Former aide McClellan scathingly attacks George W. Bush in book

[04SCTLS]

Ex-White House press secretary says he was misled over Plame – and so was the press and public.
Photo: AP
Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent | May 28, 2008

ONE of George W. Bush's most loyal former aides, Scott McClellan, has launched a blistering attack on the President, saying Mr Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the Iraq war and that the administration has "veered terribly off course".
In a new book, Mr McClellan, Mr Bush's former press spokesman and who had been by his side since his days as Texas governor, said the President was not "open and forthright on Iraq" and he had not served the US well as a wartime leader.

"I still like and admire President Bush," Mr McClellan writes in What Happened - Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, "but he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candour and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war.

"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."

He adds Mr Bush was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those “involved directly in national security," in a swipe at first-term national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who now serves as Secretary of State and remains Mr Bush's closest confidante.

While Mr McClellan also described Mr Bush as "sincere" and "authentic", his critique has stunned administration's insiders, and likely the President himself, who instils an intense sense of loyalty in his staff.

This is the most openly critical book of the Bush years from someone who has been so close to him during the White House years.

At one point, Mr McClellan also discusses rumours of Mr Bush's possible cocaine use in his younger days _ a charge that dogged him on the campaign trail for the presidency in 1999. Despite public denials, Mr McClellan says Mr Bush told him privately he "could not remember" if he used it.

"I remember thinking to myself, how can that be?" Mr McClellan writes. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

Mr Bush, he said, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie.

"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," he writes.

"And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious - political convenience."

He described this "penchant for self-deception" would have devastating consequences in the US's foreign policy _ saying Mr Bush was too "stubborn to change and grow" in the White House.

When Mr McClellan resigned in April 2006 after three years as press secretary, Mr Bush noted that "one of these days, he and I are going to be rocking on chairs in Texas, talking about the good old days".

That would appear less likely now. His book is in stark contrast to his years as a spokesman when he was admired by Mr Bush for his willingness to obfuscate from the White House podium, so much so that he was dubbed the "Unanswer Man" by The Washington Post.

But at just 40, Mr McClellan is now playing a textbook Washington game. By spilling some beans on administration as it winds down, he is looking to sell some books while also trying to distance himself from his former employer whose popularity with the American people continues to sag.

The 341-page book also offers, for example, a scathing analysis of the President's response to Hurricane Katrina which wiped out parts of New Orleans in August 2005.

He said the White House "spent most of the first week in a state of denial".

One of the worst images of the crisis for the President was a photo of Mr Bush surveying from the window of Air Force One as he flew over the city.

Mr McClellan puts the blame for that disastrous piece of political imagery squarely at the feet of Karl Rove, the former White House aide to Mr Bush who the President once dubbed the "architect" of his political success.

"One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency,” he writes.

​

 

[fossten]

What a hypocrite. He goes from political whore/spearcatcher to political assassin-for-cash.

"Le-hew...ze-hyer!"

-- Ace Ventura, Pet Detective

 

[MonsterMark]

Sold out to the liberals for a $3/book royalty.

Never liked the puss anyway.

Of course, they won't publish anything McClellan had nice to say about Bush.
CNN does a 1 hour hit piece on Bush last night based on the book. Way to research the facts. Only took CNN 4 hours to take a position after the release on Politico the same day. What a surprise.

 

[Joeychgo]

Scott McClellan, one of the Texans who came to Washington with President George W. Bush, spent a long time defending the administration but now has concluded this his longtime employer misled the nation into an unneeded war in Iraq.

"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided -- that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder," Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, writes in his book, What Happened, which will be released on Monday. Subtitle: Washington's Culture of Deception.

"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,'' he writes in the preface of the book. "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.''

"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path -- not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he writes of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

McClellan writes that Bush's top advisers, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "played right into his thinking, doing little to question it or cause him to pause long enough to fully consider the consequences before moving forward.

"Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded," he writes.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/bushs_culture_of_deception_spo.html



Let me ask you guys something. Have you really questioned if YOUR wrong about Bush and not everyone else?? Notice that if anyone, no matter who, says anything about Bush they have to be a "Bush Hater" or "Sold out to the liberals" or "Hipocrite"?

70% of the country thinks, and has for some time thought, Bush led us into a war we shouldnt be in, done little to successfully help for the economy and in general been a terrible president.

Do you really think that 70% is COMPLETELY wrong? You might be right that some things are blown out of proportion by the liberal media or whatever, but facts are facts, and every time I fill my gas tank I have a great reminder of how GW has done as President.

Guys, open your eyes. This guy hasn't done much of ANYTHING positive.

Oh, and before you tell me about how he's secured the country -- keep something in mind... Those additional gas prices are going STRAIGHT to the people that want to do nothing but harm us. SO while they are stockpiling our dollars, where do you think they will spend that money in the future?

 

[MonsterMark]

Joey, when you are capable of admitting that over 70% of the COUNTRY WAS IN FAVOR OF GOING TO WAR, including yourself, then you will have regained credibility on this issue.

Just admit it. You were in favor. So was America.

When the WMD finally do show up in Syria, what are you going to say?

And what are you saying right now about Iran and the fact that the IAEA says they are being duped by Iran and Iran is creating a lot of weapons grade material?

We haven't been attacked again. You should be thanking President Bush every night you lay your head on that nice fluffy pillow.

Saddam was dealt with.
Osama lives in a cave. (actually he's dead)
Europe moved to the right the past 4 years.
N. Korea has been stalemated.
Iran will get it's comeuppance shortly.

You should be thankful of Bush, not spiteful of him.

 

[shagdrum]

[Bush]done little to successfully help for the economy and in general been a terrible president.

Bush's tax cuts didn't help the economy?

Also, where is the justification for blaming economic woes on the president, when that office, by design, has next to no influence over the economy. Joey, I know you are informed well enough to know that, so you don't get a pass for being ignorant enough to think that.

To tie economic woes to Bush, you have to be able to tie those economic woes to specific legislation signed by Bush and made law that has hurt the economy enough to cause (or largely contribute) to the economic woes. You cannot make that connection. The only connection I can think of off the top of my head is Bush's tax cuts, which if anything had a positive impact on the economy.

It seems you are reaching...

Do you really think that 70% is COMPLETELY wrong?

Are you really making an argument based on peer pressure?!

...every time I fill my gas tank I have a great reminder of how GW has done as President...Those additional gas prices are going STRAIGHT to the people that want to do nothing but harm us. SO while they are stockpiling our dollars, where do you think they will spend that money in the future?

You are blaming Bush for the high gas prices?! What justification is there for that?!

You can blame Congress,you can blame the speculators, you can blame OPEC, you can even blame the oil companies for lobbying Congress to pass the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000; which Congress passed and Clinton signed into law. The one person you cannot blame is Bush; he has been saying we need to drill and explore for oil all along. In regards to oil prices he is the one person who has been consistent and economically realistic.

Debating the decision to go into Iraq is one thing, but trying to blame Bush for the economy in general and the oil prices in particular is a gross exaggeration based either on ignorance or a dishonest attempt to attach blame to Bush for something he has no control over, and I know you are not ignorant on this issue...

 

[Joeychgo]

I can make the connection simply.

Bush had 6 years with a republican congress, only a little more then a year with democrat congress.

The value of the dollar is terrible;
Gas prices are stifling; Record Gas prices for 21 straight days now;
Food Prices climbing;
Housing markets are crashing - Home values are dropping like rocks;
Sales are at nearly a 17 year low;
Consumer Confidence is at a 16 year low;
Credit is tight - to say the least;
National Debt is out of control;
The DJIA is down considerably in the last year;
Feburary Job losses the worst in 5 years;

What is so good about the economy? What has GW done so stop ANY of it?

