digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at politico.com

Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House

politico.com — Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yellowcakewalk, on 05/28/2008, -16/+357Yeah, a little late there, Scotty. An honest man would have ratted out the crooks at the time the crimes were being committed. Now you have a book out to sell. What a scumbag.
    • jstohler, on 05/28/2008, -2/+36McClellan's grandfather: "The whole Nazi thing was going great until Hitler took it too far."
      • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/28/2008, -2/+8I have never trusted this tool. Apparently, the Whitehouse should not have trusted him either, now how do they attack this guy after he was their little errand boy out yelping lies to a room full of cameras? I bet he no longer gets a Whitehouse Christmas card....
      • stonewaljacksn, on 05/28/2008, -16/+4so what?
        can you prove that the nazi movement WASNT good for germany until hitler took it too far? stop being a douche and seeing everything so black and white.
        • Caulfield, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6"can you prove that the nazi movement WASNT good for germany until hitler took it too far?"
          Yes.
          Even before the Nazis were in power. Was the killing of 4 police and 16 civilians in the Beer Hall Putsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_hall_putsch) good for Germany? Or are you claiming that he had already taken it too far by then (1923)?
          Who's the douche?
      • b3owulf, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1It's wise to judge someone based on a comment his grandfather made....
    • mcquitty, on 05/28/2008, -1/+19Well, considering the man was out defending Mr. Bush's positions even after he left the administration, I am wondering why he is doing it now.

      1. Work for the president.
      2. Leave the administration and defend the president.
      3. ????
      4. Write a book against the president.
      5. Profit.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 05/28/2008, -21/+5Karl Rove's response to the book:

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=fKMX9HCjycM

      there's two sides to every story, folks.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/28/2008, -2/+15OMG - Karl Rove is bad mouthing someone that's bad mouthing the administration - Why isn't this the lead on every station nationwide?

      • ClosedCaption, on 05/28/2008, -3/+16I finally know what Rove and his ilk mean by saying someone sounds "liberal" or like a "liberal blogger". It means someone that says something they dont like.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -1/+7And Karl is somehow different from Scotty because he is still on the pay roll?
        • Charlotte_Web, on 05/28/2008, -5/+3Scotty is engaging in wild speculation. He says that he didn't see Rove and Libby talking much, despite their offices being in close proximity and their respective positions requiring them to dialogue on a regular basis.

          Scotty admits that he wasn't privvy to the subject of closed-door meetings, and then he engages in wild speculation as to what went on behind closed doors.

          Come on, folks... McClellan is an opportunist just trying to sell books.
        • ClosedCaption, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6You're engaging in wild speculation about wild speculations?
        • Charlotte_Web, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Did you read the article? I'm guessing "No".

          McClellan says up front that he's speculating about conversations.
      • JDove6, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Citing Fox News as taking a side to a story? Lol thats an understatement.
    • afajem, on 05/28/2008, -3/+8Too bad he will make out like a bandit, thanks to us the general public, that still provides this imbecile a podium to spew his garbage from.

      He should be barred from all talk shows and his book boycotted. He's not telling us anything we don't already know about this administration.

      ugh.
      • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Exactly, he should have stayed IN and tryed to CHANGE THEM, that would have.... whats the word.... MATTERED..
    • rpgmaker, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3"McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war."

      We can say that the US citizens started to open their eyes about war (and all the shady interests that go with it) with the Vietnam war and still it was relatively little information what we got about it. If we had all the info that we've got about the Iraq war and all the proofs that points to the Bush administration deliberately misleading the mainstream public into it at that time we would've impeach those bastards so long ago...
    • rpgmaker, on 05/28/2008, -1/+10It's late but it's still needed. More people will be inclined to believe it if it comes from a former press secretary. FTA:

      “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

      “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.” - You knew you were lying you just didn't have the courage to resign and tell the truth back then.

      “‘Matrix’ was the code name the Secret Service used for the White House press secretary." - We don't even have to tell the implications of that code name...
    • bhjodokast, on 05/28/2008, -13/+3Yer all rats.

      Democrats are even worse. They said they would deal with this issue. Pelosi is the biggest rat.

      What liars! Oh well. Maybe Bush will say "4 more years" and say screw the elections.

      And you won't do ... anything... about it... will you. ahahaha
      • mummbleswers, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3I'm super liberal and I have to say this guy's right, the democrats in congress act so spineless, it's a major reason we're so ***** now. They're scared to be called unpatriotic, so they just let Bush and his cronies play ball. How else do you explain why no one will move for impeachment of Bush? What he's done is way worse than a blow-job. Spineless. We asked for change when we elected a democratic congress in '06 and they've acted scared the whole time. Either that, or the republicans are so f'ing dirty they're willing to do stuff the dems wont, like impeach over a blow-job. Neo-cons are just political bullies and we let it happen.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5Can you imagine the consternation of BushCo?
      It is so hard to find good help. They only trust the corrupt -- I suppose they should have gotten more blackmail on him to keep him "honest."
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Nah, he'll be caught hanging from his shed in a week with a suicide note written in some other handwriting. Open and shut case, I tell ya.
        • TheGuruStud, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1So a cheap ripoff of Cobain's death?
          Seriously, those cops were completely useless in that case.
        • Nevarius, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Actually i think hes referring to Deborah Jeane Palfrey "aka DC Madam" that was found hanging in a shed.
          Not sure how this would be a cheap ripoff of Cobain's suicide, unless his wife is some high up Washington official in some alternative universe.
    • wild, on 05/28/2008, -1/+7AT least he came out.

