In Other News, The Sky Is Blue
What’s surprising about these revelations?
- Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the [Iraq] war.
- the Iraq war was not necessary.”
- [T]he White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.
- [T]wo top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them
- [A]fter Hurricane Katrina, the White House “spent most of the first week in a state of denial,”
Only their source: Bush loyalist (until now, apparently) Scott McClellan
I don’t doubt the veracity of some of his claims, but a former press secretary selling a book can’t be considered the most reliable of sources.
Can’t we just look at everything else Dubya has done and come to that conclusion….plus all of the other former staffer defections that back this up.
link?
I remember McClellan being a bad press secretary. It doesn’t surprise me that he felt this way. The guy always looked nervous, like he was lying.
This kind of thing is pretty sorry, regardless of whether we are talking about Republicans or Democrats.
I knew the McClelland swiftboat was already in the water, Glen takes no time to throw Scotty under the bus. It’s all his fault, he must be lying to sell books.
William, anyone selling a book loses some amount of credibility. McClellan’s claims, however, are only backing up other former staffers who are not selling books.
Dan Bartlett, Andy Card, etc. They have futures in the party to think about too. I’d consider them more reliable sources. McClellan’s accounting of the situation is going to lose some veracity though. That’s all.
Cameron:
The fact that he’s selling a book may raise a bit of suspicion, but it means nothing about the veracity of his claims. Absolutely nothing. They’re true, or they’re not. As you say, the fact that his claims are corroborated by countless other ex-insiders only helps his credibility.
Glen:
Of course McClellan was lying back then! He was the press secretary! That’s his job. You’re right that he wasn’t a very good one, but only because he wasn’t as good at lying as Fleischer or Snow, and didn’t have the good fortune of being a cute blond who doesn’t know what the Bay of Pigs was about.
Oh, and here is your link.
I think his details will lose some veracity, not the overall story: Bush lied….we know.
I’m not saying McClellan’s lying, but people selling books about what they’ve seen or heard when they stand to make a profit automatically garner less credibility. That’s all I was saying.
I still don’t think I agree. Their credibility depends on the truth/falsity of their content. If all you’re saying is that you should initially be a bit more skeptical of someone who’s plugging a book, I’d agree. But the fact that someone’s plugging a book doesn’t make them any less (or more) credible. The truth of what they wrote does that.
If it is ever determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the administration lied, i.e., manipulated intelligenge, then We The People must demand an investigation into why they did it, and whether or not they have done so in other cases as well.
I think that to anyone familiar with the facts, it’s beyond reasonable doubt that the administration manipulated intelligence to get a preferred outcome. Bush himself doesn’t seem to have been terribly guilty of this, but many of his top advisers absolutely were. (If Bush is guilty of something, it’s choosing bad top advisers, and not challenging them.)
I can’t say it enough: watch the documentary I linked.
I’ve seen it, tgirsch.
When I say “beyond a reasonable doubt”, I mean established through legally admissable evidence, not a television documentary.
It’s not happening, fellas. Holler for it, but we’re not going to end up trying our own President, his top aids, the joint chiefs, and the CIA higher ups for war crimes.
Not happening. If you’re waiting on that to happen before approaching our foreign policy in Iraq, we’ll never address Iraq.
I’m not hollering for anything, other than getting these people to own up to the people and comply with Congress’ orders.
If the people in charge of the foreign policy are acting in contempt of The People, then The People, e.g., you and me, have no input on the policy regardless.
Ok. It’s not going to happen. You said this “owning up” on the part of our leaders is a necessary first step to addressing Iraq. Not happening…..so, what’s next?
What’s next is the courts rule on the claims of executive privilege. If the action in Iraq has been conducted in a criminal fashion, then we can assume the criminality is ongoing. So the responsibility of the people is to determine if that is case, and if so remedy the situation.
There is no way to begin to address the foreign (or domestic) policy situation if the people calling the shots are acting out of criminal motivation.