This all bespeaks a level of sophistication few ever credited McClellan with when he stood at the podium looking like a McDonald's cashier flummoxed by an order. He's hawking books by making people think he's charging the Bush administration with wholesale dishonesty when he's not even making that case at the retail level. He's claiming the role of insider with behind-the-scenes insights, but he admits it never occurred to him that there was any dishonesty at work until he left the White House and began ruminating on what he could put in his book.Some commenters over at The City Paper are dismissing Goldberg's op/ed because he hasn't read McClellan's book. Well, interviews and direct quotes are enough to go on, for the point that Goldberg is making--did you read the op/ed before commenting?
If only he'd been this good at working the press when it was for someone's benefit other than his own.
May I say that you weren't a very good press secretary, Scott?
10 comments:
heh....
Goldberg hahahaa
I like how you pine for polling data. Give me a break, William.
Credibility, character, motivation . . . it all matters. And as I said in the post (did you read it before your knee spiked?) Goldberg cited various direct excerpts from the book and interviews with McClellan.
It's Libbies buyin' all those books, William.
As you'd say: William hahaha.
Yes Ned, Credibility, character, motivation . . . it all matters.
If anything, Scotty understated the Bush lies.
Gee, and McClellan still respects and admires Bush? Astonishing.
In any event, “wrong” doesn’t equal “liar.”
It’s not just ‘wrong’ - they knew better - they knew they were misleading - they had intel that did not support their claims.
Bush Administration’s public statements NOT supported by the intelligence = LIES by any definition
Oh, okay. What position did McCain have in the Bush administration?
(BTW, you're mixing up your threads . . this is the thread where you're asserting that McClellan's character and credibility are unimpeachable given that he is saying things you agree with about Bush and Cheney.)
McCain is now justifying the intelligence claims of the president. Now we have the evidence that statements by the president were not substantiated by intelligence and were contradicted by available intelligence. The Senate Intell COm report says exactly what McClellen said. In other words, Bush LIED. It is a slam dunk case, game over, end of story.
Ned, I need your legal opinion.
Who are you more likely to believe, someone who puts his hand on the Bible and testifies under oath, or someone who runs from accountability when subpoenaed and fails to appear?
Just like a Liberal, always wanting something for nothing.
But it depends on the legal authority for the subpoena, and whether someone is a target of the investigation.
Wow, I just read the "McClellan to testify" article to which you linked . . . what a load of crock. It neglected to mention the "Bush admin. official" that actually "leaked" the information about Valerie Plame.
"D'oh!! We forgot Armitage!!!"
And judging from what the article says about McClellan's "accusations," there's nothing there, william. Cheney and Libby were involved in drafting responses/rebuttals to Mr. Plame (sic)? Big whoop. The Press Sec. was told to exonerate Libby? Big whoop. He hadn't leaked the information, what's not to exonerate?
Go ahead and try and impeach him/them/us/ every Republican, William.
Post a Comment