McClellan Pointing Finger At Bush

Why is it that when Scott McClennon (nice typo, btw) repeatedly, and obviously, lied to the press during his tenure, you refused to acknowledge it, but when he finally points the finger at your hero, all of the sudden he is a liar?

So… is he lying now or was he lying then?

He wouldn’t sell two books with the truth so he has to load it with lies to get the brain dead democrats to buy it. He simply misses his 15 minutes in the sun and is trying to relive it. Dumb enough to give him money, have at it.

OK I kind of answered a bit of my own question the release was a teaser, but from the MSNBC article:

McClellan’s book, “What Happened,” isn’t due out until April, and the excerpt released Monday was merely a teaser. It doesn’t get into detail about how Bush and Cheney were involved or reveal what happened behind the scenes.

So essentially MSNBC is using an out of context quote to advance an old agenda, specifically “Bush Lied”.

there actually are two conclusions possible based upon the factual information out there today. either bush new and lied, or he didn’t know. if he didn’t know then there is an entire apparatus at work in the white house that he is ignorant about. so…liar? or ignorant?

Thanks for helping me win a bet. I predicted that the first you would ever read about this in a right wing blog would be A: He’s either lying now or lying then which makes him, well, a liar. or B: He’s just trying to sell books. I didn’t expect that you would check both boxes with the same post.

First off Jay you are wrong the jury never found that the president lied. They found that Scooter Libby (who resigned after he was indicted) lied.

So I guess that makes you a liar, but let’s go beyond the fact that you are in fact both a liar and apparently a jackass and look at the rest of your contention.

The president never actually promised what you claim he promised. What he said was that anyone who was found guilty of leaking information would be fired. Later in an offhand remark leaving a press conference in response to a question he made the remark about “anyone involved”. That is hardly a promise and when taken in context of his other statements plainly means anyone found guilty. So again you are a liar.

As to the rest of your questions I don’t know what McClellan’s book says, so I can’t address that. But remember the Vice President is a separately elected official, he can’t be fired by the President. He can be impeached if there is evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor but remember that all the evidence that Patrick Fitzgerald presented showed that except for Libby’s interviews with the FBI (which resulted in his perjury and obstruction convictions) the actions taken, which you might find distasteful, were legal.

Thanks for playing.

Ring the bell and the Pavlovian left starts drooling.

I have more important things to do , like watching a turkey thaw.

Why don’t you Republicans just own up to the truth - you don’t care if Bush lied because he is a Republican. This is a sympton of a larger problem for the Republican party - the majority of the country finally figured out you guys are frauds. You claim to have strong principles when it suits your cause, but you don’t hold your own kind to any standards so long as they are in power. Bush lies repeatedly (Iraq WMDs, scope of NSA surveillance program, CIA leak, etc.), but you find any and every excuse to cling to the idea that he couldn’t have lied even though you wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about his affair. You claim to be fiscally responsible, but when you controlled Congress and the White House for the first time in decades you spent money like a “teenager with a credit card”. You claim to have higher morals, only to find out that you are a party of pedophiles (Foley), sexual deviants (Vitter, Craig) and crooks (Cunningham, Stevens, etc.). You claim to be Christians, but you are pro-war, favor tax cuts for the well off, disfavor any government program that is intended to help the less fortunate, and are filled with hate and anomisity for anyone that doesn’t agree with you (i.e. “liberals”). Do you honestly think that if Jesus was back on earth he would be cheering on the Iraq war, advocating larger tax cuts for the wealthy, advocating cutting programs for the poor, and preaching hate and anomisity toward homosexuals? The cats out of the bag - the rest of the country knows you guys are hypocrits and fruads. So why don’t you stop using tortured logic to justify Bush’s lies and just admit that you don’t care if he lies so long as it helps keep the Republicans in power. At least I’ll respect you for telling the truth for once!

Update at MSNBC:

MSNBC News Services
updated 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan does not believe President Bush lied to him about the role of White House aides I. Lewis Scooter Libby or Karl Rove in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity, according to McClellan’s publisher.

Peter Osnos, the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan’s book in April, tells NBC from his Connecticut home that McCLellan, “Did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him.”

Osnos says when McClellan went before the White House press corps in 2003 to publicly exonerate Libby and Rove, the problem was that his statement was not true. Osnos said the president told McClellan what “he thought to be the case.” But, he says, McClellan believes, “the president didn’t know it was not true.”

Osnos says the quotes which appeared on the Public Affairs Books website were part of the roll out of the book catalogues for the spring printings. And he says McClellan had not finished the manuscript for the memoir yet and was working under deadline to have the book completed for the April publishing.

Sorry to disappont the Salon readers.

