31
May
08

Scott McClellan and the Book of the Century

A while ago, I wrote about an excerpt of Scott McClellan’s book (before I moved to WordPress, and somehow the move ate the quote on that post). It was clear then that McClellan was trying to manufacture some Lefty outrage to increase book sales. Why would he want to suck up to the Left? Because they buy books. If you look at the political non-fiction books released lately, all the #1s are books that appeal to the looney Left. McClellan, who’s already filed affidavits for investigation into the Plame leak, now comes out saying Bush was the one who authorized the leak. Why didn’t he testify earlier, when he wasn’t working for the White House and writing this book? If he’s so interested in doing the right thing, why not testify then?

The Washington Post confirms this with the statement McClellan’s book was first regarded as “a not-very-interesting, typical press secretary book.” After his editor says insinuates “It won’t sell unless it’s got something juicy in it”, now McClellan suddenly realizes Bush Lied.

He also criticized memoirs of other Administration “turncoats”, saying pretty much what I’m saying here:

McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let’s look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry’s campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. …

It’s pretty clear the motivation of McClellan’s book. The only people who could buy this garbage are Democrat propagandists and/or music professors.

Advertisements

21 Responses to “Scott McClellan and the Book of the Century”


  1. 1 William
    June 3, 2008 at 2:59 am

    The only people who could buy this garbage are Democrat propagandists and/or music professors.

    Would you like to put your money where your mouth is big boy? How much you want to bet more people will believe this book than believe Bush when the polls come out on this in a few months?

    Unlike books by O’Reilly, Jonah Goldberg or Ann Coulter, perhaps your readers would like to know that a portion of proceeds of McClellan’s book will be to be donated to Iraq vets.

    After his editor says, “It won’t sell unless it’s got something juicy in it”

    Why do you lie like that Mikey?? Don’t you know what that does to your credibility? Are you that desperate you have to lie about what someone said? You actually “quoted” McClellan’s editor with something he never said. [fixed– thanks for pointing that out Captain Plagiarism– Doc]

    Born out of denial, it is clear that you follow the same m.o. as the typical Republican swiftboat machine. Refuse to think critically about the message, forget substance, intrigity, and truth, just attack the messenger with all the smear, lies and innuendo you can muster. It is what psychologists call a “persistant habitual response pattern” – an authoritarian conservative character flaw. In other words since you can’t validly refute the issues presented in the book with any documentation, you lie and swiftboat – as you aptly demonstrated.

    You must really be an embarrassment to your colleagues. I can’t imagine you have many friends who are similarly degreed that have the same denialist authoritarian outlook as you. You’re a rare one.

  2. 2 Matt R
    June 3, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    William, it seems Mike is agreeing with you.
    McClellan seems to have been part of Bush’s “swiftboat machine.” (What ever that is. Seems the Dems sunk themselves when the dropped Dean…but I digress.) So, by your logic the guy is a liar when he was working for Bush.
    Okay.
    Now he tells the truth? Has Scotty donned sackcloth and ashes? Repented and seen the light?
    So why not agree press secretaries who worked for Bush had a vested interest in shading public opinion THEN, and hence their documents cannot be trusted. And their documents cannot be trusted NOW when they have a vested interest.

    And what is so outrageous about saying people will exaggerate for sales anyway?

  3. 3 William
    June 3, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    Just listen to what he has to say. He wanted to trust Bush, still believes Bush is basically good, sincere, but he had to speak out. He was lied to and his job was to repeat what he was told.

    Yes, now he tells the truth. The same truth that is verified by all of the career Republican generals that have spoken out about Bush’s incompetence and methods, the NTY that exposed the Pentagons that propaganda program – discontinued when caught red handed, the evidence in ongoing investigations of the Bush administration on prewar intel, the Center for Public Integrity that documented 935 Bush lies, the US Congressional oversight website that documented the 237 Bush lies on Iraq, former Bush insiders Richard Clark and Paul O’Neill, the Downing St memos, etc… this isn’t one lone wolf telling an outrageous story. This is further verification on all the above and to chalk it up to “exaggerate sales” of a book is more than absurd, it is completely illogical.

