22
Nov
07

The Scott McClellan Bombshell!

Bush lied, people died, people!

According to his new book, McClellan says:

He certainly knows how to sell a book.  Throw out an unsubstantiated bomb like that, and watch as the liberals run out and snatch up the book.  If it was just a book about how he was a good little soldier of the Bu$hitler, he’d sell maybe 14 copies.  But put a juicy little blurb in there about Bush’s treason, and you’re guaranteeing some big sales.

What’s the most annoying aspect of the whole thing is the sudden belief in McClellan by the rabid left.  He was reviled by lefty bloggers when he was the WH Press Secretary, but now he’s Mr. Truth.

I guess the take home lesson is that the closer you are to Bush, the more you are compelled to be a compulsive liar by the sheer magnitude of his evil.

Advertisements

15 Responses to “The Scott McClellan Bombshell!”


  1. November 22, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    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?

    This level of abject authoritarianism and denial derserves a post! You’re amazing Doc. You give us an excellent example that authoritarianism trumps even logic, intelligence and critical thinking. That loyalty to a leader is more important than ethics, intergrity and the rule of law.

    “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

  2. 2 docattheautopsy
    November 22, 2007 at 8:10 pm

    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.

    Or am I just being an authoritarian slave?

  3. November 22, 2007 at 9:51 pm

    Let’s get this straight now. You believe McClellan is lying to sell books? Right?

    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.

    Readers take note. The level of denial here is shocking. It has truly crossed the line here into the pathological. You are reading the writings of a classic authoritarian who fits the psychological profile to the letter.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_Authoritarianism

  4. 4 docattheautopsy
    November 23, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    “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.

  5. November 24, 2007 at 6:40 am

    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. As was everyone else you mentioned.
    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 (in authoritarian fashion).

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

    Be a good boy, watch and learn.

  6. 6 docattheautopsy
    November 24, 2007 at 8:39 am

    “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.

    Nice to see you haven’t responded at all to my illustration of your authoritarianism on your website, btw.

  7. 7 Bobak
    November 28, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    Doc, I love sitting back and reading your responses. The best part? When you think you make so much sense and are making great points while people are beating you over the head with the truth….William is handing it to you, but you’re too dumb/blind to see it…thanks for the laugh…

  8. 8 William
    December 3, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    OK, McClellan is lying to sell books. So Bush has done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide right? Why then do we hear today that in the House Oversight Committee’s Investigation that Bush is blocking access to records of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s interviews with himself, Cheney and other senior administration officials regarding the unmasking of former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson?

    Why, if Scotty is lying that Bush and Cheney were among those “involved” in passing along “false information” regarding the Plame scandal? Tell us Doc.

    Statement from Committee Chair Waxman:

    “There is no legitimate basis for the withholding of these documents. Mr. Fitzgerald has apparently determined that these documents can be produced to the Committee without infringing on his prosecutorial independence or violating the rules of grand jury secrecy, as records of statements made by White House officials to federal investigators, outside the framework of presidential decision-making, the documents could not be subject to a valid claim of executive privilege….The Justice Department provided the exact same information to Congress during the Clinton Administration. There is no special standard for President Bush that exempts him and his senior advisors from responsible congressional oversight.”

    The chairman notes that Janet Reno, who was attorney general in the Clinton administration, made an independent judgement to provide several FBI interview reports to the committee, including those of Bill Clinton and then-Vice President Al Gore.

    So, if he has nothing to hide, and Scotty is lying, please explain this to your readers.

  9. 9 docattheautopsy
    December 4, 2007 at 9:16 am

    Hello readers! Here’s my response to Willy:

    Also, an investigation into the Plame affair was already done, and Scooter Libby was indicted for obstruction and perjury. From all of Fitz’s paperwork and digging, no other indictments were issued.

    The White House is blocking the requests because it’s a waste of money. If the Special Prosecutor doesn’t find anything in those interviews, will Waxman? He’s seeking material that’s possibly politically embarrassing, because if there was anything incriminating there, it would already have been included on an indictment.

    So, you’re in support, Willy, of government wasting money on something they already investigated? Sounds like you’re obsessed with finding something criminal where something criminal didn’t happen.

  10. December 4, 2007 at 10:26 am

    Hey Doc, Wasting money? You mean like the $6 million that was spent on investigating Bill’s Clinton’s penis? Like the $12 billion unaccounted for in Iraq? I’ll bet Doc had no problem with that spending.

    BS Waxman and the House Oversight Committee will be paid to do their job whether they investigate or not. Notice how Doc didn’t answer the question:

    Why won’t Bush release the info if, as you believe, Scotty is lying about Bush and Cheney being “involved” in passing along “false information” regarding the Plame scandal? What does he have to hide? Tell us Doc? Or do you support a president who lies to the Amrican people to advance an authoritarian agenda?

    BTW, the Bush lie du jour: A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with “high confidence” that Iran stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

    The problem, this report was completed in 2006 and Bush and Cheney continued to lie about Iran being an imminent nuclear threat.

    Think Progress has documented six instances of Bush, Cheney, and administration officials touting the Iran nuclear threat with in the past 60 days – when they knew of this intelligence report.

    How do we know they knew about it? Cheney didn’t like what it said and delayed the release of the NIE. The report has exposed Bush and Cheney as deliberate liars … again

    http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39978

  11. 11 docattheautopsy
    December 4, 2007 at 10:41 am

    “Why won’t Bush release the info”

    I did answer the question, you even allude to it at the beginning of your post.

    Come on, Willy. I know even musicians have to use their left brain occasionally. Yours seems to be in atrophy.

    And please link to where Bush said Iran is an “imminent” nuclear threat. Go ahead. I challenge you to find that.

    I looked at the TP link, and each statement is accurate. Iran is still enriching uranium with 3000 centrifuges, something I’ve addressed earlier. If Russia is willing to give them EU for fuel, then why continue running the centrifuges? It’ll save the Iranians money to get Russian fuel. Why continue with the 3000 centrifuges? There’s only one other thing you can do with enriched uranium Willy. I’ll let you figure that out.

  12. 12 Matt R
    June 2, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    So, William is defending a Bush press secretary who was pretty much behind spin? Seems to me that if you say he is willing to “sell” the truth for one cause he’s willing to “sell” it for another, right?
    Goes to credibilty, right?
    He can’t be trustworthy just because he says things we want to hear.
    I liked the Woodward book. That’s worth defending.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


About Me

My name is Doc. Welcome to my blog. If you're visiting from another blog, add me to your blogroll (and I'll happily reciprocate). I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and live in Wisconsin. If you have any questions, feel free to email me. My email is docattheautopsy at gmail. (No linking to deflate the incredible spam monsters).

Categories

Archives

World Temp Widget

Blog Stats

  • 130,595 hits

RSS The Autopsy

The Autopsy

%d bloggers like this: