A promotional excerpt from former White House spokesman Scott McClellan’s upcoming book has the political world buzzing — and calling for an investigation. At issue are McClellan’s assurances to the White House press (and thus the public) in 2003 that then-White House political adviser Karl Rove and former vice presidential Chief of Staff Lewis Libby had no involvement with the outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame. But McClellan’s book, “What Happened,†makes this confession:
“It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president’s chief of staff, and the president himself.â€
Did President Bush knowingly ask McClellan to lie? The book’s publisher said that Bush told McClellan “something that wasn’t true, but the president didn’t know it wasn’t true.â€
Not surprisingly, Democrats aren’t convinced and have called for an investigation. But GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee may have had the best response. He told MSNBC: “It’s one of those moments where I’m glad to not be a Washington insider.â€
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
98 Comments
Phillip,
Why would you ask the question and then post the answer as if there is something else?
“something that wasn’t true, but the president didn’t know it wasn’t true.”
Do you have information which shows Bush knowingly told McCellan to lie?
If you did, you didn’t post it.
Instead you ask the question for what reason?
Typical liberal bias.
figured as much coming from you Editors at the Eagle.
Is it too much to ask for any balance from you?
It’s obvious the question was asked to encourage discussion, and so each of us would post our opinions. At this time we don’t have more than questions and opinions, but I’m sure there isn’t anyone here lacking an opinion!
Yes, I think bush knew McClellan was not telling the truth. Did he personally ask him to lie, I doubt it. There may well have been an explanation given and even direction that “FILL IN THE BLANK” would be what was released to the press. In giving that direction I doubt it was mentioned that this wasn’t the truth.
So, nathan, your defense for Bush is that he was clueless.
Bush could be found to be sacrifying babies and Nathan would still defend him.
Ah the Plame story again.
I find it poetic justice that cheesy D.C. insiders like Plame and her husband get raked over the coals.
They both were as much of the problem as everyone else involved.
Big fish eats little fish, happens all the time.
Has bush ever ‘knowingly’ done anything in his life?Remember when the spin was “it’s just the flavor of the month”, don’t hear that much anymore.
I think the safe bet, on just about anything, “Ben,” is that George WMD Bush was clueless.
One can only imagine the people cringing when Shrub said if he found out anyone was responsible for outing a CIA agent they wouldn’t no longer be part of his administration. And then when he changed his position and said if anyone were *convicted* of outing a CIA agent. And then when he commuted the conviction of Skooter Libbey who was found guilty of lying about the participation in the outing of Valarie Plame by Cheney, Rove, et al.
The George WMD Bush Administration has been “Government by Howdy Doody” — a puppet who doesn’t know better and all the strings are painfully obvious.
There are many crimes against America George WMD Bush could be charged with. And probably every one could be defended by Shrub saying, “I didn’t know.” Of course he didn’t know.
He’s never known.
Some will forgive bush anything.
“Bush told me to say something that turned out to be false. But I don’t believe bush knew it to be false at least at the time.”
This is essentially what Scotty is saying.
Here? I think bush’s defense is that he is obviously pretty clueless about pretty much everything.
Cheney? That’s a different matter. He should be investigated.
Look for heavy redactions in the forthcoming book, bush will no doubt have to have the cia & fbi vet it.
You can always tell when Bush is lying…..HIS LIPS ARE MOVING!!
Rev. Jim, Bush doesn’t need to sacrifice babies. The White House already has a cook staff and they sacrifice the babies in order to prepare a meal for Dick Cheney should he come over for dinner.
blogging pretty much over today, the Libs are at their prime with all
the waaah waaah waaah
and not one fact backed up by a credible source.
I say let them have it, so they can boost their over-inflated egos which can buy them absolutely nothing but ill will and spite.
Kansas, Scott McClellan isn’t a liberal.
Kansas, Scott McClellan isn’t a liberal.
Posted by: Doug | November 23, 2007 at 01:57 PM
duh!
Kansas, your argument is that the liberals are claiming that Scott was told to lie. Problem is, it’s Scott that is making the claim. He’s not a liberal. So maybe the truth is that you can’t handle the subject so you have to repeat your mantra of whining about how the liberals are destroying America or some crap.
So is Scott Mclellan not a credible source about what Scott Mclellan says? If he isn’t then the liberals don’t have a credible source but somehow I think Scott is the authority on Scott.
As I said at least twice this week in other threads, I think McClellan’s Publishers are squeezing the sensational hawking of wares so sales will increase.
They can always deal with what the “truth” is after they get the monies in their hands.
And, as I said before, if McClellan actually knew his accusation was true, he was obligated to tell Federal Prosecutors or FBI about them.
He did not and could be held responsible for obstructing justice by withholding information.
This is all about book sales and publicity.
So you are claiming Scott is lying, do you have any credible sources for this accusation?
So you are claiming Scott is lying, do you have any credible sources for this accusation?
Posted by: Doug | November 23, 2007 at 02:13 PM
I never said he was lying, but I do think he is exaggerating what was actually written in the book to sensationalize book sales.
It would be like me saying that Doug said McClellan is clearly a Liberal operative because that’s what the rumors that were flying around and besides I heard that someone heard who overheard a conversation from another person who may have been in the room and it was repeated by a reporter.
There is nothing there, never was.
So no credible sources for you claim then Kansas; just the sort of thing you accused the liberals of doing. Rather hypocritical don’t you think?
Doug – I jave to agree with Kansas that McClennen is not a credible source. After all, he WAS associated with the Bush administration!
Congratulations Phillip,
What will this be, thread number 1062 for the Bush haters?
If McClellan is calling Bush a liar or dishonest then it sounds very plausible. McClellan was a professional liar for the Bush regime so he should know dishonesty when he comes across it.
Wow, the cognitive dissonance is working overtime today among the CONs.
Bush, answering a question about when he would use military force before the election said:
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.
1. Terriorty threatened or our people harmed. RE: Iraq–LIE.
Mushroom cloud over an American city . . . drone planes . . . weapons of mass destruction.
“There can be no doubt that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.” Cheney
2. “Whether our mission is clear”
Nothing is more clear about our mission in Iraq that it is NOT clear. We don’t even know when or how we’ve “won.”
3. “whether or not we were prepared and trained to win”
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. Donald Rumsfailed
4. “whether or not there were an exit strategy.”
EXIT STRATEGY! The man is a f***ing comedian.
Tax breaks that “benefit those on the bottom of the economic ladder.”
Swiftboating Kerry.
Stopping the Florida recount.
“Heckofa Job Brownie”
“Iran had Al Qaeda ties”
“We’re dedicated to fiscal responsibility”
Everything that Bush says that can be proven true or false can be proven FALSE.
He even said he saw the first 9-11 hijacked jet hit the tower, which is impossible because he was in a car on his way to the elementary school in Florida where he sat and read a book with kids.
Now another huge and obvious lie emerges, and it can only be the accuser who’s lying, not the man who has gone down in history as the most duplicitous liar in the White House since the founding of the country.
This matter needs thorough investigation, well actually the plame matter. All the key players, esp. bush, cheney need to be put under oath and questioned. No private hearings with no transcripts, and no swearing in b.s.The public has an absolute right to know if their top govt. officials are capable of outing a cia agent for spite, and to boost their arguement’s position.
CapnAmerica,
If you actually read the topic, it said nothing about accusing Bush of lying.
Phillip is the one who posed that question even though in the topic he also quoted this:
““something that wasn’t true, but the president didn’t know it wasn’t true.”
And you and your liberal friends jumped on this thread like a fish on a fancy 100 dollar lure.
Phillip is sitting at his desk right now laughing to himself saying:
“Hook, Line, and Sinker”
“
Lies,Liars, and the Liars Lier!
Next will come from the right, it’s a Rovian set-up, after everyone speaks out, the book will come out and clear bush! And, with this despicable admin. who’s to say otherwise.
