instruction for the slower students.

This administration is the conservative's problem child. They will defend their child to the bitter end.

[6thGen]

The truth of the matter is what's important, not McClellean's motives. He is simply an insider who confirmed what most people already knew. This is remedial instruction for the slower students.

This administration is the conservative's problem child. They will defend their child to the bitter end.

True, but you have balance what he's written about a subject he was largely left out of against his previous comments, such as the comment on Clarke, and the comment when he resigned, "I have been honored and grateful to be a small part of a terrific and talented team of really good people." Further, you have other sides of the story, who admittedly have their own agenda. His agenda is selling books, the others is defending a legacy. He mentions that Bush ignores opposing views, others have noted that Bush relishes debate. He mentions that the administration was reckless when rushing to war when Bush said that there were risks to action and risks to inaction. If the administration had maintained the reason for war, and continued to defend the case for going to war, rather than playing bait and switch with the Iraqi democracy nonsense we'd have a broader support for the war now. Rather, they let the opposition get away with revisionist history rather than defending the reason for war. Bottom line is that his motives are entirely in play because it calls on his credibility, for the same reason that a prosecution witness' testimony is discounted by the jury when they've cut an extraordinarily favorable deal (#1 on Amazon before it was released would count as an example). Regardless, I'm not going to change your mind. You have a picture of a donkey defecating an elephant and you can't even spell your latest unimpugned source's name correctly.

[Andy A.]

I hope that there is no long, drawn out partisan spectacle about all of this. After all, America is a democracy, and the majority of the people supported this war in 2003. As a matter of fact, I lived in Shreveport at the time and my office overlooked a park where they practically had a pep rally (complete with steamroller to run over the Dixie Chicks cds people were encouraged to bring). It was frightening to watch the whole Nuremburg rally atmosphere.

Historically, when people argued against democracy and universal suffrage, they invoked the image of a disengaged public being swayed by propaganda.

We can all hope that most Americans have seen the folly of their ways, and that they will think more deeply about issues in the future, and recognize when they are being manipulated by propaganda about patriotism and flag pins. We can hope that the tolerance of buffoons and people who think it's okay to lie to the American people because the end justifies the means and people are too stupid to understand the real reasons for war or suspension of civil rights and privacy is at an end.

To scapegoat administration officials would absolve the American people of their responsibility for what has happened. It would allow all of those who still love W to escape the soul-searching they need to do about their own role in the deaths of 4000 soldiers, the extended and repeated tours that tear apart families, the burden being shouldered by 1% of the population, a major American city rotting on the vine, and an economy in shambles. And if they don't have to see the connection between their blind devotion to a leader and willingness to be swayed by propaganda....well, they'll just do it again someday.
Rapunzel, your arrogance regarding the Conservative populace of the American people is only exceeded by your good looks, and I say that with all sincerity.
To intimate that those of a Conservative pursuasion are manipulated by patriotism and flag pins insults my, and every other Conservative's intelligence and understanding of the events that occurred at a given point in time. I, for instance, don't believe the American people were intentionally lied to by anybody. Should we have invaded Iraq when we did? I don't think so but I do believe the President was acting on the best information he had at the time. Was it good enough? Probably not, but God knows Saddam Hussein had given us plenty of reasons to believe he was going to get a lot worse before he got better. Over 300,000 of his own country men dead points to that fact.
Let's talk a minute about the real reasons for war. "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chamce of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." (John Stuart Mill 1806-1873) So, in my opinion, war has very little to do with isolated or specific instances but rather with a situation as it occurs as a whole. It really doesn't matter why war occurs, it is Hell under any circumstance and I hate it more than most because I participated in it during two tours in Viet Nam. Where, we lost over 58,000 in a lost cause due to the inept attitude and actions of our Executive branch and our Legislative branch of government. If you feel I or any other Conservative is "swayed by propaganda" you are sadly mistaken. We do, however, have a different take than you on what this country needs and the direction it should go and that is definitely our right and perogative.