  4. June 4, 2008 at 3:30 am

    I will check out this book. thanks

  5. 5 Matt R
    June 4, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    Is it a “verification” or proof that he cribbed noted from the investigations? And you source someone more credicble than a partisan “committee” and a website?

    And this “being lied to” is an old song. I’ve heard Hilary sing that same one. They all had access to the same information. Hec, McClellan was feeding Bush the info. If Hilary and he are so naive that “incompetant” Bush can fool them, why should I think his book have any useful insight? Obviously, this guy is naive and gullible.

    And after all the supposed lies, how can he think Bush is ” basically good?” Seems an oxymoron or he’s still gullible.

  6. 6 docattheautopsy
    June 4, 2008 at 4:11 pm

    Unlike books by O’Reilly, Jonah Goldberg or Ann Coulter, perhaps your readers would like to know that a portion of proceeds of McClellan’s book will be to be donated to Iraq vets.

    I do believe all of those authors directly contribute to Iraqi & Vet charities, so the idea that McClellan is doing something those 3 don’t is a canard.

    Refuse to think critically about the message, forget substance, intrigity, and truth, just attack the messenger with all the smear, lies and innuendo you can muster.

    You know, you never address the crux of my argument, namely, that McClellan waited until Fitz was done and his book was coming out to make these accusations. He should have just cooperated with Fitz at the time THEN written his book. If it was true, why not do it? But no, we have to wait until he has the wool lifted from his eyes that he now believes Bush lied. It’s convenient, and it’s the kind of BS that people have done in the past just to make money.

    His monetary income would not have changed with the book had he testified. If you think about it, he probably would have made more money– the guy who brought down the President writes a book. They made a movie off of Woodward and Bernstein– why not make a book out of McClellan’s heroic defiance of Bush to back what he believes what’s right? He can do what’s right AND make a truckload of cash.

    But he doesn’t. He waits until Bush’s last year, unloads this “bombshell”, and now laughs all the way to the bank as you desperately order his BS off of Amazon.

    Your issue here is that you think I’m defending Bush, Willy. What I’m doing is pointing out the logical flaw in immediately believing what McClellan says. A logic that somehow escapes your grasp. Stop thinking with emotion, Willy, and think with your brain.

  7. 7 William
    June 4, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    I don’t know why McClellen remained silent during the investigation. Probably fear and being implicated in the coverup since he was on record defending both Rove and Libby. Bush confided in him about the leak in April 06, while he was still employed during the heat of the investigation. If he came out then, Bush would just have denied it, it was a personal conversation. McClellan has said repeatedly he feels affection for the president even now. He probably needed time and distance to come out.

    So Doc, tell us all, why do you suppose White House emails have come up missing during the critical 3 1/2 days between the time the DOJ launched the investigation on the CIA leak and Gonzo did his duty to inform the White House to preserve all communications that might in any way be related to the probe? You don’t find this interesting? Of course you wouldn’t see anything suspicious here now would you?

  8. 8 docattheautopsy
    June 4, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Of course. What’s in the emails? Who knows? This isn’t the first time important documents have “vanished” when they were needed to shed light on malfeasance by elected officials. And it doesn’t stop with the Clintons, either.

    But once those documents are gone– they’re gone, which means we’ll never know if there was damning evidence on them or not. But it does shine light on a broken and corrupt political system, regardless of party.

  9. 9 William
    June 5, 2008 at 12:32 am

    Yea I agree, but those that try to equate lying about sex and fradulent land deals with actions that have resulted in the killing, maiming and displacing of hundreds of thousands at an expense that will be measured in trillions$ — is truly absurd. There is no comparison with the culture of corruption, deception and denial we’ve been dealing with.

  10. 10 docattheautopsy
    June 5, 2008 at 6:59 am

    Hold on– you’ve jumped the topics. The plame “leak” didn’t cause the death of hundreds of thousands, and that’s what the emails were referring to. The Whitewater and Travel Office Scandals were on par with the Plame leak, and there were more dead bodies from the Clinton scandals than the Plame leak scandal.