      Notice that the administrative reaction is not to discredit the facts in his book, but to try and discredit him as a person. They can't refute what he said (and aren;t threatening libel action.) Instead, they have to turn him into the villain by being "a completely different person than the one they knew."

      I still cannot believe as American's we stand for what this administration has done.
      • Nevarius, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Yeah i have noticed that quite a bit about this administration. There has been numerous times it attacked messengers/people that stood in the way, but yet avoided the message like a plague. Be it accusing the messenger of something illegal, then have the failed court case sealed leaving the defendant tarnished. Destroying careers of people and even loved ones. Even stacking the deck to jail an opponent. Not to even mention its assault on freedoms and whistleblower protection.

        Funny how neo-con supporters always say "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about", yet their very support of people that do this type of thing says volumes.
  • mercurio, on 05/28/2008, -9/+54A little more of the sordid truth about this administration.
    I wonder, how is that Karl Rove subpoena coming along? Will we see "Turd Blossom" arrested?
    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Conyers_subpoena ...
    • willskillz, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2we both know the answer to that. he's a made man... unfortunately :(
    • flip2trip, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Got a better source than that rag raw story?
  • marabout40, on 05/28/2008, -5/+146Nuthin' we haven't figured out for ourselves after almost 8 years there buddy.
    • solid12345, on 05/28/2008, -4/+2Actually no its not, everyone has been screaming theories that the war was for oil, to expand Israel, to avenge papa Bush, Mcllelan comes out and says it was a plan all along to change the political landscape of the middle east.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/28/2008, -4/+5Have you read the book? No: it's not released yet. So STFU.
        • solid12345, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4Have you read the article? That is what it says so STFU
      • MacEnvy, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6Anyone non-reactionary pretty much knew that it was about the PNAC vision of redrawing the Middle East and changing the political environment there ... but in the end, it's mostly because of our dependence on their oil and the religious motivations of evangelicals to stabilize Jerusalem.

        What Scott says sounds correct to me, especially his disdain for Bush's incuriosity - the greatest fault a man can have in my opinion. Too bad he doesn't seem to be taking appropriate blame for his (rather significant) role in the runup to this colossal mess.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6Oh wait -- these are "theories" until someone on the right admits to it?
        Yeah, I guess you have to wait for the mob bosses to turn themselves in as well.
        Get a clue.

        Everyone but NeoCons and Conservatives avoiding messy reality knows that this war is for profit. We don't need to see it in a paper headline to figure it out.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -3/+10I find it a tragic irony, that a man who has admitted to lying for years about very important issues, is now the credible source for "what happened" when all the "nutty liberals" who were saying the same damn thing for 4 years were studiously ignored.

      OK, NOW it is legitimate? I kind of feel like the American Indians when Christopher Columbus set foot on the ground, placed a flag in the ground and proclaimed; "I have discovered the West Indies!" Yeah, still not quite right, and still a bit troubling. You have to scratch your head at fools who discover what you already know.
  • Inflammo, on 05/28/2008, -5/+99While not presenting much new information, its good to see a former Bush Admin. member actually come out with the truth. Especially after lying to the media for his entire tenure.
    • tbstudee, on 05/28/2008, -2/+11It would have been better to see him come out with the truth when it still mattered.
      • mikeyeah, on 05/28/2008, -1/+9It still matters. This just strengthens the case for impeachment and criminal prosecution against Bush, Cheney, etc. Contact your elected representatives and demand impeachment!
        • stretch611, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2Yeah, My 2 Repub senators and repub congressman, are going to listen closely when I ask them to impeach Bush. /sarcasm
        • flip2trip, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1No one is going to impeach anyone. The Liberals have been playing this like a broken record, but they do nothing--The hall mark of the Democratic party.
    • mecharabbit, on 05/28/2008, -2/+6He must have thought that he could live with the guilt, but his conscience overwhelmed him to the point of being on the verge of an existential implosion and he needed to relieve himself of the burden. Or something like that...
    • suttercain, on 05/28/2008, -1/+14The amazing thing is people will still stand by Bush. No matter what is said or who says it, Bush will always have loyalists who follow him blindly. I think his own wife or mother could rat him out and people would still try and rationalize it in their minds.
      • MacEnvy, on 05/28/2008, -5/+4His wife doesn't appear to have the free will to "rat him out". I swear she's a Stepford Wife. I think it's those glazed-over eyes.
    • BECoole, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5What makes you think you can trust anything Scotty says?
      • stretch611, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4You can't believe him. He is a liar. He either lied then or he is lying now; more than likely he lied then AND is lying now.

        But through his actions he is lowering the credibility of Bush & Co.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Since he is now stating the exact opposite of what he stated when he was employed by them, then at least one of his statements has to be true.
  • brheath, on 05/28/2008, -4/+109I hope somewhere in the book he writes "I was wrong and I'm sorry for misguiding the public" something no one in this administration seems to ever say.

