Current and former Bush administration officials have their talking points down in responding to Scott McClellan’s new book. Actually, they have the talking word down: “puzzled.” It seems they are all “puzzled.”
“Of course, nobody’s really puzzled about anything,” Dana Milbank wrote for the Washington Post. “They’re peeved and perturbed. But they can’t admit that, so they have retreated to the practice — time-honored in the Bush White House — of discrediting your opponents by labeling their actions confusing and irrational.” McClellan shouldn’t be surprised. Milbank noted that McClellan regularly used the p-word when he was press secretary.
65 Comments
“how the White House handled the Valerie Plame case ”
Someone asked yesterday of Fitz might reopen the case. Let’s hope so – with McClellen as state’s witness.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24861380
“The larger message has been sort of lost in the mix. … The White House would prefer I not speak out openly and honestly about my experiences, but I believe there is a larger purpose,” Scott McClellan, the chief spokesman for the White House from 2003 to 2006, told TODAY co-host Meredith Vieira exclusively during his first interview since excerpts of his new memoir hit the Internet on Tuesday.
more …
“However, McClellan said that it wasn’t until he realized that he may have been led to deliver false information to the media about two senior administration officials’ roles in outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative that he knew he would someday have to tell his story.
“My hope is that by writing this book and sharing openly and honestly what I learned is that in some small way it might help us move beyond the partisan warfare of the past 15 years. There’s a larger purpose to this book. It’s about looking at the permanent campaign culture in Washington, D.C., and how we can move beyond it,” he said.”
“My hope is that by writing this book and sharing openly and honestly what I learned is that in some small way it might help us move beyond the partisan warfare of the past 15 years. There’s a larger purpose to this book. It’s about looking at the permanent campaign culture in Washington, D.C., and how we can move beyond it,” he said.”
“Oh, and if I happen to get rich by stating disloyal opinions about my former boss, that’s OK too. Yes, I know the honorable thing would have been to resign if I disagreed with administration policy, instead of pimping it. But then, how would I have been in a position to write this book?
Sounds as if I should paraphrase the good Capn:
Cluelessest. President. Ever.
bush is puzzled why we haven’t won in Iraq yet, so many yrs. after ‘Mission Accomplished’.
I think the Riddler must have come to Washington! Where’s bat man (Tony Snow) when you need him!
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will get you locked up.
Bush is undoubtedly also puzzled why we weren’t selcomed with open arms and why Ahmed Chalabi couldn’t take over for us. Who knows – maybe Chalabi will write a book too!
Yes, I know the honorable thing would have been to resign if I disagreed with administration policy, instead of pimping it.
You mean like Richard Clarke? I notice he got published.
But you have a point: McClellan could have resigned. . .and face Plamish retaliation if he talked. But I don’t grant any huge integrity points to the man: He’s simply filling some gaps. The main story was already well-known.
If he’s spinning it in a self-serving manner, well, big surprise there.
P.S. Pity the scumbag Powell didn’t resign rather than give that UN speech. So much for neocon honor; loyalty is always more important than integrity!
This entire Bush Administration has been the most secretive and the most divisive. Didn’t GWB campaign as he was a ‘uniter, not a divider’ and didn’t he promise to restore honesty to the White House?
So, if McClellan is telling the truth, then McClellan is the one restoring some level of honesty – not Bush or Cheney.
But in typical Bush/Cheney fashion, they attack anyone that dares to disagree with them. I noticed how each of them in the Bush Administration said that ‘this is not the Scott we knew’. Well, maybe Scott McClellan found ‘God’ since leaving the White House and this is his way to make amends?
What I do find amazing is that no one in the Bush Admdinistration is really disputing McClellan’s version of the facts, they are all just denouncing McClellan as a ‘disgruntled’ employee.
P.S. Pity the scumbag Powell didn’t resign rather than give that UN speech. So much for neocon honor; loyalty is always more important than integrity!
————
So you think that Colin Powell knew that the CIA intelligence that he was presenting to the UN was inaccurate? Even called him a scumbag.
And just how do you know that Rage?
I don’t think bush will be gellin with Scott McClellan, on the porch swing back at the ranch!
Powell comprimised his own Powell Doctrine, that’s enough for any condemnation.
If he turns on the Prophet, how can we trust what he has to say is true, surely a conundrum for the RW.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”
George Orwell
outlander
Posted May 29, 2008 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
“My hope is that by writing this book and sharing openly and honestly what I learned is that in some small way it might help us move beyond the partisan warfare of the past 15 years. There’s a larger purpose to this book. It’s about looking at the permanent campaign culture in Washington, D.C., and how we can move beyond it,” he said.”
“Oh, and if I happen to get rich by stating disloyal opinions about my former boss, that’s OK too. Yes, I know the honorable thing would have been to resign if I disagreed with administration policy, instead of pimping it. But then, how would I have been in a position to write this book?
—
Which of the following strategies maximizes Scott McClellan’s net worth?
1) Write a book which tells the truth as he understands it, working endlessly and ceaselessly to hustle it and hope it turns into a bestseller. After all, it will irrevocably burn bridges.
2) Shut up about the truth. Keep the bridges open. Go back into DC and earn a living for the next 30-40 years as a former ex-insider and spokesman to the White House.
If you picked #1, then you ain’t probably real “good” at money. :D
If McClellan had done this for the money, then he wouldn’t have done it at all.
And just how do you know that Rage?
By reading books and newspapers, and watching documentaries; in short, by using my brain.
Pedant – that also explains Powell – he apparently IS in it for the money. Maybe he can work as PR for Myanmar and help McCain.
Methinks brownlee watches too much Hardball.
Dem congressman calls on McClellan to testify about book’s revelations:
“The admissions made by Scott McClellan in his new book are earth-shattering and allege facts to establish that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby – and possibly Vice President Cheney – conspired to obstruct justice by lying about their role in the Plame Wilson matter and that the Bush Administration deliberately lied to the American people in order to take us to war in Iraq,” Wexler said. “Scott McClellan must now appear before the House Judiciary Committee under oath to tell Congress and the American people how President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and White House officials deliberately orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people.
“The allegations by this former top White House aide – that Rove and Libby deliberately coordinated their stories in order to obstruct justice in the Plame case, that the President deliberately disregarded contradictory evidence related to Iraq, should outrage every American and Congress must respond by initiating immediate aggressive oversight starting with an appearance by McClellan before the House Judiciary Committee,” he continued. “Any continued obstruction by this Administration to prevent White House officials from appearing before Congress cannot be tolerated by this Congress in the face of these shocking revelations.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Dem_congressman_calls_on_McClellan_to_0528.html
===============================================
Any bets on the white house trying to find any way possible to keep McClellan from testifying? After all, rove is using the white house to keep from doing the same. And wouldn’t it paint a sad tale for bush if McClellan has a smoking gun?
If he does, this whole administration could be brought up on charges, but I doubt that would happen. What this country needs is real leadership, not another idiot politician paraded around in striped jump suits.
And wouldn’t it paint a sad tale for bush if McClellan has a smoking gun?
Especially if the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud!
:)
Rage,
I like Powell, and I think, even after reading up on his role in the lead-in up to the Iraq war, he was thrown under the bus by bush and his cohorts. Too bad; he was a great general.
I think McClellan should testify. Let’s see if McClellan really meant what he wrote.
Of course,there has to be corroboration supported with other evidence, otherwise the text of the book is just more fodder on the ‘Times’ book list.
JMWalker – then Powell should grow a pair and fess up.
. . . and those who think writers get rich writing a book know very little about the publishing industry. While McClellan’s up front money may have been big, his actual earnings from the sale of the book really isn’t that much. To earn a lot, you have to be prolific, such as Clive Cussler, Dan Brown, etc..
Personally, I think it is despicable to impune the name of a great general and a principled man just because you don’t like his boss or the war.
When you are motivated by hate any excuse will work.
#
Regular
Posted May 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Permalink
I think McClellan should testify. Let’s see if McClellan really meant what he wrote.
Of course,there has to be corroboration supported with other evidence, otherwise the text of the book is just more fodder on the ‘Times’ book list.
===============================================
Pre-judged, it seems, as usual. But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, McClellan has the smoking gun, does testify, and it turns out what us Liberals have been saying along is true? Would you still be a bush sock puppet? Or would you then realize us Liberals are really smarter than a fifth grader, as opposed to the bush administration, who have proven time and time again the fifth grade is way beyond them?
Just asking:-)
#
bth
Posted May 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm | Permalink
JMWalker – then Powell should grow a pair and fess up.
=================================================
I think, in his own way, he did just that. I also think he is a man of integrity who became totally disillusioned with Washington politics, and after being in the Bush administration, who could blame him: from great General to bush scapegoat. Thats a sad ending to a real American hero.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3D9143FF934A25756C0A9629C8B63
Powell Says C.I.A. Was Misled About Weapons
By DAVID E. SANGER
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said for the first time on Sunday that he now believes that the Central Intelligence Agency was deliberately misled about evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing unconventional weapons.
May 17, 2004WorldNews
Wary Powell Said to Have Warned Bush on War
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Two months before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned President Bush about the potential negative consequences of a war, citing what Mr. Powell privately called the ”you break it, you own it” rule of military action, according to a new book.
April 17, 2004WorldNews
Powell’s Case, a Year Later: Gaps in Picture of Iraq Arms
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID E. SANGER
A year ago, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the United Nations Security Council that the evidence added up to ”facts” and ”not assertions” that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that it was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and building a fleet of advanced missiles. Since then, some of the statements made by Mr. Powell have been confirmed, but many of his gravest findings have been upended by David A. Kay, who until Jan. 23 was Washington’s chief weapons inspector
February 1, 2004WorldNews
outlander – that is not the reason. What I don’t like is the fact that Poewell himself lied to us about WMDs. That was HIS choice.
Poewell himself lied to us about WMDs.
———
Horse hockey Ben.
JMWalker
Posted May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted May 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Permalink
I think McClellan should testify. Let’s see if McClellan really meant what he wrote.
Of course,there has to be corroboration supported with other evidence, otherwise the text of the book is just more fodder on the ‘Times’ book list.
===============================================
Pre-judged, it seems, as usual. But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, McClellan has the smoking gun, does testify, and it turns out what us Liberals have been saying along is true? Would you still be a bush sock puppet? Or would you then realize us Liberals are really smarter than a fifth grader, as opposed to the bush administration, who have proven time and time again the fifth grade is way beyond them?
Just asking:-)
—————————–
To quote a phrase, have the Democrats ‘grow a pair’ and put McClellan on the stand. They won’t you know – it’s an election season.
Just saying…
Horse hockey? So you are saying Powell told us the truth? About the WMDs? The “mobile labs”? The saddam-alQuada connections?
You are even more delusional than I thought.
Regular – I agree with you; the Dems should grow some and put McClellen on the stand.
Oh, the lie about lies…
As I said before Ben, any excuse will work.
“any excuse will work”
And I guess Powell’s excuse is “I didn’t know any better”
I wonder if it is decided that the theory that global warming was being caused by CO2 was wrong; whether the politicians who pushed the idea will be accused of lying. By your rational, Ben, the answer would be a resounding, yes!
I give Powell credit for getting Bush to go to the UN first, when the man wanted to go straight to war.
But Powell’s UN wasn’t just wrong–it was demonstrably wrong to the point of idiocy, by virtue of publicly available facts known at the time!
Google is your friend. Look up mobile labs, aluminum tubes, Hussein Kamel, for starters. Look at what the inspectors and foreign service officers were saying at the time. Look at his ridiculous claim that bin Laden’s latest communications “proved” a link between him and Iraq. And look at what’s been discovered since then.
Here’s just a tiny taste, but too much to post here:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7093_the_un_deceptio.html
Either the man was incompetent at his job, or an incredible liar; I think the latter.
If it can be shown that we fabricated the evidence – YES.
If all that you people say is true about all the lieing going on in this administration, the dems should be impeached for not impeaching.
It’s not true, thus…
And what was the evidence that Colin Powell fabricated?
From my link above:
FABRICATED EVIDENCE
Powell played an intercept of a conversation between Iraqi army officers about the UN inspections. However, when he translated what they were saying, he knowingly embellished it, turning it from evidence Iraq was complying with U.N. resolutions to evidence Iraq was violating them. This appears in Bob Woodward’s book Plan of Attack:
[Powell] had decided to add his personal interpretation of the intercepts to the rehearsed script, taking them substantially further and casting them in the most negative light…Concerning the intercept about inspecting for the possibility of “forbidden ammo,” Powell took the interpretation further: “Clean out all of the areas… Make sure there is nothing there.” None of this was in the intercept.
Here’s the conversation as Powell presented it at the UN. As Woodward reported, the underlined sentences were simply added by Powell:
POWELL: “They’re inspecting the ammunition you have, yes.”
“Yes.”
“For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.”
“For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?”
“Yes.”
“And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there.”
Powell then explained:
This is all part of a system of hiding things and moving things out of the way and making sure they have left nothing behind.
According to the official State Department translation (and confirmed for me by Imad Khadduri), the Iraqi soldier merely said:
“And we sent you a message to inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas.”
And it’s no surprise the Iraqi said this. Here’s what the Duelfer report found about what was going on within the Iraqi government just before the January 30th intercepted conversation:
The NMD director met with Republican Guard military leaders on 25 January 2003 and advised them they were to sign documents saying that there was no WMD in their units, according to a former Iraqi senior officer. Husam Amin told them that the government would hold them responsible if UNMOVIC found any WMD in their units or areas, or if there was anything that cast doubt on Iraq’s cooperation with UNMOVIC. Commanders established committees to ensure their units retained no evidence of old WMD.
Again: Powell took evidence of the Iraqis doing what they were supposed to do—i.e., searching their gigantic ammunition dumps to make sure they weren’t accidentally holding onto banned chemical weapons—and doctored it to make it look as if Iraq were hiding banned weapons.
Since the State Department was questioned about this by journalist Gilbert Cranberg, the translation at variance with Powell’s version has disappeared from its site. It’s now available only via archive.org.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FejQH_VCB24 Powell says he was misled himself
umm… Rage, your source is “Mother Jones- MoJo Blog”?
Anything a little more, ahem,…mainstream?
I may be wrong, but wasn’t there an intelligence group composed of Cheney, Tenet, Rice, and a elite few others, with Powell left out deliberately? Isn’t that the same group that (supposedly:-)) cherry-picked the intelligence they wanted in order to make sure an invasion took place?
If I’m correct, it appears Powell was not one to be trusted by Bush and his cronies. In other words, he was fed what Bush wanted to feed him, and the UN debacle followed. That, IMHO, is being thrown under the bus.
Rage, I’m not going to argue with you about this. We have different views, and I respect that.
Ya know?
You cons should be GRATEFUL for Scott McClellan.
He and Christy Wittman and a list of other defectors from the disaster that is bush have allowed me to realize that you cons (well a few of you) actually have a conscience and maybe the smallest hints of honesty or decency.
I’d have never thought that.
Anything a little more, ahem,…mainstream?
Yeah: Go to the article, and click on the links.
On a different thread, I reached a Washington Post source via the National Review. I might question the veracity of a particular source, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Hell, I’ve even linked to Fox News when I knew the information was independently verifiable!
The same thing with Wikipedia: a search for “a rising tide lifts all boats” produced an article with the inaccurate claim that the quote referred to cutting taxes but, strangely enough, included a link to a credible source, which I posted on yet another thread.
But what would you consider “mainstream”? The Mother Jones essay was well-sourced, so I went with it.
***********
Walker, I’ll allow that Powell didn’t want to be used in the way he was, and resisted it for as long as he could, and leave it at that. I highly recommend Bob Woodward’s “Plan of Attack.”
fleettwood – as you are well aware it would require Republic votes to convict in the senate.
That said – I agree – the House should bring Articles.
JMW – that half-hearted mealy-mouthed disavowal doesn’t cut it. Powell needs to do a complete break from his fellow Bush-rats.
Link from Rages’ Mama Jones blog article
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/Story?id=1105979&page=2
“When Powell left the Bush administration in January 2005, he was widely seen as having been at odds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney over foreign policy choices.
It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels “terrible” about the claims he made in that now-infamous address — assertions that later proved to be false.
When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, “Of course it will. It’s a blot. I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.”
He doesn’t blame former CIA Director George Tenet for the misleading information he says he pored over for days before delivering his speech; he faults the intelligence system.
“George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me misleading me. He believed what he was giving to me was accurate. … The intelligence system did not work well,” he said.”
Outlander — Neocons
I would think you would be proud of a fellow republican using the free market to make money — for a buck ya’all would sell out to — that is if you knew how to tell / sell the truth
won’t ya see if that works for ya
—- maggot regular eta l take note
In the forward of his book “Against All Enemies” Richard Clarke explained his reason for writing the Book. He said that living in Washington D.C. really is like living in a bubble, until he got away from the bubble. He had no idea that what he thought was common knowledge in Washington was not common Knowledge through out the country. He was shocked that much of what was going on was not a topic of conversation and seem to be unknown by the average person. And for the record both in Clarke’s book and affirmed in other’s books. Clarke did express his misgivings about how the Bush administration was handling the terror threat, the importance they put on Saddam and his frustration at his repeated attempt to council the President that stalled by Condi Rice.
####
Powell story is a tragic one, in part being a “good Soldier” not questioning orders and following orders.
Part of what aided Powell’s deception of both himself and the country is that he was held at an arm length by the rest of the administration. If the intent is to use force to reshape the middle East it negates the need for a State Department. One of the weapons inspector later said “ I was watching Colin Powell’s speech before the U.N. And when I saw one of the pictures that he claimed was of a building the Iraqis had put a roof on to hide their production of WMDs. I jumped out of my chair when I noticed the date and time of the picture! On the date and at that time I was under that roof and the building was empty!”.
The real puzzle for the bushllits is how anyone could be disloyal to his boss after being told to lie to the American people for him and then being fired for no good reason. Puzzling isn’t it? Almost as puzzling as how conservatives absolutely refuse to learn from their own history!
ON Scott McClellen’s book, it was not long after the news broke that the standard dismissal was heard. “Well he is just trying to sell his book!”. Every time I hear that I envision Moses coming down from the mountain and reading off the Ten Commandments. Suddenly one Hebrew turns to another, “Man did you hear what God just said?.
The Hebrew he is talking to replies, “Well he is just trying to sell his book!”. You can not dismiss everything with it is just for personal gain.
“You can not dismiss everything with it is just for personal gain.”
Perhaps the Bush-rats assume that their fellows – including those who have defected – are like themselves.
What is puzzling maybe the fact that there is not real denial of anything he said in his book by the administration. Two things, first is if you take into account that they felt their are right and know more than the common man. The second is that they are still diluted and think that the common man can be deceived by side tracking the issue. “Well everything is alright now, Condi just said that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Back to Big brother! Oh he is just trying to sale a book! Its not his words he was brain washed.” So why answer the charges, if the above will work?
If it wasn’t so sad, this would be hilarious. No one in their right mind believes that the War of Choice on Iraq was the right thing to do or is worth the cost in blood and treasure, yet some here are still parroting the Bush Party Line………………….
Victory is just around the corner. (In five or ten years, maybe thirty or forty.)
A free and stable Iraq will….. (Like that is going to happen with Sunni and Shi’ites.)