Happy Thanksgiving! Gobble, Gobble.

Accountability is for the poor and powerless only.

BTW, nice job conman. That’s called hitting the nail on the head.
Just be ready for the classic Republican retort: I know you are, but what am I?

Called it. Quote taken out of context to sell the Bush Lied point.

Ha Ha. Good one Curt. I guess you missed the part where Fitz said that he couldn’t determine if a crime had occurred because of Libby’s criminal lying and obfuscation. Oh, I forgot, he has BDS too, right? You people are clowns, and your schtick would be pretty funny if the consequences weren’t so serious.

I am not quite sure what to make of it. Was the Emperor wearing clothes ? or not ?
In any case the days of the Bush presidency are numbered, and history (at least in my
lifetime) will not be kind to him.
But of course for the true believers Bush is perfection itself.
As for stopping BDS forget it at 67% of the population the epidemic stage gas long since been reached and it can’t be stopped. America hates him.

“Bush was not lying, but is such an incompetant leader that he has no idea what crimes are going on beneath him, makes no effort to get to the truth, and hold nobody accountable for their actions.”

Omigod! That is SO Reaganesque.

Don’t you guys get tired of rubbing that lamp and wishing really really hard? God knows the majority of Americans sure as hell are.

Oh… and as for “breaking Al Qaeda’s back”…. thanks for the renewed terrorism, guys:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0501/p99s01-duts.html

*golf clap*

Conservatives are required by Party Loyalty to always take whateve position is necessary that paints President Bush as the most saintly man to ever sit in the Oval Office

Speaking of rabid loyalty, how long was Susan MacDougal jailed? What is it about the clinton’s that have people serving prison sentences in their behalf??

philadelphiasteve - one of the reason why I don’t vote Dem in Philly any longer.

Ho Ho Ho! I’m making my list… checking it twice… Gonna find some lefties who’ve been naughty and not nice!

Jugger: Last time I checked, people who make statements like yours and Sal Bando above are committing transference.

I recommend you seek therapy for those anger management issues.

Hate ain’t pretty!

Good googly moogly, I just can’t figure this one out. Calling someone a liar for years and then, when that person says that he was lying, agreeing with him, dayum, there’s a head scratcher for you. How could that be? I’ll have to ask a local rentboy for his council on the matter.

Armitage outed Plame.
Armitage outed Plame.
Armitage outed Plame.

So did Rove.
So did Rove.
So did Rove.

So did Libby.
So did Libby.
So did Libby.

All at the behest of Cheney.
(x 3).

Scott Malensek,
Extra! Extra!
More than one person can commit a crime!
Get your news here!
More than one person can commit a crime!

(No, let’s not leave it at that. Let’s go after them hard, like we would if Bill Clinton’s Veep was behind an act of treason).

You boys just love you some rule of law…Sometimes!

Scott Malensek,
Do you REALLY believe only one person can commit a crime?
If so, what about the 19 hijackers on 9/11? Don’t you mean 4 hijackers? There were only 4 planes hijacked.

Armitage outed Plame.
Armitage outed Plame.
Armitage outed Plame.

So did Rove.
So did Rove.
So did Rove.

So did Libby.
So did Libby.
So did Libby.

At the behest of Cheney.
At the behest of Cheney.
At the behest of Cheney.

Extra! Extra!
More than one person can commit a crime!
Get your news here!
More than one person can commit a crime!

(No, let’s not leave it at that. Let’s go after them hard, like we would if Bill Clinton’s Veep was behind an act of treason).

You boys just love you some rule of law…Sometimes

“More than one person can commit a crime!
(No, let’s not leave it at that. Let’s go after them hard, like we would if Bill Clinton’s Veep was behind an act of treason).
You boys just love you some rule of law…Sometimes”

Once Plame was “outed”, that was it. It’s like breaking a vase. It’s broke. Her cover was broke. Armitage broke it. If anything, she and her hubby helped as much or more than anyone else. Sour grapes ain’t gonna make your pipedream fantasies of frogmarching Rove any more real.

As to the VP bit, are you referring to Vice President Gore’s illegal campaign fund raising (which Cheney’s opponents would have had him strung up for doing), or for VP Gore’s selling of satellite technology and ICBM guidance systems to the Chinese (again, something that VP Cheney’s opponents would have demanded his testicles for).

All this Rove, Libby, Bush bs is just more partisan BDS, and the proof is so simple to show. All one has to do is remove the names and replace with pronouns then see the response. For example:

If so-and-so reveals the name of a covert agent in a affidavit or transcribed investigation/interrogation, did they commit a crime; did the out an agent?
Rove didn’t do that
Libby didn’t do that
Bush didn’t do that
Armitage did
Sen Kerry did (hey BDS folk, did you vote for Sen Kerry?)
the list goes on.