    If it doesn't, then I hope he doesn't sell a SINGLE copy of his book...
    • phracktivist, on 05/28/2008, -3/+11you make a very good point, and it seems that instead of apologizing, he would rather point the finger at Bush and say "see! He's bad!". How pathetic
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5I'm glad scotty is saving me from having to witness any redeeming quality. It is much easier to detest him this way. I appreciate that he isn't clouding the issue of his own legendary Douche-baggery.
    • CrazedLeper, on 05/28/2008, -2/+8McClellan is a weasel and a coward. That's what qualified him for the job in the first place. Even as he's "exposing" the "president", he's soft-peddling the truth. Over-quotes intentional.
    • loggedout, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1someone will have to buy it to find out
  • Slungsolow, on 05/28/2008, -6/+47I guess hindsight is 20/20 even when you keep your head up your ass.
  • cheeseysynapse, on 05/28/2008, -4/+42What a douche.
  • rationalbeats, on 05/28/2008, -3/+85The best quote from his new book.

    "If anything, the national press corps was probably TOO deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.

    "The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. ... In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."
    • phracktivist, on 05/28/2008, -2/+36bingo! "liberal media" is a really, really, bad joke.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5The media is liberal, because they TELL us they are.
      Ring a bell, and we drool.
    • Klak, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4pretty funny from the guy that was fighting off the media the whole time and dodging questions about the war
    • mummbleswers, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4The "liberal" media is a joke, but people got to understand, they would get blocked access from the white house if they asked the wrong questions. Brian Williams was just on the today show this morning explaining how if he did an interview asking tough questions the pentagon would call immediately to say they didn't "like the tone." NBC is getting attacked hard by the white house right now for Bush's last interview, saying it was too tough. So rather than being branded "un-patriotic" and losing credibility, they went along with it. This generation of neo-cons have a very crude and intelligent way of making perfectly rational people look like "loony liberals." Al Gore was way ahead of the curve on global warming, and he was branded nuts, oh now he's right. Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Richard Clarke, and now Scott McClellan; the list goes on of people that have raised perfectly good points on certain subjects and are immediately dismissed as "un-patriotic" and "crazy." Obama has great ideas and they were trying to tear him down with chines made flag pins. It boggles my mind that the American people just go along with this crap. It hurts the country more than it helps. And the worst part is that these "patriots" are ***** all over the constitution. Freedom of press? I think not.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2When one of the reports got barred for asking a tough question, the next reporter in line should have stood up and asked the exact same question, right on down the line. Each reporter in turn should have demanded the answer until they themselves were barred from the white house.

        As each news agency was barred they should have immediately began 24 hour coverage of that fact and asking the administration non stop what they are trying to hide by barring news agencies that want info for the American people from being in news conferences.

        If they were allowed to attend, but not allowed to ask questions, the only questions any reporter should have been asking is why their professional colleague is not being allowed to ask questions.

        It is not that tough to break a white house news embargo.
        • mummbleswers, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I have to admit, I thought you had a damn good point until I read the response below you. Fox would have ***** this idea up, or advertisers would have started pulling and that would have ended it as well. Awesome idea, and I wish the media had the balls to play it, but in the end probably wouldn't have worked. IMO
      • masterspeaks, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3It is tough, when you have a press room full of Fox affiliates. That line of dissension would stop at whatever prick Faux News has stationed there. He'd lob softballs like, 'is the President enjoying his morning bike ride'.
    • bg2500, on 05/28/2008, -2/+4Who needs the liberal media, I think the 100s of thousands (or was it millions?) of people protesting in the streets all around the world just prior to the war made a pretty strong argument. We all knew this was wrong.

      Did the decision makers listen? Of course not. This war was not about doing what is right but what best serves the people who currently have power. They do not give a ***** about us or anyone else as long as they get what they want.

      America, ***** YEAH!
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3It was millions in every country. Sometimes over a million at a single event. All around the world, at least 100,000,000 people protested this war by marching against it for hours at a time on numerous days.

        What I loved is all the news channels gave equal time to the half dozen nut bars that were protesting the protesters every time. And the news channels under reported the number of people at the rallys by between 10 to 100 times. The news channel would show a couple of close up pictures of the anti war protesters so you couldn't see how far back they stretched, then show a similar shot of the pro war protesters so they looked like there was just as many.
  • evan119, on 05/28/2008, -7/+109steal this book.
    there's a special place in hell for those whose lies lead to countless deaths, and then try to profit from it.
    • pointsguy, on 05/28/2008, -0/+8Never have I ever thought a crime was ever in order. Until now.
    • therightside, on 05/28/2008, -8/+2Al Qaidas lies lead to these peoples deaths. IF they wouldnt have attacked us we wouldnt be in other countries killing Muslims. How are you people to dumb to see this?

      • jaymzdean, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4If I were you, I would call the police right away. Someone has stolen your brain and replaced it with a paper bag full of *****.
      • mummbleswers, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2I think Al Qaida has been pretty upfront about who they want to kill. And how are you too dumb to ask why we got attacked in the first place? It wasn't random, the KISS philosophy doesn't work here. Keep It Simple Stupid, they're bad, we're good, kill them all.
    • stretch611, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5Steal the book and don't even give McCellan the satisfaction of reading it. Burn it in your fireplace; its cheaper than heating oil.
    • kida001, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1I really don't see the good in stealing something to make a wrong right even if the guy is a douche. Stealing is just more idiotic.
  • dopre, on 05/28/2008, -3/+59Heck of a job Scottie.