Plame was outed by Wilson.Plame and Wilson are egotistical media gadflies and political hacks.Plame and Wilson are both proven liars.
Do you see Phillip?
Are you laughing at your desk right now on the good job you did on pleasing the Bush haters?
You are like a little kid throwing a rock at a bee hive just to watch the bees get all stirred up.
Actully nathan, it wasn’t McClellen who said Bush was clueless; it is the publisher. Some defense; Bush is so clueless he doesn’t know the difference between truth and falsehood.
Ben,
You are operating from Hindsight.
At the time it was probaly a perfectly reasonable response.
When you tell your son you are going to go watch his baseball game and then get caught up at work in something really important are you a liar, clueless, or did you just not know something was going to prevent you from seeing the game that night?
Bush is the expert on hornet nests. Except he’s too stupid to pass one by without swinging his big stick.
Take a chill pill, Nathan.
Brownlee’s just doing his job, reporting on timely information.
It’s not his fault that your hero, Commander Cod-Piece, is a despicable liar.
This is the way the tissue of lies always tears asunder. It’s someone from the inside who just can’t take it anymore, John Dean and Eliot Abraham in the Nixon Administration for instance.
CapnAmerica,
There is a huge difference in reporting the news and posing a question like:
“So did Bush knowingly tell McClellan to lie?”
Nathan – if I call him rom the bar and tell him I am at work I would be lying. Bush didn’t say he WOULD do something in the future and get called away; he made a false statement about the present.
Of course, I guess if I had been so out of it that I didn’t know the difference between the bar and my office then perhaps I would not be lying. That is Bush’s defense.
Kansas, you’re too much.
Here we have a White House insider spilling the beans on his old bosses, and you manage to turn it into a liberal falsehood. Please go look whether you remembered to take your meds today.
So you think this is all about book sales? Would you consider for athat this book is going to cost McLellan far more than it will get him? You think maybe a nice cushy job in the private sector would be easier to come by if you didn’t alienate yourself from the entire Republican establishment?
Ah, c’mon, “Tor Hansson” –
No one else reading this forum expects “Kansas” to make any sense.
Don’t start now.
You people are hilarious.
Gee, if it wasn’t about making money on the book, don’t you think he would have said something on the news or don’t you think he would of been on Larry King by know telling everything he knows.. But no it is in his book. if you want to know more you need to buy the book.
It’ll be like Iraq, his defense is he didn’t educate himself enough to know what he was telling McClellan was incorrect. Plausible Stupidity.
For some bush can do no wrong.
Hell if they could, kansas and nathan and those nuts would make bush king.
Listen up Libs, this is about book publishing hype and advertising parlor tricks.
Nothing else.
“Values voters” voted for Bush the second time knowing he was lying to them about their core issues, especially abortion, because they believed they could hold their votes over his head to get what they wanted. Now, they’re too unrepentant for the evil in their own decisions to admit that Bush is as deceptive as they are.
Being a bushbot means never saying you are sorry. It’s all the liberals’ fault. Bush can do no wrong. All war is good, greed is good and Jesus doesnt love anyone but Nathan.
wash rinse repeat
How much patriotism do you think your bushbot posts generate? And did you convert anyone to Christianity today?
And how many folks do you think you’ve had the opposite effect upon?
Oh talk about whining, geez Nathan. A little sore that everything the libs have said about Bush is coming true? I guess if I were an avid head in the sand Bush supporter, I’d be a little irate too.
Something about McClellan made me think this guy didn’t like what was going on, even though he was one of them. Seems odd of all the dirty rotten things he helped Bush smooth over in the media, this would be the biggest one. The biggest one would be lying about Iraq.
I’m sure that’s to come in the book.
Perhaps there will still be time left to get him on the witness stand and we can finally impeach Bush. Perhaps even get him for treason as well.
>> Listen up Libs, this is about book publishing hype and advertising parlor tricks.