We have to fight them over there, not over here. (They weren’t – al Qaeda that is – in Iraq until we invaded.)
And my personal, very favorite – George WMD Bush at a news conference regarding weapons of mass destruction……. “Well guess what? We found them!” (Where are they George??????)
The unwarranted and unnecessary invasion of Iraq is the worst foreign policy disaster in American history and yet some here will still defend it.
I decided to watch Fox News tonight, flipped through the channels and found it.
I watched for thirty minutes before they said “This has been the daily show!”.
Ahh but hey at least I got to hear the complete comment on Scott McCellan’s book by the white house:
“He is not the Scott we knew!….. The Scott we knew lied like a Mother f%%ker!”.
But then I still wanted to watch Fox, so I kept flipping through the channels till I found it.
After watching for ten minutes, I thought I had came back to the Daily show!
So, the bottom line, Bush has been lying his ass off. Is that legal? (Now we know why Bush, Cheney, Rove et alia won’t testify under oath.) Hmm. Could be some uncomfortable moments in their futures.
So, really, we’re in Iraq because . . . ??
Bob Dole says Bob Dole is mad at Scott McClellan.
The former Senate majority leader and 1996 Republican presidential candidate sent a nasty e-mail to McClellan calling him a “miserable creature” for his latest book blasting the Bush administration, FOX News has learned.
In the e-mail, Dole basically describes the former White House press secretary as a traitor looking to cash in on the “liberal” media’s distaste for President Bush.
“There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues,” the five-term Kansas senator wrote to McClellan. “No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.”
He continues: “When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, ‘Biting The Hand That Fed Me.’ Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years.”
White House officials have sharply decried McClellan’s book — “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” which criticizes the administration’s handling of the Iraq war.
Dole wrote that if McClellan had misgivings about the president’s foreign policy, he should have spoken up long ago “like a man,” or quit his job.
“That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You’re a hot ticket now but dont you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?”
How about addressing the message and not trashing the messenger? Isn’t that how it’s supposed to be done?
gster – that’s all they have.
“No, Bob Dole doesn’t think so. Bod Dole dislikes weaselly little press secretaries who pretend that their opinion matters.
Can Bob Dole answer any other questions for you, gster?”
Ben- I agree. Evidently it’s a cardinal sin to deviate from the “BushTruth” path.
We need a thread bashing the weather reporters for bringing us all that bad weather Memorial Day weekend. After all; if they had pronounced that the weather was clear, sunny and dry that would have made it so. Bushworld would be so nice …
:lol:
You gotta love it. Augustus Stupidus’s press secretary burns up everything he has of monetary value in life (his ties to the GOP and the brand’s professional cheerleaders/apologizers, like Dole) and what happens?
LOOK OVER THERE!!! AT THE INGRATE GETTING RICH!!!
***AT ALL COSTS IGNORE ANY DISCUSSION REVOLVING AROUND THE FACT THAT SAID PRESS SECRETARY CLAIMS BUSH LIED TO AMERICAN PUBLIC AND THAT SAID CLAIM WILL CAUSE HIM TO COMPLETELY RESTART HIS LIFE***
I mean, on any meaningful scale, which is more important to America: a single professional ingrate or a lying dishonest POTUS?
:lol: Bush conservatives: proudly missing the point for going on 8 years now. You gotta love ‘em!
Remember, there is only one BushTrurth, although is adjustable by a very select few to meet the required result!
In the words of Pablo Picasso, “All former mistresses should be burned before they can white a book about you!”
How DARE Scott McClellan have a conscience!
It’s so un Republican.
And from the still breathing we get, “Bob Dole is angry! Bob Dole trash puny Scott! Bob Dole is going to send Scott a strongly worded letter and maybe hunt him down and beat him with Bob Dole’s pen!”
But wait! Maybe Ronald Reagan will rise from the grave and haunt Scott McClellan! “Reagan smash! Reagan smash!”
The cons here and elsewhere trash Scott McClellan.
“Scott evolve! Scott have conscience! Smash Scott!”