    Only 4,000+ dead soldiers and god knows how many dead Iraqi civilians later you decided to criticize the war.

    Heck of a job...Matrix!
    • therightside, on 05/28/2008, -11/+2A small price to pay to deter future attacks on America.
      • mummbleswers, on 05/28/2008, -2/+4Huge ***** price to pay, and tell that to army wives who have no husband, kids with no fathers and mothers. WE ARE LESS SAFE NOW THAN WE WERE BEFORE. Do the caps help? No one that actually matters disagrees with the fact that Iraq helped to strengthen Iran, and made the country a hot bed for middle easterners who want to kill us. Thanks Bush.
        • flip2trip, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1WE ARE LESS SAFE NOW THAN WE WERE BEFORE.

          Really? What makes you think so? All the terrorist attacks we've had in the US since 9/11? Oh wait, we haven't had any. So what is your proof we are less safe now? And just how did invading Iraq strengthen Iran?

          And it seems you Dems need constant reminding that the information most relied on about Iraq came from the CLINTON administration, but no one wants to hear that.

          I'm not a fan of Bush but you cannot blame him for all the problems of the world.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2So we get constantly attacked everyday for the decades that we are in the middle east occupying countries and in your mind this has reduced the violence against Americans?

        You really can't see how going into the middle east has now killed more Americans than died in 9/11 and wounded a hundred thousands more?
        • flip2trip, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1"So we get constantly attacked everyday for the decades that we are in the middle east occupying countries and in your mind this has reduced the violence against Americans?"

          We're being constantly attacked? When, where? The last time we were attacked on our soil was 9/11.
  • myser59, on 05/28/2008, -5/+57Bush and Cheney deserve impeachments and fair war crimes trials. Don't say it's too late. We need to show the world we are not allowing these crimes to go unpunished as the first step to removing the tarnish that this presidency has put on our international reputation. We are not a nation of torturers and war mongers. Let's prove it.
    • masterspeaks, on 05/28/2008, -3/+7I believe the G.O.P congress passed legislation that granted Bush and his cronies immunity from any crimes in early 2006.
      • soulkitchen, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5It's cool, just have the next president declare them "enemy combatants". There, legal protections removed. Actually if we wanted to maintain the moral high ground, we'd just extradite them to the Hague and let them sort it all out.
        • Nevarius, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Just send them to gitmo. You know, since what they do there isn't considered torture. Would be the ultimate justice to have them experience the system that they themselves have made.
    • myser59, on 05/28/2008, -1/+18What congress has given, congress can take away.
    • KhanneaNL, on 05/28/2008, -1/+14Talk is cheap. You still have 17% lunatics, wingnuts, collaborators, shills, sellouts and fascists lest to deal with. That is tens of millions of americans stuck in the absolutely wrong frame of mind. Yes, we call that "being wrong in the war" over here in Europe, and we interned them in camps for a few years until we sorted out who to hang.

      The US needs a Truth & Reconciliation commission. Throw everything out in the open, if you don't confess camera's rolling, you will be sentences if found guilty. The US needs a massive purge.
      • generalalcazar, on 05/28/2008, -0/+7You are absolutely right my friend. Only I believe the number is higher than 17%. Unfortunately, democracy can also go by the name of "Mob Rules".
      • flip2trip, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1Blah, blah, blah you liberals always talk a good game but never deliver. The truth is you'd rather sit here on digg congratulating each other on your pithy little remarks and nothing will happen. The Libs in congress are the same way, yak, yak, yak and at the end of the day they hop in their chauffeured limousines and go home. Bunch of talking heads all of you.
        • eir574, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2@flip2trip

          Assuming you meant your statement to apply to *some* liberals rather than all of them (otherwise, you're just making generalizations . . . again), everything you've said can be said of some conservatives as well. Plenty of people on digg across the political spectrum spend at least some of their time congratulating themselves on pithy little remarks, often at the expense of other people. Plenty of people in congress across the political spectrum yak, yak, yak and at the end of the day hop in their chauffeured limousines and go home.
        • flip2trip, on 05/31/2008, -2/+1Well next time I will take the time to list the million or so "liberals" to whom I am referring. :p

          In this case though the label sticks because it is the liberals who have been talking about impeaching both Bush and Cheney for the past, oh what 4 years or so? Still nothing.

          Besides I feel pretty safe on this thread, on digg too, that the comment applies to most here.

          Do you always ride the fence E?
        • eir574, on 05/31/2008, -0/+3"Do you always ride the fence E?"

          Do you mean do I always keep in mind that the views expressed by some people may not apply to everyone who has something in common with those people? Absolutely. Do I think that we try too hard to force labels upon people? Yep. Do I think that talking about issues in terms of those labels and making sweeping, negative generalizations contributes directly to the polarization we see in society? A thousand times yes. I also think that making those generalizations helps people to feel more secure in their own beliefs because they've labeled everyone who disagrees with them as deficient in some way. It avoids the idea that rational people can come to different conclusions, that issues have subtlety to them, and that rational debates that avoid generalized attacks have the potential to help us discover that there's common ground between people with what seem at first to be very different ways of looking at the world. Dismissing people on the other side of a debate as being mentally deficient or hating America is taking the easy way out. (You didn't do that in your comment, but it happens all the time, and people just love to digg up those types of comments.)
  • MrTito, on 05/28/2008, -2/+15I don't know how to look at this. A similar story was on Digg six months ago with some published excerpts. Now the book comes out as the general election is getting under way and the last eight years are in review. Douchebag move for sales, or relevant timing?

    I dunno. I probably won't buy his book, but I re-welcome the media inquiry and exposure.

    Article from six months ago:
    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/20/mcclellans-tel ...
    • dynamojoe, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2I pick "Douchebag move for sales". I'm certainly not buying a copy. I've read the transcripts from his time in the white house. He'd have to be as dense as lead to not know he was lying constantly and consistently. Now he's trying to make a buck pointing the finger at his former boss when in fact he's partially to blame for the administration's propaganda machine.

      It's hilariously pathetic that he blames the so-called liberal media for not being liberal enough.
    • mummbleswers, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2It was dismissed as publisher hype six months ago, that's why this wasn't bigger then. The political season does seem to be good timing though, maybe too good.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2I think that things have gone too far for even the right wing nut jobs now. Many of them really do love American and they are finally seeing just how much damage they have caused.

      In a few decades we will have to suffer through a bunch of them publicly crying while they apologize. We had to do the exact same thing with the Vietnam war too.
  • qwonkerjawed, on 05/28/2008, -1/+14When I was searching for this story I came across several heavily Dugg articles from 6 months ago that anticipated McClellan's harsh words. I don't remember hearing much about it in the MSM at that point, though... I'm interested to see how it's picked up now that the book is coming out.
  • toddcat, on 05/28/2008, -3/+37For about the 9 billionth time during these past eight interminable years, file under (with apologies to Adam Sandler's character in "The Wedding Singer") Things THAT COULD HAVE BOUGHT TO MY ATTENTION EARLIER. Geesh. Just imagine if Scott McClellan, George Tenet, Colin Powell, and how many others who come out well after the fact saying, hey, that's not how things should be, had actually done so when it happened.
    • tjdmall, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Obama wouldnt have been so alone in his protests
      • toddcat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Obama was far from alone.....remember 20 million people protesting in the streets in February 2003?
  • gypsi, on 05/28/2008, -3/+26how long before this guy conveniently "commits suicide"
    • GreatSunJester, on 05/28/2008, -12/+3Likely never -- he is not bashing the Clintons......
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6Bush is discardable.
      If this book were about McClain or the next toady for War Inc. -- then he would be a problem. This just makes the issue look like it was just Bush, and not the entire criminal racket that we call the Republican party.
    • newms32, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I'm amazed he hasn't already. Sudden, unbearable depression seems to strike anybody with insider knowledge and a grudge against the government.
  • bhod, on 05/28/2008, -15/+10What a tool.
    Obama 08!
  • kelt65, on 05/28/2008, -2/+49How is it that I knew Scotty was lying through his teeth all that time, and he didn't?
    • Dumbledorito, on 05/28/2008, -0/+7His lips were moving?

      The same technique works with Fleischer and Snow, by the way.
  • ChristPissed, on 05/28/2008, -6/+47What a sack of ***** this little fat man be! There are around 100k dead or dying or injured or permanantly ***** up in the head of your fellow Americans (troops), not too mention around 1 million dead Iraqis, and a US economy in the ***** due to out of control war spending. But only now does he fess up to perpetual lying, when it is convenient to make a buck on his book, and not when it would have been inconvenient for him to save lives and American treasury. Typical. Neocon. Traitor.
    • KhanneaNL, on 05/28/2008, -6/+2Talk is cheap, guns are sold all over the US. What's stopping you?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4Yes, I'd really rather read Scotty's information in the form of a court document. That he is selling us this information in the form of a retail purchased book.

      The only thing I need to know from Scotty is; who is your pimp?
  • happyseamonster, on 05/28/2008, -3/+29He was a sell-out then, and he's a sell-out now. He's just trying to make a career for himself. No honor among thieves.
    • JoeVet, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5This will be the typical neo-con response.....attack the messenger and ignore the message.
  • skydharma, on 05/28/2008, -3/+30I think many of you are letting your anger about the war and the Bush administration miss how important this book could be. To my knowledge this is the first time a true Bush loyalist has said these kinds of things, which a large swath of the public already believes. To the Bush administration, Scott McClellan is now Judas. Even if he is doing this to make a buck and not set the record straight (something of which I'm not convinced), this is potentially (haven't read the book) a first-hand document of dishonest leadership and a weak executive. Truth will out eventually.

    The Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
    • SOS84, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6McClellen is really just confirming what others in the Bush regime have already said purposely or by accident. He is far from the first to bring these truths to light.
    • jaxcs, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4Why can't it be both? I'm sure the lies and deceit weighed heavily on him. But there wasn't any reason he had to write a book. Why not get on 60 minutes and just tell the story? It's hard for me to say that this was a man of integrity, he's a man of some integrity.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4I'm a Progressive -- and I say; Why can't we have both?
      We can enjoy the feeding frenzy of the self-serving NeoCons, AND, we can use the evidence one of their weasel's brings forth.

      In essence; we can buy Scotty's book, and still make sure Lieberman and McClellan are NOT considered Democrats. That's a win/win. The Republicans can also keep Chris Mathews. I'm sick of these enabling reporters of the MSM trying to get credibility after the fact, when they were asleep to the dangers and corruption of NeoCons for 10 years.
    • spinchange, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Robert Wexler (D - Florida) is already calling Mclellan to be brought before congress to testify.
  • thepeacemaker, on 05/28/2008, -4/+10Most of the country pretty much agrees on Bush and his policies. However there is nothing to cheer about Scott McClellan's "revelations". This crook is an opportunist who suddenly discovered honesty coincidentally when he had to sell his book. Any honest person, seeing the grave danger to his/her country, would have blown the whistle when it mattered or at the very least resigned at that time. I hope this weasel burns in hell.
    • sa9e, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I respect your tone here...but I question your conclusions. McClellan did not have these feelings of grave doubt when he claimed to have them. If he did have them at the appropriate time, then he is a self-exposed, proven liar. His little confessional cannot be a feather in the anti-warrior's cap, at all. It shows that Bush took a lot of risks, especially in his hiring.
  • pintomp3, on 05/28/2008, -4/+13so many administration flunkies are coming out with books pointing fingers and absolving themselves of responsibility. they were all complicit.
  • jonnyboy1544, on 05/28/2008, -12/+5What cracks me up is that he used to be the whipping boy for the left... now he's their hero.

    All the same, I'm glad he's doing this. But remember Richard Clark? His scathing account of the Bush administration went nowhere for some reason. I wonder what this will do...
    • yosserhughes, on 05/28/2008, -1/+14" now he's their hero."

      You obviously haven't read the above posts.
    • mecharabbit, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6The same thing happened with former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill's revelations after he quit. Dick Cheney must have his cursor over the bury button at all times.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6Sounds like you were one of the people calling lefties a bunch of idiots.
      Since "our side" has been proven right, you seem to be finding evidence of our corruption amongst cronies and toadies of the NeoCons.

      My only question is; how soon is it until Bush is a Liberal?
      Oh right, his "liberal spending" -- yup, that's all the thinking you guys need, just shove the word in there and it makes the battle lines clear.

      Nobody is supporting Scotty --- we are just giving him enough rope so that he can hang the crooks he once hung out with. But I can understand how a NeoCon still doesn't get it. You never will. You will elect and support one weasel after another, as long as they can make you feel good about your hatred of Liberals. The fact that we were right only makes you hate us more.
      • jonnyboy1544, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1No I think the lefties got this one right on the money. Hence I said I was glad he did it. If it's the truth, then go with it, and it sounds like it is.

        And I don't know what I'd call Bush... but yes he is definitely a big government fiscal liberal social conservative... the opposite of where I stand (and I consider myself a libertarian).

        And please don't get into electing weasels. DeLay, Bush, and Hastert are all douchebags. But call a spade a spade... so are Ted Kennedy, the Clintons and the rest of the political families out there that prey on people that can't think for themselves.

        Again, you were very right on this one and I'm calling it like I see it.
  • solid12345, on 05/28/2008, -15/+5In other words the war was not about oil or money, it was about Bush achieving greatness and trying to reshape the middle east. Will this at least shut up the "no blood for oil!" mantra
    • jgzman, on 05/28/2008, -1/+7Only if we can replace it with 'No blood for sculpture!'
    • KhanneaNL, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6Don't bet on it. I remain pretty damn convinced oil was the main propelling rationale and it'll take a lot of evidence otherwise to change my mind.
    • jonnyboy1544, on 05/28/2008, -4/+4KhanneaNL... oil production has been down in Iraq since the war, and that's adding to the high costs of the moment. I think it's down somewhere in the 200 million barrels per day range...

      If it were all about oil, you better bet those pipelines and refineries would have a US soldier every 10 feet protecting it.
      • jaxcs, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5There weren't enough soldiers since this was sold as a cake walk. Still, Halliburton and KBR were in charge of security and they, as we now know, were beholden to no one. We don't even know how many of these private contractors died in Iraq.
      • MacEnvy, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3"If it were all about oil, you better bet those pipelines and refineries would have a US soldier every 10 feet protecting it."

        They don't want the oil to get pumped NOW. They want it to be secure so that they can pump it LATER. We haven't even begun to see true oil shortage. Cheney & Pals want to solidify their private contracts to pump it and sell it to the US for tons of money later.
    • MacEnvy, on 05/28/2008, -1/+11Why would they want to reshape the Middle East if not to further their oil interests? I think you're presenting a false dichotomy.
    • BECoole, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3And the problem with fighting for oil, the lifeblood of our economy is.....

      (Are you really stupid enough to think that a secure supply of oil is not in our country's best interest?)
      • jgzman, on 05/28/2008, -2/+6Yes, I am.

        Point the first: If we have a secure supply of oil, someone is going to try to take it from us.

        Point the second: no matter how secure our supply of oil, there is only so much oil to be had. Rather than hording the last drop, and putting off the change until everything is going dark, we should be trying to find a new power source now.

        Point the third: I am unwilling to have my sons and brothers bleeding and dying so people can drive hummers and pickup trucks that get 14 MPG.
      • KhanneaNL, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Apt metaphor:

        http://www.metroactive.com/papers/cruz/02.22.96/gi ...
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2The war was about power and control.