[LuciferSam]

True, but you have balance what he's written about a subject he was largely left out of against his previous comments, such as the comment on Clarke, and the comment when he resigned, "I have been honored and grateful to be a small part of a terrific and talented team of really good people." Further, you have other sides of the story, who admittedly have their own agenda. His agenda is selling books, the others is defending a legacy. He mentions that Bush ignores opposing views, others have noted that Bush relishes debate. He mentions that the administration was reckless when rushing to war when Bush said that there were risks to action and risks to inaction. If the administration had maintained the reason for war, and continued to defend the case for going to war, rather than playing bait and switch with the Iraqi democracy nonsense we'd have a broader support for the war now. Rather, they let the opposition get away with revisionist history rather than defending the reason for war. Bottom line is that his motives are entirely in play because it calls on his credibility, for the same reason that a prosecution witness' testimony is discounted by the jury when they've cut an extraordinarily favorable deal (#1 on Amazon before it was released would count as an example). Regardless, I'm not going to change your mind. You have a picture of a donkey defecating an elephant and you can't even spell your latest unimpugned source's name correctly.

Uhm, he's not defecating on the elephant. He's teabagging him.

[InletBchDweller]

Uhm, he's not defecating on the elephant. He's teabagging him.
OMG, :lol: that is sooooooooo bad. Wanna join S/D/C nights with the wench's??:biggrin:

[rapunzel]

Rapunzel, your arrogance regarding the Conservative populace of the American people is only exceeded by your good looks, and I say that with all sincerity.
To intimate that those of a Conservative pursuasion are manipulated by patriotism and flag pins insults my, and every other Conservative's intelligence and understanding of the events that occurred at a given point in time. I, for instance, don't believe the American people were intentionally lied to by anybody. Should we have invaded Iraq when we did? I don't think so but I do believe the President was acting on the best information he had at the time. Was it good enough? Probably not, but God knows Saddam Hussein had given us plenty of reasons to believe he was going to get a lot worse before he got better. Over 300,000 of his own country men dead points to that fact.
Let's talk a minute about the real reasons for war. "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chamce of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." (John Stuart Mill 1806-1873) So, in my opinion, war has very little to do with isolated or specific instances but rather with a situation as it occurs as a whole. It really doesn't matter why war occurs, it is Hell under any circumstance and I hate it more than most because I participated in it during two tours in Viet Nam. Where, we lost over 58,000 in a lost cause due to the inept attitude and actions of our Executive branch and our Legislative branch of government. If you feel I or any other Conservative is "swayed by propaganda" you are sadly mistaken. We do, however, have a different take than you on what this country needs and the direction it should go and that is definitely our right and perogative.

Andy, I didn't ascribe that behavior to conservatives or liberals. I ascribed that behavior to the American people, and more specifically to the subset of American people who do not choose to inform themselves fully before burning books and crushing cd's.

I think true conservatives and true liberals are normally very informed on issues, and I don't find fault in their behavior by and large. I do think that sometimes they took the administration at its word a little too readily, but liberals do the same with Democratic administrations so I can't fault conservatives alone for that. The great experiment in government our founding fathers designed requires an informed electorate, an independent press, and a healthy questioning of our leaders. The problems this country now faces are due, imho, to the dumbing down of information provided to the public and a rush into a "splendid little war."

Despite what you imply, I do not oppose war per se -- I opposed the Iraq War. I oppose the policy of pre-emptive war. I remember with complete clarity that there were stories in the media, particularly the British media, that contradicted the administration's evidence of WMD. I disagree with your assessment that the intelligence was strong enough to justify the invasion of a sovereign country. While I agree that Saddam Hussein was a brutal man, it should have been left to his own people to depose him so that they could not blame the current state of their country on us. There are lots of brutal dictators around the world, there is genocide occuring, there are places where horrible natural disasters have caused tremendous suffering. And perhaps this is where my own conservative colors show -- but I don't see the need for our government and our taxpayers to unilaterally right the wrongs in this world. I don't think we have the manpower nor the purse for such an undertaking. Further, in taking down the delicate counterbalance to Iran that conservatives under Reagan put in place, we actually did more harm to our security than good.

I support the war in Afghanistan, and think it's a true shame that that war has now gone on longer than WW2. Afghanistan was a justified war, and in a desire to secure our oil resources in the Middle East we left that war half completed, and have yet to secure the areas that breed terrorists. Again, we have a country twisting in the wind with no direction -- the very thing the Marshall Plan recognized bred a disgruntled and resentful generation that undermines our future security.

I do not think you, Andy, are swayed by patriotism and flag pins -- but I have been told many times on this board that the person that supported the act that allowed the government to require banks to report any "unusual" activity in anyone's bank account to the government, and left unusual fairly undefined was more of a patriot that the person who opposed that provision because the person who believes that Americans have the right to live their lives free of government intrusion unless there is just cause for a warrant is less of a patriot because he doesn't wear a flag pin. You never made that argument.