Nothing else. <<
An example of Republican ethics starting at the highest levels. Former member of White House administration will say anything to sell his book. (Funny how he thinks saying this administration is guilty if high crimes and misdemeanors in outing a covert CIA operative is going to accomplish that for him.)Impressive work, Pubs.
My gosh!
Publish a book and the Liberals think the new Bible has been released.
What will it be next week?
Gingrich confesses to knowing about compromise between Clinton and Whitewater prosecutors.
Title: The Flood Story
Go lap it up Libs.
Political Mom, if you were an avid head in the sand bush supporter, you wouldn’t see that he did anything wrong.
The first King George had his loyalists too. If Nathan, Kansas and Max had been around, you know they would have fought against liberty and for the crown. Just like they do now. God save the King. Authority must be worshiped. They’ll make anyone worship the King and their God at the end of a gun. Goes to show how powerful they really think their King George and their Sky God are.
Please, if you’re not going to use your actual user name, don’t include me in your discussion.
Waves hi to the courageous PMOM. :)
You’re no better Kansas, so don’t even.
The hilarious thing here is that the question is now “which Bush administration members are lying?”
I love watching the rats turn upon each other.
President Bush is said to be legendary in his loyalty, it may very well be he asked and received an answer. The issue would then be closed to him. Therefore the lie would not have been his but another’s, but of course since no one here was in the room at the time. Everyone’s opinion is just that, so it takes a preponderance of the evidence rather then one known fact. This is much like what President Bush is or is not to everyone. For the most part I believe more that Bush does not knowingly lie as much as he depends on others lies as the truth. Certainly it is also because he may want to believe the lies, for his own personal reasons.
witerdog – so, although the commander-in-chief, the decider, is SUPPOSED to know what he is doing in this case his defense is that he does NOT know what he is doing. And remember, the staff members in this case were not hold-overs from the previous administration but rather are his own appointees.
If the Clinton-haters can hold Bill Clinton responsible for staff he inherited from Bush 1 then how can they give Bush a pass for the actions of his close confidants?
Comeon Pemom,you are being a sour puss loser. We all know why you ran from the other blog.
The only people who talk about the “other blog” are Kansas and the CONs.
That’s not coming from our side.
I don’t even know what the “other blog” is . . .
Ben I do agree he is the President and though the ultimate knowledge is that you can never know everything in just one lifetime. He duty it to surround himself with people that know more on any given subject then he does. The President does have the responsibility for the actions of all his staff, including the Vice President. I still remember back in the day, President Nixon was never accused of being a part of the Watergate break-in planning. It was after the fact that he was guilty once learning of those under him being involved. Bush is clueless and often quite sheltered in the Oval office and undoubtedly still even when faced with the reality that he has been lied to. Goes to the very people that have lied to him and ask for the truth only to be lied to again. There does not be as simple an answer as everyone thinks there is, from the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. To what happen with the Plane affair, there are many players and more then one reason for each player to play.
Once again as this story broke, I thought,someone finally got something on GW that he can’t get out of. Wrong again.
However… I can’t believe how fast the story got dropped when the publisher down played it. So the new story is that lil George didn’t know that he was telling the American people a fib.Does the press really believe that Libby and Rove just came up with this idea on their own? If lil George didn’t tell them to do it, Dicky did and supposedly with-out talking to his boss?
So if thats the case, why isn’t there just as big of a story there?
Why can’t McClellan be forced to testify about all he knows now, rather than wait till his book comes out?
Either lil George or lil Dick and obviously Libby and Rove commited serious felonies and should be i investigated and tried…
Let alone be reported.
Can the Libbers in Kansas really believe every fairy tale that comes along?
flipper – the fairy tales are the Bushisms parroted by Rust et.al.
writerdog – so you are saying Bush is so mentally deficient and deranged that that is his defense?
Bush will lie, men will die. However, he is a Christian so that makes it ok..pretty simple if you ask me. It’s time for you Bush Wackers to pay attention to the mess you elected.
Bush and his Zionist “buddies” have ushered us into the era of “the lie.”