      Money and oil are just paths to that power.
      • KhanneaNL, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1And war crimes tribunals, harsh sentences and gas chambers, international condemnation, dollar collapse and your cronies hightailing it to the high ground are a path AWAY from that power.
  • maxer64, on 05/28/2008, -2/+10As great as it is that he has come forward to expose these things, he's as guilty as the rest of them. He stood up there day in and day out and willingly sold everyone this administration's *****.
  • SOS84, on 05/28/2008, -7/+9The scary thing is this is a Bush ally talking. Imagine what an insider with an axe to sharpen would have to say. The Bush administration is rapidly overtaking the Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Hoover administrations for the title of worse ever, of course the terms regime and dictator are more fitting. You're doing a heck of a job Bushie.
    • KhanneaNL, on 05/28/2008, -2/+7Can you Americans please change your electoral system? You are ***** all over the goddamn place. You people need political diapers.
  • gnomemage7, on 05/28/2008, -4/+37The thing that bothers me most about this is that no matter how many times Bush is caught in his lies or just plain old incompetence, there are still many people out there who whine that impeachment is too extreme. Too extreme! The man is literally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the looting of our treasury, the decline of America as a whole and still Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to put impeachment on the table because the issue will "divide us".

    ***** every single representative in government that is not fighting tooth and nail to shove every one of these criminals out of office. The icing on the cake is that less than a decade ago we impeached our last preside for getting a blow job and lying about it. Too extreme my ass.
    • shupy, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1The fact that we impeached our last president over a ridiculous matter makes the whole impeachment process irrelevant. The country has been demoralized and bankrupted by an incompetent president, and exposed to the world as an ignorant electorate that can't separate truth and leadership from manipulation and pandering. He did get elected the second time, when a lot of us saw the writing on the wall. But we still have a large population of ditto-heads that sucked down the kool-aid a second time. Can we really face seeing another president impeached?

      Reality is that Bush will never spend a day in jail, and most of his cronies would receive an immediate pardon. He'll retire to the ranch and he and his cronies will all live nicely on the American Taxpayer's dime.

      As for Nancy Pelosi, she is aware of what it takes to launch an impeachment. Not just in dollars but in terms of votes in the house and senate. Clinton was impeached thanks to a Republican majority. A one vote majority will not be enought to bring charges agains the Bush administration, the Republicans may distance themselves from Bush, but for the most part they still vote as a block.

      Trying to impeach Bush at this point will be throwing good money after bad. Should be be impeached? Sure, but do we really want to spend the time and money pursuing him? He's on his way out, thank God, and the next president will have a full plate trying to undo some of the damage. Unfortunately, that will take decades.
  • futimazar, on 05/28/2008, -2/+16So confirming what the smarter half of the country knew 5 years ago, echoing what several high profile administration officials (Clark, Powell, Tenet etc.) have come out and said, and in line with the general perception of the majority of planet Earth, will this finally convince the 25% of the country (Evangelo-facsists) that still support the war fully how stupid and brainwashed they are?

    Prolly not.
    • jayscot, on 05/28/2008, -17/+1As opposed to the Secular-fascists like yourself?

      My man...a fascists is a fascists. Are you the kettle or the pot?
      • archiesteel, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6What has he said that makes him a fascist? Please provide an articulate, rational argument to support your accusation.
  • KhanneaNL, on 05/28/2008, -2/+11NOT ME - I am not accountable from war crimes, you shouldn't prosecute me it's HIM HIM HIM
  • twvance, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3OH SHI-
  • jonnyeuchre, on 05/28/2008, -2/+7too little too late
  • Misinformant, on 05/28/2008, -1/+7Can't wait for Tony Snow's sequel
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4Tony Snow's new Tell ALL book "I Was Just Doing My Snow-Job"
  • gkiltz, on 05/28/2008, -7/+8This guy is so desperate and so unemployable, he's had to become an AUTHOR!
    He has a book to sell!
    Take that for what it is!
  • jayscot, on 05/28/2008, -21/+2Reminds you of FDR doesn't it? (for those of you who have studied American History)
    • licnyc, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6Romper room ethics, last defense of the conservative- point fingers at someone else.
      /Mission accomplished.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1No! You are! Neener neener!
  • evilregis, on 05/28/2008, -3/+12"McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war."

    Who delivered that propaganda, Scotty? It would've been nice to offer this 'revelation' during your tenure rather than several months before the pathetic excuse for a president that you served for is about to leave office.
  • nkfallout, on 05/28/2008, -7/+4Hey tell bush to vote for the new GI BILL

    http://digg.com/politics/NEW_GI_BILL_TO_GIVE_TROOP ...
  • cyphron, on 05/28/2008, -2/+14If Bush and Co were running a company...say, Enron for example, they'd all be in jail. But hey, they're the presidential administration, so half of America turn a blind eye because they're part of the same party system. Democracy at work!
  • StinkBait, on 05/28/2008, -6/+6Is this the same Scott McClellan that Diggers called every name in the book when he worked for The White House?
    • deadnewton, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2proly...we give everyone a chance...
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5Yes.

      And I will still invent a few more names for that book. What, you think scum like Scotty and Bush wouldn't just end up in the same place? Psychopaths don't like the company of good people -- they think it is all a sham. So a dirt bag liar would be welcome.

