http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080527/pl_politico/10649;_ylt=Am6b5MJJ6kNY6g6KtwfWoBus0NUE
Just curious about what the T-Nation thermidorians have to say about this.
My take. Scott McClellan is a pudgy, stupid guy who made an ass of himself in front of the White House press corps one too many times. He’s looking for redemption, a future in journalism, and Bush is an awfully soft target.
That said, I’m sure he has a lot of interesting and true things to reveal about the Bush adm. pre-Iraq calculus, which was abysmal.
It will be dismissed just like the many people who’ve spoken about this before him.
And seeing how Bush limited the Freedom Of Information Act’s scope, there are chances that we may never know what really happened. I mean, does anyone believe documents haven’t already been destroyed?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
My take. Scott McClellan is a pudgy, stupid guy who made an ass of himself in front of the White House press corps one too many times. [/quote]
Well Dana Perino may be cuter than Scott, but she also makes a bigger ass out of herself than he did:
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Well Dana Perino may be cuter than Scott, but she also makes a bigger ass out of herself than he did:
[/quote]
I’d still do her.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
My take. Scott McClellan is a pudgy, stupid guy who made an ass of himself in front of the White House press corps one too many times.
Well Dana Perino may be cuter than Scott, but she also makes a bigger ass out of herself than he did:
[/quote]
Well, she’s no Tony Snow. But who cares what she’s saying?
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
entheogens wrote:
Well Dana Perino may be cuter than Scott, but she also makes a bigger ass out of herself than he did:
I’d still do her.[/quote]
Helen Thomas probably needs it more.
…Oh good lord I just googled her and saw the pictures…
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
entheogens wrote:
Well Dana Perino may be cuter than Scott, but she also makes a bigger ass out of herself than he did:
I’d still do her.
Helen Thomas probably needs it more.
…Oh good lord I just googled her and saw the pictures…[/quote]
Hahaha! Looking at Helen Thomas should be a form of self-flagellation.
http://kjct8.com/Global/story.asp?S=8390217
“This doesn’t sound like Scott - not the Scott McClellan I’ve known for a long time,” Rove said on Fox News, where he now works as an on-air pundit. “It sounds like a left-wing blogger … if he had those moral qualms, he should have spoken up about them.”
McClellan’s predecessor in the White House job, Ari Fleischer, said he was “heartbroken” by his former deputy’s book.
“There is something about this book that just doesn’t make any sense,” Fleischer said in a statement. “For two and a half years Scott and I worked shoulder to shoulder at the White House… Not once did Scott approach me - privately or publicly - to discuss any misgivings he had about the war in Iraq or the manner in which the White House made the case for war.”
Fleischer said McClellan continued to defend the war even after he left the White House. Like Rove, Fleischer said the book didn’t “sound like Scott,” and that McClellan told him on Tuesday that “his editor ‘tweaked some things closely in the last couple months.’”
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
…
[/quote]
Conspiracy! Sheehan kidnapped Mclellan’s family and ordered him to write the book.
Have some compassion. All the man’s doing is try to protect his family.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…
Conspiracy! Sheehan kidnapped Mclellan’s family and ordered him to write the book.
Have some compassion. All the man’s doing is try to protect his family.[/quote]
He is trying to cash in, just like all the Clinton staffers did to him with all their tell all books.
A stand up guy would have said something at the time, not years later to make money.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He is trying to cash in, just like all the Clinton staffers did to him with all their tell all books. [/quote]
Do you really think mentioning that prick Clinton has any effect on your argument? If so, think again.
That I can agree with. There is no excuse for doing what he did. That said, I don’t think it takes anything away from his thesis. Better late than never, some might say. The man’s word is not essential for the case. There have been numerous US officials who resigned, issued statements and criticized the decision to wage a war of aggression before that one even began. Scott’s book is just one more piece of the puzzle. Well, it’s a puzzle for those who were surprised that Bush’s case turned out to be little more than fantasy. The rest already knew how things work in Washington and how the government uses deceit to garner public support for unnecessary warfare.
So, I’m afraid your argument is classic ad hominem. But at this point, that’s all you can afford really.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He is trying to cash in, just like all the Clinton staffers did to him with all their tell all books.
A stand up guy would have said something at the time, not years later to make money.[/quote]
I agree with this. What he is saying is probably true. However, it appears that he is arguing that he was just innocently reporting what was told to him (I think that is bullshit). If he had any ethics (and/or balls) he would have denounced the activity as it happened and/or resigned a long time before he did.
He’s not a hero, he’s an opportunist. Easy money.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Hahaha! Looking at Helen Thomas should be a form of self-flagellation. [/quote]
Well, she is 88 years old. Like her or not, she’s feisty and got a sharp mind for that age. She is about the only one in the White House Press corp that has the courage to ask the hard questions and challenge the powers that be, which is what journalists are supposed to do, no matter who is in the White House.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He is trying to cash in, just like all the Clinton staffers did to him with all their tell all books.
Do you really think mentioning that prick Clinton has any effect on your argument? If so, think again.
A stand up guy would have said something at the time, not years later to make money.
That I can agree with. There is no excuse for doing what he did. That said, I don’t think it takes anything away from his thesis. Better late than never, some might say. The man’s word is not essential for the case. There have been numerous US officials who resigned, issued statements and criticized the decision to wage a war of aggression before that one even began. Scott’s book is just one more piece of the puzzle. Well, it’s a puzzle for those who were surprised that Bush’s case turned out to be little more than fantasy. The rest already knew how things work in Washington and how the government uses deceit to garner public support for unnecessary warfare.
So, I’m afraid your argument is classic ad hominem. But at this point, that’s all you can afford really.[/quote]
Wow project your faults on someone else and rant against America…that’s original.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Hahaha! Looking at Helen Thomas should be a form of self-flagellation.
Well, she is 88 years old. Like her or not, she’s feisty and got a sharp mind for that age. She is about the only one in the White House Press corp that has the courage to ask the hard questions and challenge the powers that be, which is what journalists are supposed to do, no matter who is in the White House.
[/quote]
I find her rather disrespectful, rude, and unduly combative even to a guy like Tony Snow. You can ask tough questions without sounding like that and interrupting the person answering you.
I think the term “journalists” ought to be used in quotations with regard to the White House press corps, who are really nothing but rich, spoiled adolescent prima donnas, like that fag David Gregory.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
A stand up guy would have said something at the time, not years later to make money.[/quote]
This is the problem - if everything he says is taken as true, why stay in the job? Why not quit?
Why come out now, when a reasonably high level resignation in protest of all of this mischief could have possibly done some good to correct it, or at least expose it?
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Well, she is 88 years old. Like her or not, she’s feisty and got a sharp mind for that age. She is about the only one in the White House Press corp that has the courage to ask the hard questions and challenge the powers that be, which is what journalists are supposed to do, no matter who is in the White House.[/quote]
Except she doesn’t challenge the “powers that be” - she challenges the “powers that be” that are not of her preferred political persuasion. Her “toughness” of questioning absolutely is dependent on who is in the White House.
She’s been an unreliable hack for many years, and a living museum exhibit as to what is wrong with modern journalism.