Not unlike the “Industrial Age,” the era of “The Lie” {which has been perfected by torture} is commonplace to both government and business alike.
Score:
Bush: 1Wichita Libs: 0
Game is over January 21st, 2009as scheduled.
Ho-hum.
How sad to compare the welfare of our nation and treasonous activity to a game.
Lies: 658357578392020384783Truth: ZERO
Ant those who love lies and hate America are happy.
Americans are the losers in this whole mess bushco has wrought. We’ve lost lives, our country’s reputation, solvency, personal freedoms. bushco sold us out to China and future generations will still be paying the bills far into the future. That’s IF it doesn’t get worse and we survive until January 2009.
But then the haves and the have mores are all that’s really important to the worst president in history.
Hmmm
The defense of bush here is spotty and mostly confined to the nuts.
Hey like I said, bush is in little jeapordy here. That’s the advantage of being universally seen as an idiot. Nothing is your fault.
Dick Cheney? I want to see him spend his golden days in prison. And if their is an investigation that is what will happen.
Oh boy — Bush gets caught in the middle of the biggest lie so far… And the Right wingers are out in full force to defend his actions… In spite of the truth!
And then some people wonder why those on the left tend to be more than a little concerned about those on the right who insist they have a right to carry concealed weapons???
I have been extremely disappointed with Bush. Either he is less than truthful or he lacks oversight, control and follow up of his team.
Either case equals bad results.
Listen to the crying agoing on here!
HAHA HEHE HOHO!!!!
Bush is the POTUS and it just eats your guts up.
Too bad you are NOT going to change a darn thing. He will do his TWO terms, America has prospered, and continued under his reign. Despite a do NOTHING demoRAT congress, Bush is still working for American’s best.
Any of you libs need a Kleenex?
;-)
maybe not for very much longer there Kitrell. bush as potus that is.
bush as inmate. I like that.
I wonder if the WE will still have Bush bashing topics after Jan 2009.
Gives the Democrats something to talk about, since they can’t DO anything, even when they are in the majority.
The Democrats cannot do things when the Republicans stall and block things… that’s the system.
Bush lied and lied and lied. I can well imagine he TRIED to stay ignorant (as ironic as that seems) to maintian his plausible deniabilty.
Thousands of war dead demand an honest accounting!
I expected that sort of responsibility avoidance answer David.
The excuse you used didn’t fly for the Republicans when they had a slim majority, and it doesn’t fly for Democrats either.
Blaming Bush all the time for your party’s incompetence is getting very old.
Keep using that line though, it should really help Hillary win in 08.
Bush will be bashed for generations, and by historians.
Well, Good night; Good luck; and God bless; whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings all!!
I think for most of the RW’s, to admit how bad bush has screwed up this country, would mean accepting their complicity. Bush couldn’t have done it without them.
“All the key players, esp. bush, cheney need to be put under oath and questioned.”
Don’t hold your breath on that one, Phantom. They learned the “Clinton Lesson” well. Testifying under oath is not listed in their job descriptions. They didn’t do it before the 9/11 Commission, and they avoided it during the Plame investigation. I’d almost lay odds that they’ll still be claiming Executive Priveledge well after Jan. 09. And somehow they’ll find a way to get it, too.
i have proof both scott and dumbya were lying….mcclellan: the president has assured me that if anyone in this administration leaked classified information they will no longer work for this president….they DID and CONTINUE to work for this administration…next lie: bush will FIRE ANYONE CONNECTED TO LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION…result he PARDONS SCOOTER LIBBY,,, NO AMOUNT OF RIGHT WING CHICKENHAWK FOX FAKE NEWS CAN SPIN IT ANY OTHER WAY…except of course “the earth is 2000 year old republican torture party supporters
Any smarter than furniture, and who hasn’t been sleepwalking (or deliberately blinded) thru the past six years, EXPECTS this administration to lie. The record of lie-after-lie is breathtaking.
Gimme a break.