I respect your service, and thank your for that service. I also respect your deeply held beliefs even if I do not agree. I don't think the activists on either side can be swayed by propaganda, and I don't think the informed center can, either. We all know people who are vocal supporters of one side or the other but can't articulate their stand on policy. I am fiscally conservative, and socially I think I'm small government conservative as well -- I don't believe it is the government's place to legislate individual behavior in a free country. I believe in pay as you go government. I believe in personal, universal sacrifice in times of war -- not war fought on credit by tiny subset of the people. I believe that it is patriotic to question authority -- but always with respect in the beginning. I believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I think the duties of the fourth estate are as sacred as those of elected officials. Those are not only conservative values, and they are not totally liberal values...they are American values.

Oh, and I supported Bobby Jindal in my last activist work, so I think I can claim a centrist viewpoint.

Arrogant, huh?

Who knew a post opposing trying Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al would draw so many knives from the conservative wing of the board. :roll:

[rapunzel]

Calling an enthusiastic political organizer when they mistake the form of government is nitpicking? Too your larger point, I agree for the most part, that pure democracy is a bad idea due to the potential for totalitarian rule of the majority. It's one reason I've railed against the 17th Amendment, created by the same folks who brought us prohibition and the income tax. Solid line of work there.


Well, I called it nitpicking because you're right that our form of government is not a pure democracy. You are incorrect in calling it a republic, though. Our government is not a pure form of either but a hybrid of the two -- I should have said representative democracy or a democratic republic, I should have specified the United States of America because America is full of many different forms of government. Had I realized I was being graded, sir, I would have been more careful.

[JustaLocal]

According to the CIA World Factbook "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition ."
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Govt

[Gypsea]

You go girl. You're on a roll. :clap:

[Andy A.]

Rapunzel, you and I agree on a lot more than others reading this forum might think. I will indicate why and how in al later post when I can soberly reply to your last post. If you noted, when I said "arrogant" I also said "good looking". Correction: I should have said "beautiful" and Skunky is, indeed a lucky and fortunate man.

[6thGen]

Who here will be the first to admit the following:

1. If this book did not confirm the media's worldview and conform to the political winds of the time, it would be dismissed and not be anywhere near the Amazon top ten list.

2. If this book did not confirm your personal worldview and was a favorable book about the administration, you would have zero interest in it and dismiss it as propaganda.

Show of hands, please.

Edit - I'll be the first to admit that there are several damning truths in the book, but I question his credibility based on his own previous actions and statements.

[traderx]

Well, I called it nitpicking because you're right that our form of government is not a pure democracy. You are incorrect in calling it a republic, though. Our government is not a pure form of either but a hybrid of the two -- I should have said representative democracy or a democratic republic, I should have specified the United States of America because America is full of many different forms of government. Had I realized I was being graded, sir, I would have been more careful.

Just for the record so I am not branded a conservative, I am a Libertarian. I have issues with liberals on their infringement on economic liberty and issues with conservatives for their desire to control the social and moral fabric of our society.

That said, the US is NOT a democracy. Never has been and likely never will be. We are a republic. You can add constitutional or representative or whatever, but we are a republic. Our forefathers were afraid of democracy. BTW, as an interesting aside, a study showed that many immigrants become democrats because they continually hear the term democracy and they associate being a democrat with a democracy. Almost all of our politicans and media are guilty of calling our form of government a democracy, hence the label persists. And here we find the country today, engaged in class warfare expressed as income redistribution hence our march towards socialism continues unabated. Too many of our citizenry are content, even delighted, to exchange liberty for security and there is no shortage of those in Congress or in the White House who are willing to accommodate such a trade.

Below is a small portion of language in Federalist #10 written by James Madison.

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

[6thGen]

Good post, but I'd either capitalize Liberals and Conservatives or change to Democrats and Republicans. I'm first a classic liberal, but realistically a modern conservative.

[Mango]

Who here will be the first to admit the following:

1. If this book did not confirm the media's worldview and conform to the political winds of the time, it would be dismissed and not be anywhere near the Amazon top ten list.

2. If this book did not confirm your personal worldview and was a favorable book about the administration, you would have zero interest in it and dismiss it as propaganda.

Show of hands, please.

Edit - I'll be the first to admit that there are several damning truths in the book, but I question his credibility based on his own previous actions and statements.

You're assuming a flock mentality, just based on negative views of the current administration, that people will buy the book.

Good post, but I'd either capitalize Liberals and Conservatives or change to Democrats and Republicans. I'm first a classic liberal, but realistically a modern conservative.

6th, you made me cackle with your assumptive role of thread post monitor.
You may have a future as the next press secretary. Oops, wait, Press Secretary- Grammar and Syntax Asst.

[rapunzel]

I won't buy the book, and I still don't particularly care for Scott McClellan. I just find it funny/tragic to watch the media cycle play out....first, people act like there is some bombshell contained in the book even though Richard Clarke, George Tenet, and others have written books that say basically the same thing...second, it's sort of pathetic to watch the guy get attacked so personally about the book rather than refuted. It's all the same dog and pony show.

The most illuminating thing to come out of the release of this book is to look at this thread, and see how everyone goes into their usual roles, plays their usual parts. It's all an us against them mentality. All the allegations in the book are dismissed out of hand because the man has been "disloyal"...anyone who thinks it may be important to consider what this man has to say and the implications for our government is accused of embracing the issues raised by McClellan's book because it conforms to their liberal world view. And we're reduced to arguing over whether we live in a democratic country or a republic and generally being pretty uncivil (no, saying I'm pretty doesn't make up for calling me arrogant! ;-))

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

[peapod1980]

I wish he had resigned earlier out of honor. I remember that Jerry Terhorst (sp) who was Ford's press secretary, resigned out of principle, when Nixon was pardoned.
goofer, I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I have been surprised by the amount of indignation people have shown over the fact that he didn't resign. Over the years, how many people as "guilty" or worse than McClellan kept their silence without a second thought? We just don't know about them.

[scooterbug44]

Scott McClellan will be on the Daily Show Monday night - can't wait for his answers to Jon's snarky questions!

[6thGen]

I forgot how pointless it was to post here and how silly I am to ever concede anything to the cluster of hens here. It really is an exercise in futility. Carry on.

[Mango]

I forgot how pointless it was to post here and how silly I am to ever concede anything to the cluster of hens here. It really is an exercise in futility. Carry on.

:confused: Not sure what got your panties in a wad. I for one enjoy the spirited debate, and you made me chuckle. :idontno:
BTW, it's gaggle of hens. :biggrin:

[hnooe]

I forgot how pointless it was to post here and how silly I am to ever concede anything to the cluster of hens here. It really is an exercise in futility. Carry on.

Please keep posting 6th gen, I always find your posts a great read, most of the time I tell myself that I won't glean anything from your posts, but I am constantly amazed at the amount of thoughtfulness, creativity, and time you put in most of your post, and they do cause me to re-think (sometimes) my positions on various issues--Sowal needs you presence!

[Andy A.]

Please keep posting 6th gen, I always find your posts a great read, most of the time I tell myself that I won't glean anything from your posts, but I am constantly amazed at the amount of thoughtfulness, creativity, and time you put in most of your post, and they do cause me to re-think (sometimes) my positions on various issues--Sowal needs you presence!
And once more hnooe 2000 and I agree. We also need Rapunzel's posts as well as they are also thoughtful, usually factual (particularly those on health care issues) and provocative, if though sometimes slightly or totally arrogant. Alright, Alright I'm duly chastized. Hang in there, 6th Gen, some of us undrstand and believe where you are coming from.

[6thGen]

Ok, and thanks. It gets old when someone dismisses my point as "typical conservative" when I made the concession that there is some truth to it but that there is another side to the story. I've been up since hours before sunrise and my head feels like it is in an echo chamber so I have a right to be grumpy right now. Have a good weekend.

And yes, I know the proper term is gaggle, but cluster implies something more crass that typically follows.

[LuciferSam]

Who here will be the first to admit the following:

1. If this book did not confirm the media's worldview and conform to the political winds of the time, it would be dismissed and not be anywhere near the Amazon top ten list.

2. If this book did not confirm your personal worldview and was a favorable book about the administration, you would have zero interest in it and dismiss it as propaganda.

Show of hands, please.

Edit - I'll be the first to admit that there are several damning truths in the book, but I question his credibility based on his own previous actions and statements.

That's good. Don't ask people what they think, tell them.

[6thGen]

Love this from Dole

Bob Dole yesterday sent a scalding e-mail to Scott McClellan, excoriating the former White House spokesman as a "miserable creature" who greedily betrayed his former patron for a fast buck.

In an extraordinary message obtained and authenticated by Politico, Dole uses his trademark biting wit to portray McClellan as a classic Washington opportunist.

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

Michael Marshall, Dole's spokesman and colleague at the Alston Bird law firm, confirms the message came from the former senator and presidential candidate. "Yes, it is authentic," Marshall wrote in an e-mail.

"In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you," Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate. "No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years"

Dole assures McClellan that he won't read the book — "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job."

"That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively," Dole concludes. "You’re a hot ticket now, but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"

He signs the email simply: "BOB DOLE"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Bob_Dole_unloads_on_McClellan.html

[6thGen]

Now from coworkers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/01/AR2008060101922.html

Duffy and

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWRkYjU2YTFiZjFiNmJjOWUxMjYyMWEwYzU4OGZkNzA=

Wehner

[InletBchDweller]

I would love to see McClellan and Duffy in a room together. Come on Scott, just answer the questions....:lol:

[scooterbug44]

McCellan will be on the Daily Show tonight :popcorn:

[Geo]

Now from coworkers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/01/AR2008060101922.html

Duffy and

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWRkYjU2YTFiZjFiNmJjOWUxMjYyMWEwYzU4OGZkNzA=

Wehner

This is just more about how what Scott wrote in his book should be suspect because he waited to express it until now. More of the same Bob Dole rhetoric about how Scott is without honor...

Someone please provide something of substance to refute his (and his predecessors') claims rather than just attacking his character in an attempt to discredit him and muddy the waters...

My obligatory analogy-

Let's say I get a sweet gig working for the most well respected law firm in town. The money is great and this will move mountains for my career. Not to mention- I can get a table anywhere without a reservation...

So as time goes by I start to notice what I believe might be some shady dealings in the firm. The Partners seem like decent people and have a compelling story. So I give them the benefit of the doubt...

More time goes by and it becomes clearer to me that the Partners have behaved badly all along and have done irreparable harm to the firm. So I quit and I write an expose for which I am paid a lot of money. Turns out that some employees before me quit and told a similar story and for doing so- they were attacked personally by the firm and it put their families through a lot. So I really have no guilt in taking the money for going public...

Am I dishonorable because when it became abundantly clear to me what was going on that I quit? Am I not to be believed because I didn't say something sooner or because I am being paid for sharing my story?

<end analogy>

G

[Bob]

Love this from Dole

Bob Dole yesterday sent a scalding e-mail to Scott McClellan, excoriating the former White House spokesman as a "miserable creature" who greedily betrayed his former patron for a fast buck.

In an extraordinary message obtained and authenticated by Politico, Dole uses his trademark biting wit to portray McClellan as a classic Washington opportunist.

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

Michael Marshall, Dole's spokesman and colleague at the Alston Bird law firm, confirms the message came from the former senator and presidential candidate. "Yes, it is authentic," Marshall wrote in an e-mail.

"In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you," Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate. "No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years"

Dole assures McClellan that he won't read the book — "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job."

"That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively," Dole concludes. "You’re a hot ticket now, but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"

He signs the email simply: "BOB DOLE"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Bob_Dole_unloads_on_McClellan.html

Dole has a point, but he marketed Viagra, and his wife's a Zig Ziglar robot.

[Gypsea]

Love this from Dole

Bob Dole yesterday sent a scalding e-mail to Scott McClellan, excoriating the former White House spokesman as a "miserable creature" who greedily betrayed his former patron for a fast buck.

In an extraordinary message obtained and authenticated by Politico, Dole uses his trademark biting wit to portray McClellan as a classic Washington opportunist.

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

Michael Marshall, Dole's spokesman and colleague at the Alston Bird law firm, confirms the message came from the former senator and presidential candidate. "Yes, it is authentic," Marshall wrote in an e-mail.

"In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you," Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate. "No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years"

Dole assures McClellan that he won't read the book — "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job."

"That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively," Dole concludes. "You’re a hot ticket now, but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"

He signs the email simply: "BOB DOLE"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Bob_Dole_unloads_on_McClellan.html

So message is: if you finally figure out that there is some "evil doing" keep your mouth shut! :roll:

[Gypsea]

Dole has a point, but he marketed Viagra, and his wife's a Zig Ziglar robot.

And he did his Viagra commercial with a teenaged Britney. EWWW!

[30A Skunkape]

And he did his Viagra commercial with a teenaged Britney. EWWW!

I don't get it:idontno:

[Gypsea]

:eek: Skunky!!!! You so bad!

[Geo]

So message is: if you finally figure out that there is some "evil doing" keep your mouth shut! :roll:

Sounds like it, huh. All presented in the guise of honor...

It really sickens me- I know that is harsh...
:idontno:

But these politicians are so wrapped up in our flawed system that they've forgotten to even try to hide the fact that they are loyal, first and foremost, to their party...

"By the people, for the people" is only a symbolic lapel pin these days...

:angry:

[scooterbug44]

In my world, the message is "if you find out people are being dishonest/doing something wrong, don't go along with it for an extended period of time, then let another extended period of time pass while you line up a book deal, write a book, and get it published!"

Nuremburg defense w/ a book deal IMO!

[scooterbug44]

Just saw his interview on the Daily Show. I'm trying to think of a better description than "pudgy douchebag w/ a bad combover" but I'm tired, so I'll just go w/ ranked a 2 on the Scooterbug 5 point scale. That is NOT a good ranking!

[Tootsie]

Just saw his interview on the Daily Show. I'm trying to think of a better description than "pudgy douchebag w/ a bad combover" but I'm tired, so I'll just go w/ ranked a 2 on the Scooterbug 5 point scale. That is NOT a good ranking!

:rofl:cracking me up scooter.

[rapunzel]

He's no Profile in Courage contender, that's for sure. Still, the venom is starting to creep me out. If he's really a guy cashing in a conscience found a day late...well, what's the big threat? The overkill is what bothers me. I'd not have paid half as much attention to this had the administration's response not been so...nuke - yoo - lerr.

[6thGen]

This is just more about how what Scott wrote in his book should be suspect because he waited to express it until now. More of the same Bob Dole rhetoric about how Scott is without honor...

Someone please provide something of substance to refute his (and his predecessors') claims rather than just attacking his character in an attempt to discredit him and muddy the waters...

My obligatory analogy-

Let's say I get a sweet gig working for the most well respected law firm in town. The money is great and this will move mountains for my career. Not to mention- I can get a table anywhere without a reservation...

So as time goes by I start to notice what I believe might be some shady dealings in the firm. The Partners seem like decent people and have a compelling story. So I give them the benefit of the doubt...

More time goes by and it becomes clearer to me that the Partners have behaved badly all along and have done irreparable harm to the firm. So I quit and I write an expose for which I am paid a lot of money. Turns out that some employees before me quit and told a similar story and for doing so- they were attacked personally by the firm and it put their families through a lot. So I really have no guilt in taking the money for going public...

Am I dishonorable because when it became abundantly clear to me what was going on that I quit? Am I not to be believed because I didn't say something sooner or because I am being paid for sharing my story?

<end analogy>

G

Did you even bother reading both articles? They were refuting him. Dole's article "attacked" him, but Dole has a good reason. The other two were working along side him and refuted much of what he said.

[Killer Whale]

Has anyone else noticed just how desperate the Right Wingers here are to distract attention away from the real point of this thread?

After the normal trashing of the White House "traitor" (so of course anything he says is AUTOMATICALLY discounted, right?) we get a long and utterly sterile spat about whether the United States is a Republic or a Democracy.

As though the choice was totally binary. Since it has no hereditary monarch, and has a system of Government in which supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect members to represent them by a majority vote the US is both a Republic AND a Democracy.

Still it is easier to distract attention by taking the debate into blind alleys rather than confront the real point at issue isn't it? These guys seem to be experts on Madison, Hamilton et al. Why don't they share with us what those noble, learned and venerable men would have made of Bush, Cheney, "Scooter" and Rove?

Fine, outstanding holders of high office, in the Democratic Republic aren't they? They just drip with integrity. Probity. Would that the Founding Fathers were alive at this hour to witness them in action! They would be SO proud...

Also, is it not strange that a Press Secretary, after a career of telling lies for a living, becomes a traitor for telling the truth to earn still more money? Whilst blowing the cover of a covert operative working in the national interest, lying about it, and then commuting the sentence for the crime, handed down by an independent judiciary after due process of law, becomes almost patriotic.

[hnooe]

Also, is it not strange that a Press Secretary, after a career of telling lies for a living, becomes a traitor for telling the truth to earn still more money? Whilst blowing the cover of a covert operative working in the national interest, lying about it, and then commuting the sentence for the crime, handed down by an independent judiciary after due process of law, becomes almost patriotic.