  11. 11 William
    June 5, 2008 at 11:12 am

    Leak Plame = smear Wilson = sell the war = 100,000s dead and maimed = you lose

  12. 12 William
    June 5, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Yep, Scotty was lying to sell books. The more you pedal this sh!t the stupider and more desperate you look.

  13. 13 docattheautopsy
    June 5, 2008 at 7:18 pm

    Desperate? I’m not the one equating a smear on Joe Wilson with 100,000s dead (bear in mind the vast majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were from AQI bombings, JAM fighting, and Shia/Shiite violence, not due to US forces. But that would require you to understand that AQI is a terrorist organization that was sowing discord through violence and mass murder. Instead of recognizing the atrocities, you wrung your hands and demanded we exit, leaving millions of Iraqi civilians at the mercy of those terrorists.

    As for desperation, you’re the one who’s trying to tie two unrelated arguments. McClellan is still peddling a book, and you’re deperately tying the partisan Congressional report to my belief that McClellan is attempting to cash in. You yourself even said “I don’t know why McClellan remained silent”, which is my entire argument.

    So if you want to come around and show how you misrepresent things, and then call me a liar, go ahead. It’s just more piles and piles of evidence that shows your an infant who is incapable of thinking on his own without calling people names and twisting facts to meet your immature agenda.

  14. 14 William
    June 6, 2008 at 12:04 am

    the vast majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were from AQI bombings, JAM fighting, and Shia/Shiite violence, not due to US forces.

    What country invaded and lost control, couldn’t provide security resulting in mass death and displacement?

    the partisan Congressional report

    Partisan aye? You mean the report that 2 Republicans signed off on? You mean the report that said EXACTLY what the former White House Press Sec said? This isn’t about politics, this is about facts, evidence and the truth.

    You are the desperate liar (see above) – I’ll take the facts. You WANT to make this a partisan issue because that is the only defense you have left, and THAT is desperation.

    GAME OVER Mikey, you and the lying liars you support have been SLAM DUNKED by fact upon fact.

    “Statements by the president were not substantiated by intelligence … statements by the president were contradicted by available intelligence. In other words, they made things up. They made them up and gave them to Colin Powell and others, who believed them. I think Colin Powell did not know that he was lying, but he was. He was given intelligence that people in the intelligence community at the time, knew were not true. “
    — Former Bush counter-terrorism director, Richard Clark

  15. June 9, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Tell us Mikey, who are you going to believe, someone like Scott McClellan who puts his hand on the Bible and testifies under oath, or someone like Karl Rove and the other Bushies who run from accountability when subpoenaed like cockroaches from the light?

    Scotty testifies under oath on June 20th

  16. 16 docattheautopsy
    June 10, 2008 at 12:45 am

    As I mentioned before, why didn’t he testify before? Why wait until the investigation is closed?

    And I trust his words about as much as I would yours if you were both swearing on the Bible.

  17. 17 William
    June 13, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    And I trust his words about as much as I would yours if you were both swearing on the Bible.

    But you’ll trust Karl Rove and GW Bush, because they’re great christians right? Is that your position?

    Better cut out the burgers and shakes or you’ll end up like Russert.

  18. 18 docattheautopsy
    June 13, 2008 at 10:59 pm

    If your concern was genuine, I would be touched.

    As for Rove & Bush, I trust them about as much as I can throw them.

  19. June 7, 2013 at 8:50 am

    Most often, it’s when someone says,” I am ugly, and he’s just being honest with you.
    Once you start going out with the boys, an ocassional female, because you cannot deal with her
    as well as envy. Story telling is the art of qualification.
    But these things should be done to improve your hair’s appearance to How To Attract Women. There are many countries known for this, including but not limited to Costa Rica, Thailand, Cambodia and Kenya. Your loved deserve better, not they.

  20. June 13, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    If so, you have to deal with her as she is trying to get your attract
    women back if that is what she wants. Too many men rush without thought into relationships, and
    beyond.


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

  • 130,676 hits

RSS The Autopsy

The Autopsy

%d bloggers like this: