I’m not a big fan of ABC correspondent Jake Tapper. I knew the guy in college, back when he was a mindless blowhard, drawing a very liberal daily comic strip in between making midnight bongs out of soda cans. But I have to admit he scored a major zing! with today’s research work on former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, whose tell-all book is sending the network newscasters into paroxysms of anti-Bush cackling.
Apparently, McClellan voted against anti-Administration tell-all authors before he became one:
On the book critical of the Bush White House written in cooperation with former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill,” McClellan said on January 12, 2004:
McCLELLAN: “It appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people.”
McClellan also took issue with the book by former Bush White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror,” on March 22, 2004:
McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. …
Q: Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors.
McCLELLAN: Yes, and that’s just flat-out wrong. …When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it’s important that we set the record straight. And that’s what we’re doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today.
Yep. That’s the idea.
Is anyone even remotely aware that President Bush will no longer be in office after -oh say- November?
Who knows… with the losers in the race for office right now… maybe Bush will be re-elected. It appears that all the candidates are running against him.
Chris
So where was this McClellan guy back in 2002 when a MAJORITY of (educated) Americans were against this war? Where was he when almost EVERY SINGLE European country’s citizens (including England and Italy, whose gov’t kisses GWB’s butt) protested this war? Where was he in 2003, almost a year later when all the major analysts and pundits declared this war to be a “disaster” from which the US will never recover (in economy, world view, etc)? Where was he when they were bombing the HELL out of Baghdad, displacing countless Iraqi civilians?
He can say what he wants right now, when it’s so EASY to Bush-bash when everyone else is, but he still is a war criminal and has Iraqi blood on his hands.
Wow, its almost exactly what people are saying about him today.
So according to ss, if you were for the war, you’re uneducated. “Declared this war to be a “disaster” from which the US will never recover”. Have you picked up a newspaper, or been anywhere else on this internet thingy besides Huffington Post since 2003? Maybe it’s time some of “you types” get a new script.
I am guessing you’re one of the uneducated types who was for the war. And what good did it brong us? Why did we go in to Iraq to begin with? ABSOLUTELY you were uneducated if you were for the war in 2002. Uneducated, hateful, bigoted, and greedy. In other words: a Republican. No one looked at any facts before going in. This McClennan guy coming out if proof of this. LOOK AT US NOW! Everyone who was for the was reacted because they were emotional over 9-11 (as they should be), but they never went to the root of the problem.
Oh and FYI: I don’t read the Huffington Post at all. I read CNN, BBC, Chicago Tribune, the AP and Deceiver
To be fair to the guy, one of the things he talks about is how much the other people lied to him so he couldn’t slip up. When you think about how secretive the muckety-mucks in this administration have been that’s hardly surprising. Also, I knew some people who worked in the White House during Bush’s first term. Before any meeting with the prez, underlings’ views were vetted for appropriateness. If the Svengalis *cough*Rove*cough* didn’t like their ideas/FACTS, they were not given a chance to talk in the actual meeting. If they broke this rule, they were not invited to future meetings. As far as they could tell, even the prez didn’t know this was his policy. So before y’all get up on your high horses, keep in mind that a) he probably wasn’t well-informed himself (would you tell everything to the guy who has to keep his composure before the press corps?) and b) even if he said anything, do you really think they paid the slightest bit of attention?
before the mud-slinging begins, i’m a dyed in the wool democrat peacenik. i just don’t like demagogues of any stripe.
“Uneducated, hateful, bigoted, and greedy. In other words: a Republican.” Not very tolerant.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30118_The_Soros-McClellan_Connection
Never said I was tolerant of hate and xenophobia
I tolerate my hair but I hate it. And I’m really xenophobic about where I get my bottled water. Like, I’ll NEVER buy Poland Springs.