Thanks KW, you summed it up better than anyone else so far... McClellan couldn't be trusted then, why should anyone believe him now. He was raised in Texas politics, then the White House-- learning his craft there, and now that he has graduated, he is showing the world how he operates...I'd much prefer a subpoena and a hand on the Bible, if that ever happens....

[6thGen]

I'll assume the worst of Rove and Libby, and I'll still take their actions over turning on our most valuable ally and conspiring with the French foreign minister against the orders of his Comander in Chief, and encouraging and inciting rebellion. He did have one hell of a pen, but he was a hypocrite of the highest order and a borderline traitor.

[Bob]

Has anyone else noticed just how desperate the Right Wingers here are to distract attention away from the real point of this thread?

After the normal trashing of the White House "traitor" (so of course anything he says is AUTOMATICALLY discounted, right?) we get a long and utterly sterile spat about whether the United States is a Republic or a Democracy.

As though the choice was totally binary. Since it has no hereditary monarch, and has a system of Government in which supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect members to represent them by a majority vote the US is both a Republic AND a Democracy.

Still it is easier to distract attention by taking the debate into blind alleys rather than confront the real point at issue isn't it? These guys seem to be experts on Madison, Hamilton et al. Why don't they share with us what those noble, learned and venerable men would have made of Bush, Cheney, "Scooter" and Rove?

Fine, outstanding holders of high office, in the Democratic Republic aren't they? They just drip with integrity. Probity. Would that the Founding Fathers were alive at this hour to witness them in action! They would be SO proud...

Also, is it not strange that a Press Secretary, after a career of telling lies for a living, becomes a traitor for telling the truth to earn still more money? Whilst blowing the cover of a covert operative working in the national interest, lying about it, and then commuting the sentence for the crime, handed down by an independent judiciary after due process of law, becomes almost patriotic.Does the passage of time make the genocidal, sexist, slaveholding, dueling, founding fathers any more moral than the current opportunists crawling around the White House? Please don't invoke dead white guys as the gold standard. It does not exist.

[scooterbug44]

I don't think he's a traitor, I think he's an opportunistic little weasel.

My issues with him have to do w/ him only deciding to be "honest and concerned for the country" when it's time to sell books, not when it would have been helpful or productive.

There are the people who stand up for what is right, and then there are the people who use the passage of time to rewrite history and justify their lack of moral fiber and cojones.

[Geo]

Did you even bother reading both articles? They were refuting him. Dole's article "attacked" him, but Dole has a good reason. The other two were working along side him and refuted much of what he said.


I read most of both. The first one was just an attack. The second one said that what he said isn't true but provided no substantive evidence as to why.

Set me straight...

Cheers, G

[Killer Whale]

Does the passage of time make the genocidal, sexist, slaveholding, dueling, founding fathers any more moral than the current opportunists crawling around the White House? Please don't invoke dead white guys as the gold standard. It does not exist.

Opportunists? That IS a good description you have hit on. In fact of all the words one could think of to describe the Bush administration, "opportunists" describes them best. Those opportunistic rascals!

Iraq presented such an OPPORTUNITY, it had to be grasped. The Bushies just couldn't help themselves could they?

Here was a chance to win the war on terror at a stroke, institute a new democratic order in the Middle East, support America's allies around the world and confound her foes. Shock and awe here we come!

There WERE naysayers at the time. Especially one. France warned the Bushies at the UN that you needed legitimate grounds to invade a sovereign country if such a risky enterprise would have a chance of eventual success. Vague (fabricated actually as it turned out) intelligence as to WMD wouldn't cut the mustard. They pointed out to the Bushies that they needed to have worked on a post conquest strategy before taking such a fateful and irrevocable step, the consequences of which were unknowable. They pointed to the troubled history of Iraq, the dangers of civil war, the possible implosion of the Iraqi state, the alteration to the regional balance of power. The tens of thousands of dead, especially Muslim dead. Iraq as a rallying cry for Jihad. The possible rise of Iran. Regretfully they said they would veto any motion calling for such action

But they were just cheese eating surrender monkies. The makers of freedom fries! Goodness how there must have been cries of despair in the peasant communes of Beaujolais and the Cotes du Rhone at all that liquid red sunshine poured from some many righteous, Bushie bottles onto America's dusty roads...

Yup the "opportunity" was grasped well and proper. My word how wrong those frogs were. It has all turned out SO well.

[6thGen]

I read most of both. The first one was just an attack. The second one said that what he said isn't true but provided no substantive evidence as to why.