      That doesn't mean he isn't telling SOME of the truth. If he is paid to lie he lies, and if it will make him a buck he will tell the truth. The only consistency with McClellan is serving himself.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 05/28/2008, -2/+7Yes, and apparently you didn't bother to read any of the prior posts here in this thread.

      He is a huge dick and has had a stroke of book selling conscience to make him want to tell all. Those same Diggers you chide are glad to see someone from the administration come out openly and FINALLY tell the truth, but they (myself included) think he's still a major dick.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Are you blind, or just willfully not seeing everyone on both the right and left heaping scorn on Scotty?

      The right now hates him because he is a tattle tale. And snitches get stitches.

      The left still hates him for being the Joseph Goebbels of the Bush administration.
      • sa9e, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1That is a major complement to either McClellan or Goebbels, depending on who you think was more effective. I'm guessing you think it was McClellan.
  • Shaman760, on 05/28/2008, -8/+2Fatty McClelland makes a comeback. Film at 11.
  • bsmang, on 05/28/2008, -8/+7He's still scum. He's just trying to sell his book. Greedy scum, just like the guy he was working for.
  • MortalynFlux, on 05/28/2008, -1/+7Bob Woodward, the journalist who spent more time with these people than any other journalist, already pointed out that this administration is a culture of dysfunction in _State of Denial_, despite having been friendly to the Republicans in previous books, so this just puts the last nail in the coffin of whatever illusions people had about our government.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3The people who still have illusions about our government don't read.
  • orchidee2, on 05/28/2008, -4/+5Unfortunately, most of those "insider views" appear so shortly before "game over"!
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -0/+7Money has already been made, and moved to Dubai banks, and they will try to pass the torch to the next errand boy like McCain.

      Scotty is a self-serving traitor to our country, and he should have said something when it could have kept us out of the war for profit. Now, after Billions of $ gone, and innocent lives lost, this scum bag wants to make a buck and rid his conscience?
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1The rats jump off a sinking ship first.
  • deadnewton, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5Just a hot and sour soup for now...
    I am not happy until some names are called and brought in front of the people-in-a-democracy...
    I would be happier if he uses the money from the book sales to bring down the house...
  • bjs3171, on 05/28/2008, -4/+3No he didn't, i just saw Bush on the news. Clearly no one has whacked him.
  • reuscel, on 05/28/2008, -5/+13Too little, too late Scotty. If you really had a conscience, you wouldn't have waited this long to open your mouth.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/28/2008, -6/+10Scotty McClellan -- what an opportunist. While I welcome the "light" he sheds on the issue -- it kind of makes the driven, self-deluded lapdogs like Rumsfeld look slightly more noble. At least they have loyalty.

    In a smear fight between Snotty and Bush -- who do you root for? I guess, you just pop the popcorn and enjoy the show, as fascists and their errand-boy enablers tear each other apart. This is "dog fighting" for the intellectuals. I suppose now, I'm going to want to put CSPAN on TiVo. These raw hearings will be so much more entertaining without another douche like Wolf Blizter, telling me what to think. Can't we ship all these NeoCons to an island, and let the one survivor get off?
    • rmxz, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3"self-deluded lapdogs like Rumsfeld look slightly more noble."

      I think you have it backwards. Rumsfeld and Cheney - both with long political careers - are running the country, and GWB's (who's main qualification was being related to another president) just along for the ride.
  • fndavid, on 05/28/2008, -2/+4I don't see this as an oppotunity for McClellan to make money, he's got plenty of it. Yeah he lied, deceived and in turn that led to unnecessary deaths, but you have to respect the courage to write this book and say, "I was wrong, I'm sorry, forgive me". I have to be sympathetic, only because everyone else in that godforsaken administration has their head to far up their ass they might as well be at a fettish convention.
  • usingpond, on 05/28/2008, -3/+10Wow, so he didn't even believe the ***** he was spewing while he was doing it? Douche.
  • totorototoro, on 05/28/2008, -3/+71) McClellan is a sleazy opportunist, who didn't speak up when he should have, which was at the peak of the War/Katrina disasters.
    2) That doesn't discount the impact of what he has to say now; I just saw Rove responding, and typically, he said what some of the Bush apologists here on Digg are whining about- "Why didn't Scott say something sooner?" as if that makes what Rove/Cheney/Libby did somehow more justifiable.
    3) Never liked McClellan when he was the mouthpiece for the administration, don't like him now as apologist author-but all he is doing is confirming what most people believed was happening at the time.
    • sa9e, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1On point 2: the fact that he didn't say it sooner, and is saying it now when Democrats are perfecting their anti-Bush narrative as a worthy basis for electing Obama, does detract from the legitimacy of the whole subject. Libby wasn't accused of participating in a conspiracy, he was accused of changing his story, a fairly weak charge. Armitage, a nominal Bush-foe, exposed Plame's name. That's the principle fact in the whole scandal, and McClellan barely notices it.
  • elliotys, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4The funny thing, is he could have come out saying that it was all bs at the time (which a lot of us already knew), and it wouldn't have changed a thing. Remember Dick Clark? If we didn't believe him, why would we believe anyone.
    • totorototoro, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2He does throw a great New Years bash though, have to give him that.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.