Anyone smarter than furniture, and who hasn’t been sleepwalking (or deliberately blinded) thru the past six years, EXPECTS this administration to lie. The record of lie-after-lie is breathtaking.
Gimme a break.
Q: How can you tell when Bush is telling a LIE?A: His lips are moving!
“writerdog – so you are saying Bush is so mentally deficient and deranged that that is his defense?”Ben
I am saying he came to the office a simpleton, he knew nothing about foreign affairs, nothing about domestic affairs. Daddy did suggest he talk with Prince Bandar of S.A. about dealing with the Middle East.But G.W. was hand picked by the powers wanting to own a President for the office. Because he IS a simpleton. Even though his dad advised against Rumsfield quite strongly it was Dick Cheney who convinced G.W. to pick Rumsfield. Once the two were in place they managed to get the rest of the “party” on board. Wolfowitz, Peale, Hadley, Fife and the rest.
But Bush is not mentally deficient in the truest sense, those he trusts easily sway him. Of course the problem is he chose to trust the wrong people not knowing any better. Another of his downfalls is once he is convinced he is right, he does not seem to be able to change his mind. Nor is he allowed to actually see anything that does show he is wrong. When it does occur his last adviser is always Dick Cheney, he trusts him to tell him the truth.
As for him being deranged, he did tell several people that he was handpicked by God to be President and he has been instructed by God to go on a holy crusade. One of those he told this to was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. The most powerful of Moslem countries and he did not make it a secret so the word has gotten passed around in the Middle East. Now can you understand why the Islamic might get the idea this is war against the Moslem faith
Only a person of superier intellect can tell lies and keep his story straight. Yet you Liberals keep calling him stupid. Which is it? And BTY why does he keep kicking the Democraps butt’s?
“As for him being deranged, he did tell several people that he was handpicked by God to be President and he has been instructed by God to go on a holy crusade. One of those he told this to was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. The most powerful of Moslem countries and he did not make it a secret so the word has gotten passed around in the Middle East.”
Posted by: writerdog | November 24, 2007 at 07:11 AM
I would like to see a credible source on this dog. And not some Website like the DU, British Press or some other Left Wing yellow journalistic rag.
The problem is Al B is he can not keep his stories straight, one of the benefits and curses of this age is that everything a politician said is recorded and can be played back at the drop of a hat. Disproving what is said today, years later the paper work can show that at the time they said it they knew it was not the truth or that there was just not the evidence to support their statement when they said it. WMDs is the classic example of this, there was not conclusive evidence to support such a strong action. But the problem is that neither was there the evidence strong enough to disprove the claim that Saddam still had them or he was continuing his programs. Since the invasion we have seen the reason going from Saddam had WMDs and was a future threat to the world. Then it was to depose a brutal dictator, then to spread democracy in a region that was lacking it.
Some still point out that the world was saying he had WMDs, it was not that the world was saying that as much as it was no one could say with certainty he did not. The doubt negative thought process, “Just because there is no proof he has them. Does not mean he does not!”. We and the world were so caught up at the time with blood lust. That no one spoke out loudly about how that was wrong thinking and not a reason for invading another nation.
But more to the point, if Bush has been shown to be lying so many times then why is he still President?The answer to that question is as complicated as the reasons for the invasion. An impeachment though there is enough reasons to support such an action. Would farther tear apart this nation, even though the majority would support an impeachment. What Bush did was not get a BJ in the office, he violated international laws and endangered this nation. If we were to stop everything in Iraq, stop threatening to start WWIII over Iran and crawl into a corner right now. The world would in a few years once again forgive us our sins, but the real sticking point of course is Iraq. We can not un-ring that bell and to simply pull out and leave that country worse off then it was under Saddam would never be forgiven. Impeachment of Bush would be a visual sign of atonement to the world. But there is still hope we can right the wrong and pledge to handle Bush behind the scenes and let history damn him to hell.