When President Bush took office on January 20, 2001, the national average gas price was $1.46 per gallon. Six and a half years later, on August 27, 2007, the national average gas price had jumped to $2.76, roughly 89% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 10% jump each year Bush has been in office. They now are at a national average of $3.94 a gallon!

Here is a good graph to illustrate:

So -- Who should I look to blame? Everyone EXCEPT for Bush like you guys?

 

[shagdrum]

I can make the connection simply. Bush had 6 years with a republican congress, only a little more then a year with democrat congress.

That's Congress, not the president. The president, by design, doesn't have much power domestically, especially when it comes to the economy. Constitutionally, the focus of the Presidency is largely on foreign policy while the focus of Congress is domestic, by and large.

You keep thinking that because Bush and congress were the same party for 6 years that it makes a connection; it doesn't. Just because they are from the same party doesn't mean that they are on the same page and that there can't be gridlock. Look at the immigration thing, for example.

Congressmen and Senators have different voter bases then the President, and are on different political cycles. Presidents are term limited, while Congressmen and Senators are not. Presidents are also much more the focus of the media and much more held responsible for things then Congressmen or Senators (even when whatever thing they are being held responsible for is beyond their power). Congress is also much more prone to influence by lobbyists, as well.

You still need to make the connection.

The value of the dollar is terrible;

Not Bush's fault

Gas prices are stifling; Record Gas prices for 21 straight days now;

Not Bush's fault

Food Prices climbing;

partly attributable to Bush, through the bio fuels shame. Gas prices also effect this greatly, and that isn't Bush.

Housing markets are crashing - Home values are dropping like rocks;
Sales are at nearly a 17 year low;

Not Bush

Consumer Confidence is at a 16 year low;

Not Bush

Credit is tight - to say the least;

Not Bush

National Debt is out of control;

Forgot about that one. You have a point there, sir.

The DJIA is down considerably in the last year;

Not Bush

Feburary Job losses the worst in 5 years;

Not Bush

What is so good about the economy?

Never said the economy was in good shape; just said it wasn't Bush's fault and you are reaching to make that connection (which you are further demonstrating in this post)

What has GW done so stop ANY of it?

What power does Bush, as president, have to stop any of it? He can Veto some things (though not the Budget).

You are attempting to move the goalposts here to an unrealistic, irrationally high level, given the way our government interacts with the economy. Basically, anything negative that happens in the economy, you attribute to Bush.

When President Bush took office on January 20, 2001, the national average gas price was $1.46 per gallon. Six and a half years later, on August 27, 2007, the national average gas price had jumped to $2.76, roughly 89% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 10% jump each year Bush has been in office. They now are at a national average of $3.94 a gallon!

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 was passed on December 20th of 2000, by Bill Clinton! One month later, Bush took office. The Act didn't have any effect until the Bush years; hardly Bush's fault.

Also, that 89% figure is worthless and misleading. Looking at the nominall price is worthless. Real values adjust for inflation and represent the actual purchasing power of the value. The lower line of your graph best represents the true increase in gas prices. That 89% figure is misleading as it focuses on nominal values and effectively exaggerates the price increase; it is worthless.

So -- Who should I look to blame? Everyone EXCEPT for Bush like you guys?

Blame the people responsible for the problem; not someone you wish was responsible for the problem.

You are setting the expectations to high here, and I think you know it. All you have done is listed examples of how the economy is in dire straits. You haven't drawn any connection to Bush except to say "he hasn't stopped it", Which is absurd. The presidency isn't a monarchy; Bush hardly has the power to effect all the things you listed in any way. You know this, but keep wanting to ignore it.

In fact, in the few instances where you have touched on something that Bush had a hand in (food prices and government spending), I have been the one to show the connection to Bush, not you. Most of what you listed Bush had nothing to do with.

None of what Bush has (or hasn't) done had a huge enough effect on the economy to push us into recession, as you imply. In fact, during most of Bush's term, the economy has been growing. Now it is going back into recession. Can't blame Bush for natural market cycles.