Set me straight...

Cheers, G

My own experience in this regard is telling and not at all uncommon. When I was troubled by something during my White House years — whether it had to do with policy or other matters — I raised those concerns, often with a variety of high-ranking officials (usually Mike Gerson, Dan Bartlett, Karl Rove, or Josh Bolten). I once requested a private meeting to discuss Iraq with Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, a friend for whom I had (and have) enormous respect. I was deeply concerned at that point about what was happening to the war effort, the failures I thought we were making, and the personnel changes I thought needed to be made — and for more than 45 minutes Josh listened to me in his office, carefully, intently, asking questions and asking for clarifications. He seemingly had all the time in the world for me. There are other examples I could cite from my experience and from the experience of others. Scott seems to be that rare bird who kept those concerns suppressed, if he had them at all. And now, years later, he finally feels liberated to make arguments he didn’t appear to believe at the time.

and

· Was it the truth or a lie when you told me, during a series of personal discussions in your West Wing office in late 2005 and early 2006 (at the apex of what you now call your period of "disillusionment" and "dismay"), that you were happy in your job and proud to serve President Bush and that you had no intention of leaving soon? What about in April 2006, when rumors swirled about a change at the podium, and you again told me you wanted to stay?

· Was it the truth or a lie when, after countless briefings, you complained that the White House press corps was too tough, unfair, over the top and didn't get it?

Your recent assertion that you were becoming "disillusioned" and "dismayed" in the 10 months before your April 2006 departure is amazing. It does provide you with a neat excuse for suggesting that you left the White House on principle. But I'm having trouble believing it, as is most everyone who worked closely with you at the White House and in the press corps during this time. Yes, I know you were troubled over the Valerie Plame case, but you told me repeatedly you were gleeful about your job.

Remember?

You hired me as your deputy in October 2003 and said more than once that the typical tenure of a White House press secretary before burnout was about two years. After two years went by, we were about halfway into what you now call your period of disillusionment.

As Christmas approached, your mood was as festive as the White House eggnog. Seeing your delight, I suspected you might be having second thoughts about serving only two years or so. So I asked you. You said you weren't going anywhere, you loved the job, you were feeling good. Now, you say you were actually suffering through a gut-wrenching ordeal and were looking for the exits.

When the first "teaser" excerpts of your book hit the press in December, my phone lighted up with calls from reporters. Before responding, I called you; you said the publisher had taken liberties, you didn't mean to attack the president and to point reporters to your 2006 interview with Larry King as your genuine take on things. You told me that your book was still about the poisonous partisan atmosphere in Washington and didn't breathe a hint about Iraq or Hurricane Katrina. This was long after you were outside the White House bubble, amigo.

You also assured me, when we've talked the past two years, that you wanted your deputies to review the book and share our thoughts. Thinking you actually meant what you said, I reached out to you two months ago to take you up on your offer. Radio silence. Why didn't you keep your promise to me and the other professionals who gave years of their lives working for you?

The press was easy on us? How many times did you race up the ramp from the briefing room to your office after a raucous media cross-examination to complain how the press was unfair, naive, too tough and way too "liberal." Would any in the White House press corps agree they were softies?

All that aside, the revelations that you are "intrigued by Senator Obama's message" and that you don't know if you are a Republican anymore make me wonder if you ever had any convictions. If you were just drinking the Kool-Aid at the White House, have you now switched flavors with your newfound friends?

Perhaps you have had an epiphany. Maybe it is better to appease terrorists and let them fight us here instead of taking them on overseas. Maybe we should return our public education system to factories of mediocrity run by teachers unions instead of demanding and delivering educational excellence for our children. Maybe we should let the government ration health care and get between us and our doctors. And maybe we should raise taxes, punish individual enterprise and destroy the incentive for hard work to pay for more government programs.

Think about it. You may not be able to now, since you have conceded your inability to think clearly and independently inside a bubble atmosphere, be it at the White House or while on a media-frenzy book tour.

But do it anyway. On your own, without a publisher around. And let me know what you figure out.

Most of his writing is subjective, so it's difficult to "disprove" feelings, but Duffy does a damn fine job of referencing his outward appearance and words at the time.

Like I've said, there it some truth to what he says, but there is a lot of fluff and his overall credibility is in question.

[6thGen]

I forgot three sources refuting his claims that Bush "lied" to lead us to war.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report of 2004
The Robb-Silberman report of 2005
Britain’s Butler report