Bush didn’t have to tell. You don’t rise to the top of the heap without knowing which lies to tell and how much, or how much of the truth to tell and which facts, it’s all understood. It’s like when Hillary Clinton personally thanked her husbands rape victim for all that she has done for her husband after the rape, it’s all understood when your at the top of the heap. Your don’t get to the top of the heap if you don’t understand.
Yeah, Bob. We know.
Clinton gets more in one month than you got in a life-time.
You can quit your jealous whining about it now . . .
Here you go, Republicans, the “patriotism” and “moral values” you appeal to and attract. You’re disgusting.
Thanks, Bob, for showing us you and your Party’s true colors. You guys never cease to impress.
>> Bush didn’t have to tell. You don’t rise to the top of the heap without knowing which lies to tell and how much, or how much of the truth to tell and which facts, it’s all understood. It’s like when Hillary Clinton personally thanked her husbands rape victim for all that she has done for her husband after the rape, it’s all understood when your at the top of the heap. Your don’t get to the top of the heap if you don’t understand. <<
Bush lied to McClellan. We know in our heart of hearts that he did. Proving it will most likely never happen unless someone else steps forward.Bush lied when he said he would fire anyone involved…and then didn’t fire anyone.Rove resigned early – because his lies are being uncovered. Bush is the worst president ever. McClellan, by the way, was the worst press boy ever.
It was Shrub’s Daddy who which first popularized the concept of “plausible deniability.” It was during the Iran-Contra Scandal. Selling arms for hostages and selling weapons to the Contras for cocaine money all had George HW Bush’s fingerprints on it but, since the planning meetings were clandestine and no “official” records were kept, Pere Bush could claim they never happened.
George WMD Bush expanded the concept, to “implausible deniability.”
Why hasn’t the public or the press, questioned bush on whether or not God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? That’s a question that would go directly to his sanity, something you’d think the press might be concerned about.
MH–
I watched that movie you recommended, “No End in Sight.”
It is quite good.
It picked up where “Uncovered” left off.
Seeing official after official in the Bush administration LIE their asses off about Sarin gas that they knew couldn’t still be dangerous, the “Saddam – Al Qaeda ties” that were clearly bogus, the aluminum tubes that every expert in the world said was for rocket tubes not for nuclear weapons enrichment, the “mobile labs” that were nothing, the “radio transmission” that Colin Powell aired at the UN that no Iraqi official would have made about “weapons depots” on pain of death . . . how the BushCo. liars seized on any evidence no matter how dubious from sources like Chalabi and “CurveBall” who stood to gain from an invasion and ignored and even ridiculed objective evidence from their own CIA, from former weapons inspectors like Scott Ritter, and the UN inspectors on the ground.
The question at this point for any rational observer is not “does Bush lie” but “what little does Bush say that is NOT a lie?”
Worst.President.Ever.
“CapnAmerica” –
I think Shrub might actually like Barney the dog.
But I’m not sure I’d bet that way.
A good question for Snow when he visits, is “Do you think Barney will stay with bush until the end of his term, or quit to spend time with the bitches?”
When McClellan was reduced to “I can’t comment on that” or some other completely evasive response, as he was, then the quy is in shit up to his eyebrows.
lindainks55:- The debt of the US as a % of GDP is not out of line compared to some of the G8 countries, and the scandal of the “have and have mores” is happening all over the world, a malaise where capital keeps people in servitude everywhere. We’ll just have to figure out(at the ballot box?) the remedy, and we will. You guys did it with Teddy Roosevelt who broke up the unfair monopolies/ trusts. On another point, Americans are not disliked any more than other nation’s citizens, just the current policies and the guys implementing them. Positions taken have to be parsed. Whereas “official” position is what a government says and “public” opinion is what the media says, what really counts is vox populi. The first two entities have agendae, the last not so much and therein is a well spring of goodwill.
The Pentagon releases the names of the soldiers killed LAST WEEK…AS AN AFTER THOUGHT…if you can find a MSM Station that scrolls their names.
Bushco and his Zionist “buddies” need to hang.
If we show that to the world, they’ll know justice is back in America.