Since my opinion is only that. I will say, Damage is being done to our country and world hatred is generated toward us and atrocities are being perpetrated against people around the world with unaccountable authorization of the White House and even with collusion with congress.  Iran seems to be a future goal of this same mentality.

Fear mongering and war mongering do not have my support, whether done by Bush or Clinton.  Your sad tribute to the state of affairs, it to place blame on Clinton and others, when accountability seems to be on Bush, oh, guess the buck does not stop in the White House, your arguments seem a twisted, different bit of smoke and mirrors.

It seems amusing to me, after the Scott McClellan’s exposure, you surface pointing at Clinton with both hands.  Actually I blame sloppy management by all concerned, our so called representatives and Executive Branch and blame Clinton too.

Since I see little difference between crimes perpetrated by Bush in the name of whatever reason he decides to to pick for the day, since so called reasons kept changing, from Weapons of Mass deception, 911 or Al Quada (of course we will not mention oil) . We can say Saddam had perpetuated crimes against his own people, but the actual full totals of destruction and deaths remain to be seen who has done more, only history will really know who was the more successful designer of death and mortality.

I maintain the war in Iraq was designed to support opportunists of varying degrees, we have lost so much from this ludicrous escapade of corporate rape.  Saddam Hussein was not a good person, but I feel in the light of things, neither is Bush.

It seems to me a more forth coming reason for attacking Iraq would have been to tell the truth, instead of build a war on lies and deceptions. Saddam was a threat to his neighbors not us.

Leefeller,

I’m not ignoring the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Self defense from Saddam Hussein, as President Clinton and an overwhelming majority of the Congress indicated must be accomplished, does not hinge on anyone’s sense of pay-back or revenge. You seem very bent on making Iraq about revenge for 9/11. It’s simply not about revenge.

You seem very willing to ignore an entire historical context of the threat Saddam posed so that you can beat up on the current president. That doesn’t interest me. What does interest me is the continuation, as you yourself have indicated, of American liberties, freedoms and our right to defend ourselves.

“All roads to international terrorism lead through Baghdad” - President Bill Clinton 1997

“[We] may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now—a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.” --- President Clinton, February 17, 1998

Why would you ignore the warnings from one president in order to emotionally dismiss another? Do you feel that by acknowledging the numerous warnings by the previous administration it would somehow diminish your theories on the current administration?

There is no doubt that President Clinton warned the world about Saddam Hussein numerous times in numerous ways. There is no doubt that the congress mandated by law the removal of Hussein due to his WMD and links to international terrorism. Why should we pretend these things never happened? Are you trying to suggest that the dangers President Clinton warned us about somehow went away after 9/11? Or, conversely, was 9/11 an indication of how our enemies, as designation by President Clinton, could truly harm us?

Here is where I stand: If Saddam Hussein were not a threat then the many theories that Bush lied, and they are just theories, may make sense. And if President Clinton had not warned us about the threat Hussein posed then, again, these theories would make sense. And if Vice President Al Gore, while serving both as a U.S. Senator and Vice President, and after seeing the intelligence on Iraq for decades had not said; “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power”, then your theory that “Bush used 911 as a opportunity and reason to plunder Iraq” might hold some weight. But, my friend, we were warned. And those warnings about Hussein came from people who had nothing to do with the Bush administration.

At the very least nobody can say we were not warned numerous times about the threat from Saddam Hussein many years before Bush took office. Many years before 9/11.

Give me my liberty, my rights.  You ignore the fact Iraq had nothing to do with 911.  If it was handled properly I would feel better, Bush used 911 as a opportunity and reason to plunder Iraq, resulting in the death of our troops and the many Iraq people, the only gain. 

Not to mention the wasted money, no I do not feel better!  Afghanistan sort of made sense. Attacking Iraq because of 911 made no sense at all.

A simple fact that Bush was a Vietnam evader makes me feel real good, especially sending others to die for his perceived delusions really hits home.

I want my government to be open and free with people like Scott McClellan to be free to comment on their own personal feelings regarding the history being laid out in front of him.  After all he is a citizen too.

I hope more “underlings” expose the truths about 9/11 and the mysteries surrounding that event and the Israeli involvment. 

Woe unto Israel and the neocons if they have 9/11 blood on their hands.

Leefeller,

Maybe this will make you feel better.

U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda
Group Is Facing Setbacks Globally, CIA Chief Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2 008/05/29/AR2008052904116_pf.html

We can add to that the fact that over 2/3 of the people involved with 9/11 have been captured or killed to date(do you give Bush credit?).

Leefeller,

One does not have to be “pro Bush” to follow real history. But one might well be anti Bush to ignore it.

There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. But Marshal is right. 9/11 had everything to do with riding the world of Saddam Hussein.

Seven years after 9/11 many people have stopped asking why President Clinton and almost the entire U.S. Congress passed laws to remove Hussein. Wiped from almost all memory are the countless warnings about Iraq’s banned weapons and links to international terrorism.

“All roads to international terrorism lead through Baghdad” - President Bill Clinton 1997

Gone are the memories of Saddam’s daily attempts to kill American military personnel. Or how shocked the world’s intelligence community was to find, in 1991, that Iraq was only 11 months away from having an active nuclear weapon. No, today it’s common to hear people claim Hussein was never a threat. It’s all a Bush lie.

Too many have forgotten what Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Harry Reid, the United Nations, the CIA, Tony Blair, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and countless others publicly said about Saddam Hussein before George W. Bush was President.

It’s impossible to claim that each of the above were telling the truth but that Bush lied. In hindsight, at least as far as stockpiles of weapons were concerned, they were wrong. But Saddam not being a danger to the entire world? History does not support such a conclusion.

Since we believed Iraq had WMD, we believed this had EVERYTHING to do with 9/11.  Not that Saddam was behind 9/11 - that’s was never a necessary prerequisite to our Iraq policy of regime change, nor was it ever stated.  9/11 proved that ME terrorists with relatively little sophistication could launch devastating attacks on U.S. soil.  The case for dealing with far wealthier regimes with far more dangerous weapons became much, much stronger.  This realization accelerated plans already in place to deal with Saddam.

By Leefeller, May 30 at 4:57 am #
Re: Re: no, No, NO Truthreader13...Everybody else

“...McCellan, he said Bush wanted to attack Iraq before 911, so one must agree Bush did take advantage of the situation to seek support his plan. Me thinks cherry picking was part of the operation.”

Yes, and Clinton actually DID attack Iraq before 9/11, or have you forgotten his cruise missile calling cards to Baghdad in 1998?  It’s no secret that the U.S. had mulled over plans to forceably remove Saddam from power for years; it was Clinton’s backup plan if his covert regime change policy didn’t pay off.

So it’s cherry picking the historical record to pretend as though Bush was the first guy to consider attacking Iraq.  He was, however, the first guy to make good on the official U.S. policy of regime change.

“Congress screwed up, Bush screwed up and they all should be held responsible, but accountability is off the table.”

Where did Congress and Bush get their information for this decision?  How about holding the actual source - the U.S. intelligence community - responsible?  Or is that off the table?

“How can something be clear but faulty?”

Since when are those two things mutually exclusive?  We believed it to be the case, we had highly convincing evidence to support that case, and it turned out to be wrong.  I don’t see the contradiction here.

Well if a tyrant like Saddam boasts that Iraq can shrug off any Western military attack, then that means we should attack them. Love your reason. Saddam being, such an infamous dictator qualifies attack even more. 

Righting blatant wrongs must be a well paying job.

The Iraq war has become just like Vietnam, a total wast of lives and money.  Just keep on justifying bad decisions, with humble excuses, we were lead by incompetence and still are.

The fact that Saddam disliked and had little use for Al Quada seems to evade you, like the grand quest to regain oil for Exon.

Guess according to you guys, going into Iraq was the right thing to do, even though Saddam had nothing to do with 911.  Makes good sense to me. 

Even if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it still had nothing to do with 911. Blame it on Bill Clinton, because Bubba has the brain the size of a pea.

Guess we will see more of you coming out of the wood work to attack Scott McClellan, must seem bight out in the sun.

The Clinton Administration’s Case

“[We] may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now—a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.” --- President Clinton, February 17, 1998

“[Saddam Hussein] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” ---Former Vice President Al Gore, September 23, 2002

President Bill Clinton, Speech to the Pentagon, February 17, 1998:
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton - February 18, 1998:
“Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must, and will, stand firm.”

“The evidence is strong that Iraq continues to hide prohibited weapons and materials. There remains a critical gap between the number of weapons we know Iraq produced and the amount we can confirm were destroyed.”

“Saddam continues to deny UNSCOM access to dozens of suspect sites. He’s also trying to discredit UNSCOM, and to change its character so that it will no longer be independent, and its inspections no longer credible. As President Clinton made clear in his strong speech yesterday at the Pentagon, the United States will not allow this to happen. Iraq must permit UN inspectors to do their jobs, as the Security Council has directed. If this does not occur, we must be, and we are, prepared to use military force.”

Bill Cohen, Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton - February 18, 1998:
“Despite Iraq’s deception program, let me say, the UN inspectors have done a remarkable job. They have destroyed the following: 38,000 chemical weapons; more than 100,000 gallons of deadly chemical agents; 48 operational missiles and 6 missile launchers; along with a biological warfare factory. But the UN inspectors believe that Saddam Hussein still has his weapons of mass destruction capability – enough ingredients to make 200 tons of VX nerve gas; 31,000 artillery shells and rockets filled with nerve and mustard gas; 17 tons of media to grow biological agents; large quantities of anthrax and other biological agents.”

Democratic Senator Carl Levin (MI), September 19, 2002:
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

From the Office of Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Remarks to Senate, September 27, 2002:
“No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. “

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

“There is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction.”

Democratic Senator Jay Rockerfeller Remarks on Senate Floor, October 10, 2002:
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

I could go on and on with this history of who, and how certain they were, that Hussein continued with his banned weapons and programs.

Not only do I agree that there must be something the current administration did correctly that has prevented another 9/11 type of attack (it’s unmistakable) but, people have forgotten that Iraq in 1999, 2000 and 2001, was the only nation daily firing on U.S. military personnel. But we constantly hear today that Iraq was not a threat. I still marvel at the short term memories people have.

Forgotten are the numerous statements made by Bill Clinton while sitting president. Or, for that matter, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Al Gore, Sam Nunn and Jay Rockefeller about Saddam’s banned weapons programs.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to many countries and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process”.  - Nancy Pelosi 1998

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - Vice President Al Gore 1998

Also forgotten is the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act which mandated the President of the United States -then Bill Clinton- use the full use of his office to remove Hussein and, work to replace him with a democracy. That law passed in the House 360 to 38 and in the the Senate unanimously (for reasons of Hussein’s support of international terrorism and Iraq’s banned weapons programs) a full three years before George W. Bush took office.

As far as these odd claims that the media did not do enough to question the Bush administration we have only to take 10 minutes from our day to see what the media was reporting prior to Bush taking office.

“Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s effort to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction”. - Washington Times 1998

“Even a few more weeks free of inspections might allow Mr. Hussein to revive construction of a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon” - New York Times 1998

“Saddam boasts that Iraq can shrug off any Western military attack. The Iraqi people have no choice but to nod in agreement. So it will go until the moment comes for bombastic slogans to be replaced by a succinct epitaph to one of the most infamous dictators of the century. For the overwhelming majority of Iraqi’s, that moment cannot come soon enough”. - BBC Jan 2001.

I’ve not yet read Scott McClellan’s book. But his claims, as reported, do not come close to trumping the actual and easily verifiable history that so many have forgotten.

Marshall,

We seem to have heard different takes on McCellan, he said Bush wanted to attack Iraq before 911, so one must agree Bush did take advantage of the situation to seek support his plan. Me thinks cherry picking was part of the operation. 

Congress screwed up, Bush screwed up and they all should be held responsible, but accountability is off the table.

How can something be clear but faulty?  Oh well, so be it.

Congress, who saw the same intelligence the administration did, approved the invasion - in a bipartisan decision… or have you forgotten?  Perhaps you’ve forgotten the two, bipartisan congressional committees (SIC and Silberman-Robb) that concluded that the administration did not mislead Congress?

You, personally may have mistrusted the intelligence.  Congratulations. I was skeptical as well.  But that doesn’t mean the administration lied or misled, and McClellan says exactly that.

So please, give up on the crap that the administration invented or even “cherry picked” intelligence.  The intelligence community’s conclusions were clear, albeit faulty.  Read the Oct. ‘02 NIE and stop with the “cherry picked” crap.

McClellan seemed sincere to me, on the Olbermann show, but what do I know? Hope some of you got to see it.

Is it possible peer pressure, sort of like the classic “Ox Bow Incident” (hope I got that right) Mob or group mentality moves along with little or no logic, with their blinders on, making wrong and bad decisions.

Something to be said about going along with the crowd, not everyone is a Dennis Kucinich.

Ksenia,

Yes, the thing can speak for itself, and yes these can be tried under US law, (high treason) and no it is never too late. (no statute on murder or treason).

HOWEVER..I think it is far more likely that these crimes be tried in the International Court, or via some tribunals. It would take a long time, but still would probably resolve sooner than any action here. Again, that depends on who comes along to replace this junta. At this point, the only likely candidate that would even consider such proceedings is Barack Obama. (and he has said as much). Nothing would ever happen under any of the other possibly new regimes. Neither Hillary or McSame would even investigate, let alone prosecute.

So, we rely greatly on the International Community for any measure of justice here.

Point One: A Press Secretary’s job is not to question their boss’s positions on facts or events. Their job is to parrot the administration’s positions. We cannot fault him for doing his job while he was employed by the administration.

Point Two: The Corporate Media was NOT doing its job. Its job IS to question the administration’s positions on facts or events. Instead, to ensure access to the administration, it chose to compete with the Press Secretary as the Bush/Cheney mouthpiece.

Point Three: Both the Corporate Media (with few exceptions) and this administration continue to fail. Rather than question their own errors and role in our nation’s rush to war, they now push questions about McClellan’s loyalty or the underlying reasons for writing his book. HOW ABOUT PUSHING FOR DIALOG SURROUNDING THE MESSAGE RATHER THAN THE MESSENGER?

CNN’s Yellin: Network execs killed critical White House stories

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0508/CN Ns_Yellin_Network_execs_killed_critical_White_House_stories _.html

“The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president’s high approval ratings,” Yellin said.

“This is why the networks are crapping their trousers over McClellan’s new book. They cannot delink from the lies that tricked this nation into war. The blood of all the dead stains their own hands as much as it stains that of Bush and the Neocons and the US Congress.”

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Wow talk about a twofer! Maybe McClellan will bring down mainstreammedia along with the fascist empire of neo-conservatives!

OK ... I can dream, cant I?

Of course, there is NO doubt in my mind Scott is telling the truth.

While I don’t know about any of you commenting on this site or reading from home or work, I can tell you that I CANNOT WAIT TO GET MY HANDS ON THAT BOOK to find out “what happened” to the idealist George Bush I voted for in 2000 (notice there is NO mention of 2004).

actually say anything incriminating.

That he believed Bush… and so did Bush?  He confirms that he doesn’t think Bush was lying, despite the progressive left’s prevailing opinion.

McClellan answers to a “higher truth”?  Apparently only when that truth is a lucrative book deal.

And his opinion that Rice was too accommodating?  Well, setting aside the question of whether he’s a qualified judge (and given how much he accommodated while in office), he’s certainly entitled to his opinion.

Even if you believe that McClellan isn’t in this to make money off his book, he hasn’t said anything particularly controversial.  The press headlines, however, are most certainly designed to make more of his statements than he actually makes himself.  Amazing.

Like rats fleeing from a sinking ship! Expect more rodents to follow suit.

At least he is now spewing his guts.  After all, he was with George since G’s governor days.  I don’t think the man would make up the stories with Cheney out there ready to pounce.  I hope this is one more nail in the coffin of this administration.

Let’s be glad this came out and use it to get Justice for the war crimes this administration is guilty of.

The rats are leaving the sinking ship. Do you suspect the Vietnam evaders will go down with it?

McClellan is labelled as ‘disgruntled,’ ‘not the man I used to know,’ etc. But no one has denied the veracity of what he wrote.

Perhaps he sees war crimes or other trials coming, and he wants to line up for immunity first. Fine with me, despite my feelings for this once-odious Cheney-Bush apparatchik.

Yes it’s too late to get them out of office. But they have still committed crimes against humanity. And profited from it nicely. They still need to be convicted. For nothing else but to tell them ‘We’re sick of this shit and we’re NOT going to take anymore’. And shame on our ‘Free Press’ for lack of interest.
We The People.

Whatever happened to checks and balances.  High crimes or low crimes, take your choice.  We could make them accountable, but why should we start now?  To bad Hillary may not make it as president, she has a very good lack of integrity to take over for Bush. 

House of Representatives (using representatives loosely here) has not done it’s job, especially after Pelosi said “impeachment is off the table”.  This means accountability has been off the table.  One could be suspicious and suspect the war really was supported by most of Congress, even after the Democrats won.

Congress is suppose to represent the common man, the slob on the street, this could mean that we live in an illusion, do we see the light?

Good points JS,

If he had come out an told the truth from within the White House, it would have been so short lived, plus the MM would have covered it up.  What he has personally accounted to after the fact, has been known to many all along anyway. Except we were pissing in the wind and still are.

Edit: lost loved ones since 9/11

Well...isn’t it time that Congress start getting some of this ‘tell all’ stuff in testimony? Ole Scotty ain’t the first one to make some of these claims about the shrub and Darth Vader. Of course Condi today is defending the shrub right to the end.
If any of this stuff is truth and not opinion then I see a myriad of ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’. What is Congress waiting for? Let the shrub declare ‘Martial Law’? Start gathering evidence NOW and properly prosecute these crooks. Look no one believed the Watergate story at first either and we all know how that one ended. If not for the sake of the country and the constitution then for the families that have loved ones since 9/11.

We all Know the Crimes this admins has committed, we have well documented footage. but what we need is an undeniable froce to come out and Start singing to FORCE the accomplices in Congress & SCOTUS to Join in an finally Fry These criminals.Just like th edrug war we don’t care so much about the ‘dealers’ We want the Suppliers! Just like the Telecoms- I am willing to give Immunity, but they MUST give US the ‘Masterminds’ First!
Frankly at this Point Pelosi, Reid, Scalia and a good number of other Repugs and Dems are too far gone to be shown ANY mercy, but their coming Forward my ellivate the desire fro the Ultimate Punishment and reflect better of them into history.These are HIGH CRIMES, Treason, War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity. I’ve Written to the UN - ridiculous of course since they are all criminals themselves, but what the Hell, sometimes you need ruthless criminals to rid yourself of Other ruthless criminals, they hate competition.
And Perhaps the Reason Scott finally came forward was not so much to reveal the past but to derail the Future...The drum beat towards Striking Iran. both this Admin, Mac AND Hillary seem Hell bent on this Hagee Like PLAN! Of course I didn’t need Mcclellen to tell me this Iran psychosis was “Deja Vu all Over again”. Get out th eRecycled paper Plates - the Silver is far too Good fro these Criminals

Guts? He showed about as much guts as it takes to run a stop sign. This Bad Guy--lest you all forget his past--is as altruistic as a petty criminal. He’s doing this for the money--period.

It is too LATE and too LITTLE. Everything he “outed” has been discussed ad nauseum for years now; nothing new here at all.  If it’s a social forgiveness he’s looking for....keep looking.

His lasting legacy consists of being party to dead innocents accross the world. Now he’ll make money because of it. I hope his book tanks.

This is what’s all too common here on TD. Some of you go off half cocked. You fire at targets you don’t yet see. Some of you willfully refuse to even aim first. Some of you, actually many of you here, fire into a crowd with a shotgun because you don’t agree with the speaker.

Press Secretary Scott McClellan was demonized endlessly right here in these posts. There was no changing anyone’s minds on that. McClellan was evil. Part of the evil Bush cabal. The mythical neo-cons. But now he’s a hero? And yet none of you have the facts. You’ve not read McClellan’s book.

I’ll read Mr. McClellan’s book after I finish Douglas Feith’s book. As I read Paul O’Neil’s book before I knew enough to even comment on it (O’Neil made a few of the same claims McClellan seems to make).

I relish reading insiders accounts of historical events. I’ll combine the information from these books, along with other information I have mentally and physically collected and, hopefully, make some reasonably informed decisions and conclusions. I may very well conclude that McClellan is indeed a hero. But I would have no way of coming to that conclusion until after I’ve actually read his book.

I can’t stress this enough. Know your facts. At least refrain from convincing yourselves you know Scott McClellan or the content of his book before you’ve taken the most obvious first step. Read the book!

I’m with you Tahut, just as I realized what Louise was pointing out, and clearly. And, while I agree that he was at first naive, we ALL know what elwood has pointed out as well. NOBODY has been able to go up against Dick Bush, including Colin Powell, who didn’t get away soon enough.

Meantime, at least Scotty had the guts to come forward on this. And, who knows...he might just have stayed around as long as he did, to get the verification that he needed, once he figured it out.

You made an extremely important point yourself, in him needing to have his duckies all in a row. Otherwise, who would have believed him, IF he lived long enough to tell about it?

I wasn’t the least bit impressed with George Tenet’s so-called ‘tell all’ which was really only an attempt to save his own neck, without giving up the real scoop.

Like Jackpine Savage though, I’d really like to know how they got the ALL completely by Congress. I don’t understand that part at all.

Yes, he could have come out sooner...maybe he should have.  But he could have just as easily kept his mouth shut and gone on with life.  Had he started talking two years ago, it still wouldn’t have changed anything; the Dems still wouldn’t have confronted the administration on anything of consequence. (And there’s your clue that the Dems aren’t really interested in reigning the unitary executive in...they’re interested in getting to be the unitary executive.)

So better late than never, and better now than ten years from now.

And it is with value - significant value - as the administration is currently trying to pull the same shtick with Iran.  Perhaps that is why Mr. McClellan is talking right now: he’s offering the inside dope on recent history to keep it from repeating itself.

The largest impact this book could have is within the shiny corridors of the Pentagon, as they are the only ones who can really stop an attack on Iran.

Louise…

You convinced me....(like probably only you could )

But, you’ve definitely got a point that I particularly appreciate. Why did he LEAVE they ask?

Well, you’re RIGHT! He DID LEAVE!!

And, he had to be keeping some notes, or he wouldn’t have been able to put this together so fast.

And yes, it DID take some courage, because he could have just grabbed himself some cushy job at a university somewhere, and kept his mouth shut.

He HAD to know he was gonna take a beating from the thugs that were his former bosses, and crossing them like this can’t be a whole lot less frightening than crossing the Mafia Dons. (he wouldn’t be the first one that wound up dead - an all too common whistleblower’s fate).

Based on that, I think I’ll buy his book after all. And, I’d like to hire you to be my agent when I finally write mine. (which has been a whole lot longer than 2 years in the making). I’ll need a 24/7 security team after we get it published. (maybe we should figure that in with the deal with the publisher, eh?)

“Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner?” Why, indeed, Scott?”

And why indeed is the Political Wire so put out? Could this be a case of serving two masters? Where is the welcome for TRUTH from the INSIDE? Hypocrits calling a hypocrit, hypocrit ...

Why did Scott not raise these grave concerns earlier?

Folks, better late than never!

Keep this news alive! Make the repubs running for re-election do a little penance themselves.

Scott will be reviled and insulted, like this small post does, but I think we need to be careful.

Speaking the truth, even after the fact takes a great deal of courage. He must certainly know the republican machine will do everything they can to destroy him. And while it may feel very good to smugly say ... oh well Scot, we all knew that ... there are several million folks who didn’t!

I think we should feel a small sense of gratitude.

Gratitude?

Yes gratitude. Because corporate owned fascist mainstreammedia has been reporting Scotts book since before the sun came up this morning!

In other words, a lot of folks who have dismissed Bush Bashers as ignorant Lib’s, will perk their ears up and listen when their beloved mainstreanmedia says things like, “Stopping short of calling Bush a liar, former Bush press secretary says the war in Iraq was badly thought out and unnecessary!”

Yep! All over America this morning Mrs. perfect conservative patriot and her spouse getting ready to run down and “play” the market, dropped their coffee and listened!

In the grocery store the buzz ... did you hear about that book that bashes Bush? Yeh, what was that guys name? Used to be a Bush press secretary ... McClellan, yeh Scott. Scott? my god he fell on his sword for Bush every day! Well on the news this morning they said his new book lets Bush have it! Like what? Like the war, like Valerie Plame, like the CIA and Cheney and Rove ... like even Bush, they planned it all. What do you mean planned it all? Even the mess in Iraq. They planned it.

So I say hooray for Scott!

And while mainstreammedia will try to undercut and downplay, the fact remains they KNOW this is dynamite because even they cant shut this one up!  Like the clerk in the store said ... Scott used to fall on his sword for Bush every day!

Nothing like the decent kid waking up one morning and realizing his president didn’t deserve that pedestal.

No they cant shut this one up, but they sure will try. Like ABC’s Charles Gibson casually asking, “If it was so bad, why didn’t he leave?” Well Mr. pinned to the lapel of the oligarchy ... HE DID!

duh ...

And I loved Diane Sawyer’s question, “Well if this is true, what took him so long?” Perhaps Ms. brainiac cant possibly grasp ... getting a book put together and published in less than two years is a bit of a miracle! [and tells me he was troubled and keeping notes long before he left]

Mainstreammedia and their obedient followers will start the undercutting with a vengeance, like this article. They will be so busy discrediting Scott that all of those who know better will start doing the same thing.

My gosh folks ... there is a goldmine here!
THE MOTHER LOAD!
MINE IT!

If you know someone who still plans on keeping one of those republicans in congress for a few more years of dirty work ... make a worthwhile investment and buy them a copy of Scotts book! And if you know someone who thinks the only reason we have a mess is JUST because of Bush and sending a GOOD republican like McCain to the White House will fix everything ... make that investment again and buy a copy of Scotts book for them!

And if he makes money from the book, I say good. He DIDN’T do what most repubs do when they leave the fold ... he didn’t sell out to corporate America. Well except perhaps to us, and I for one say thanks Scott, and WATCH YOUR BACK!