If Vice President Cheney was caught using WH phones to get money from a Haliburton-like company in the UAE, would you be mad, cause, it seems yall are totally silent on Gore’s doing it with the Chinese.

BDS, pure and simple, and the ultimate proof is that you’ll whine about the war in Iraq, then pull the lever in the ballot booth for Hillary. That’s not patriotism or even honesty. It’s partisan loyalty akin to that of brown shirt socialists in the 30’s.

Um, Scotty’s STILL lying. He’s lying that he didn’t know he was lying about who leaked Plame’s name. Unless you want to admit he’s a fucking idiot?

Re: “Why don’t you Republicans just own up to the truth - you don’t care if Bush lied because he is a Republican.”

Absolutely true.

I have said before, and still maintain, that Republicans are overwhelmingly more loyal to their political party than they are to their country. And republicans prove this, over and over again.

There is absolutely nothing that George W. Bush can be found to have done that Republicans will not fall obediently in line and make every effort to pretect him from accountability, not matter what.

I’m sure glad to know how Jeff Gannon, “Hot Military Stud” weighs in on the issue.

Saying Armitage outed Plame and no other blame can be assigned is like saying the only person guilty of a gang-rape is the first one in. They all spilled the beans BEFORE Novak’s article went to press.

Re: “That’s wonderful! A dozen bi-partisan, independent, international investigations into Iraq intel, all show bad intel, weak intel, and no lies-not even undo pressure or manipulation, but the very same people who will vote for Hillary….rant away that “Bush lied.”"

Dead wrong.

Prior to the invasion, the Bush Administration had information that it witheld from the intelligence committes of Congress. This was secretly passed from the Iraqi Foreign minister, who reported that Saddam had no WMD’s. However President Bush both lied to America, and witheld this information from members of Congress (even though, in 2004 he declared that “Congress had the same information we had”).

Bush lied.

We went to war.

But not one single Conservative is permitted to admit this happened because every single one of them is more loyal to George W. Bush personally than they are to the United States of America. Without exception.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

In the period before the Iraq war, the CIA and the Bush administration erroneously believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding major programs for weapons of mass destruction. Now NBC News has learned that for a short time the CIA had contact with a secret source at the highest levels within Saddam Hussein’s government, who gave them information far more accurate than what they believed. It is a spy story that has never been told before, and raises new questions about prewar intelligence.

What makes the story significant is the high rank of the source. His name, officials tell NBC News, was Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister under Saddam. Although Sabri was in Saddam’s inner circle, his cosmopolitan ways also helped him fit into diplomatic circles.

Part 2 of post, where President Bush ignores CIa information he does not want, and witholds it from Congressional Intelligence Committee members.

This is how President bush launched his invasion, and why he conspired with Dick Cheney to ruin the career of Valerie Plame because of Joe Wilson’s (accurate) challenging of Bush Administration claims.

This is the man Conservatives continue to worship and protect, despite the thousands who have died and will continue to die for his deceit.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Salon_Former_CIA_officers_report_Bush_0906.html

Reporting in Salon, Blumenthal writes that according to his sources, two former CIA officers,”Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.”

Blumenthal also adds that the intelligence from that day was left out of the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which definitively stated that Iraq had WMD.

“The president had no interest in the intelligence,” a CIA officer disclosed. “Bush didn’t give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”

“No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq,” Blumenthal writes. “The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.”

Blumenthal’s sources confirm a 2006 interview with the CIA’s chief of clandestine operations for Europe, Tyler Drumheller, who told CBS’s 60 Minutes that his agency had received intelligence from Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, indicating Iraq possessed no WMD.

“[The two former CIA officers] have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it,” Blumenthal reports. “They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell.”

ahhhhhh Salon’s claim that there was dismissed pre-war intel. Ohhhhh, but the head of European CIA says so. Really? That’s interesting.

But ya did get one thing right…there was secret intel that the Bush Admin didn’t share with anyone until 2005/6:

“In September 2002, the CIA obtained, from a source, information that allegedly came from a high-level Iraqi official with direct access to Saddam Hussein and his inner circle. The information this source provided was considered so important and so sensitive that the CIA’s Directorate of Operations prepared a highly restricted intelligence report to alert senior policymakers about the reporting. Because of the sensitivity, however, that it was not disseminated to Intelligence Community analysts. The intelligence report conveyed information from the source attributed to the Iraqi official which said:”

▪ “Iraq was not in possession of a nuclear weapon. However, Iraq was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon. Saddam, irate that Iraq did not yet have a nuclear weapon because money was no object and because Iraq possessed the scientific know how, had recently called meeting his Nuclear Weapons Committee.”

▪ “The Committee told Saddam that a nuclear weapon would be ready within 18-24 months of acquiring the fissile material. The return of UN inspectors would cause minimal disruption because Iraq was expert at denial and deception.”

▪ “Iraq was currently producing and stockpiling chemical weapons

▪ “Iraqi scientists were dabbling with biological weapons with limited success, but the quantities were not sufficient to constitute a real weapons program.”

▪ “Iraq’s weapons of last resort were mobile launchers armed with chemical weapons which would be fired at enemy forces and Israel.”

-Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II pt2 report on “Pre-War Intelligence and Assessments”; “Additional Views” section, pg. 142

http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/11132007.htm

…and he turned out to be correct and.or close to correct on all parts.

The reason that the Bush Admin blew off the CIA’s source in Europe was because Germany, Italy, France, and others (including elements of UK govt) were feeding disinfo to US as late as 11/02 prior to the CIA’s presentation of it’s “Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2003″ report (presented in Jan 03).

Any diplomatic efforts after 31Jan 03-shy of complete acquiescence to the UN/US demands-were dismissed because at that point the war was militarily almost impossible to stop. Think of it as, ’sorry, you had 12year, 18 resolutions, thousands of inspections, and still refused to help prove your disarmament and compliance’(recall that Dr Blix’ 3/6/03 Unresolved Disarmament Issues Rpt flatly stated that the onus to prove disarmament and compliance was upon Iraq-not on inspectors. Inspectors were not supposed to be weapons hunters, but rather Monitors, Observers, and Verifiers of disarmament and compliance (hence UN M O V IC).

go back to Salon, get some new fiction.

Re: The reason that the Bush Admin blew off the CIA’s source in Europe was because Germany, Italy, France, and others (including elements of UK govt) were feeding disinfo to US as late as 11/02 prior to the CIA’s presentation of it’s “Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2003″ report (presented in Jan 03). ”

But they were right and President Bush was wrong. Even though neither he, nor a single Conservative is allowed to admit it.

Of course, Conservatives must still claim that this report is “Liberally biased”, despite this item:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq’s illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq’s weapons programs, said Hussein’s ability to produce nuclear weapons had “progressively decayed” since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of “concerted efforts to restart the program.”

The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

Duelfer’s report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government’s most definitive accounting of Hussein’s weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer’s assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.

“We were almost all wrong” on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.

But I’m sure that Conservatives are still required to believe “the WMD’s are in Syria”, because The World Tribune says so.

Re: “Any diplomatic efforts after 31Jan 03-shy of complete acquiescence to the UN/US demands-were dismissed because at that point the war was militarily almost impossible to stop.”

A US invasion of Iraq was almost impossible to stop starting in January 2001, when George w. Bush took the oath of office as President. This is a war he wanted from Day-One. It is the war he got. It is also the war he botched, at the loss of thousands of lives and $3 billion a week, far into the future.

But not one single Conservative here is allowed, due to total Republican Party loyalty above that to their country, to admit the degree to which George w. Bush’s incompetent management of the occupation has harmed our country. Not one.

Re: Yah that’s sad for your country, man, you can never learn from your mistakes if you never admit to them….and I mean does the Republican party really, really think there were no mistakes made during this whole fiasco??”

Yes, they do believe that no one in theBush administration MADE any mistakes. Mistakes fell from the sky, and no one is accountable, especially “The Decider”.

That is what it means to be a Republican: You are loyal to your Party and your Party’s President, far beyond any loyalty to your country or your conscience (if you have one).

Re: “Jeff Gannon what a joke using his name come on now get serious we still remember who he is.”

We might. However we are those “evil” outsiders who actrually remmeber what happened the day before yesterday.

republican Party Loyal Conservatives are required to forget everythig that ever happened and only know what is told to them via approved channels TODAY.

That is why Conservatives are High-Five’ing themselves becaue the civil war in Iraq is “only” at the level it was in 2005, as though that is great progress. Remembering the promises of the Bush Administration from 2003 (”If we are in Iraq more than six months, that will be too long”, Donald Rumsfeld) is verboten.

Now the Loyal Bushies are discussing what a great idea it would be to do a soft partition of Iraq into three regions: An idea they declared “DOA” when Democrat Joe Biden proposed it in 2004-2005. Conservatives must pretend that George W. Bush thought of this idea himself, originally, yesterday evening.

Re: “We’ve shown you time and again Steve with links and quotes how wrong you are.”

When your “proof” comes from World Net or Jeff Gannon, then we do question your veracity. That’s like the NY Times checking on Dick Cheney’s truthfulness about Saddam’s WMD’s by calling Scooter Libby.