You also seem incapable of giving credit where credit is due when it comes to Bush; namely the tax cuts and advocating oil exploration (which you have said in another thread that you support).

 

[fossten]

Joey,

I, like you, believe the war in Iraq was unnecessary. However, we're there. We should finish it. Quickly.

Bush's tax cuts helped the country. This is undeniable. It's pure economics. Your governor's punitive tax policy has destroyed your state. Bush had nothing to do with that.

The value of the dollar cannot be laid solely at the feet of Bush. He's merely following a mentality that a dozen other Presidents have followed. The federal reserve is the real problem, and it's not going away until the entire economy crashes and everybody has to use real gold and silver to survive. This financial house of cards has been a cancer for a hundred years and is now becoming an open wound. Furthermore, there is no presidential candidate besides Ron Paul who wants to change it.

Bush tried to get drilling in ANWR passed, Congress stopped it by 1 vote. Bush is in favor of more energy independence. Gas prices are not his fault.

You also seem incapable of giving credit where credit is due when it comes to Bush; namely the tax cuts and advocating oil exploration (which you have said in another thread that you support).

He's really got you by the balls there, Joey.

You're a businessman, you should understand business cycles and recessions by now. They have happened since forever, and the President cannot do anything about them. You saying that it's Bush's fault that people overleveraged themselves in mortgages?

You know that I've been very vocal in my criticisms of Bush when I feel he's deserved it. What I've never seen is you saying one good thing about Bush. You're projecting your BDS into a reverse accusation against us.

 

[Joeychgo]

Joey,

I, like you, believe the war in Iraq was unnecessary. However, we're there. We should finish it. Quickly.

Bush's tax cuts helped the country. This is undeniable. It's pure economics. Your governor's punitive tax policy has destroyed your state. Bush had nothing to do with that.

I agree we should finish the war and do so quickly. My personal criticism of GW on that point hasnt so much been that we shouldnt have gone to war per se, its that once we did, he screwed it up. I always felt his publically stated reasons for going to war were BS, but figured there were good reasons behind the scenes, such as wanting to pressure and intimidate Iran.

The tax cuts may have helped the country in the short term - but they have created long term debt that will harm us more over time. The cuts were good, but most of that good was offset by continued deficit spending.

The Ill gov is a putz, we can surely agree on that and I hope they indict him and get him outta here soon.

I do give him credit for advocating more oil exploration. HOWEVER, where I have a problem with him on that issue is that I fully believe he could get it done if he wanted to bad enough. He has forced a number of things to happen. i.e. the war, the patriot act, etc.. And the expansion of presidential powers has been big on his agenda. SO why couldnt he make increased oil exploration happen while he had a republican controlled congress?

Where is the leadership with the economy?

And I'm not projecting my "BDS" - I'm actually concerned that GW's legacy is going to be Obama winning the election.

 

[04SCTLS]

Flack AttackScott McClellan burns the Bush administration.

By John Dickerson
Posted Wednesday, May 28, 2008, at 8:07 PM ET

Now he tells us. Scott McClellan's memoir offers more candor in a chapter than he let loose during his three years as the president's spokesman. Often kept in the dark by his boss and, at least in one case, deliberately sent out to mislead the public by his superiors, McClellan writes as if he went home after he left the White House in 2006 and purged. Disgorged onto the pages of What Happened, due out next week, are all of the emotions, regret, and doubt that apparently bottled up even as he eternally presented a sunny, largely unflappable demeanor while on the job selling the president's policies.
Because McClellan was such a team player, the book comes as a bit of a shock to those of us who covered the White House during his tenure. Yes, I knew he was angry at Karl Rove and Scooter Libby for using him to spread the falsehood that they had no role in the CIA leak case. That's in the book: "Top White House officials who knew the truth—including Rove, Libby, and possibly Vice President Cheney—allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie." But the denunciation expands from there, and it's that breadth I never thought that his memoir would offer. McClellan outlines the "obfuscation, dissembling, and lack of intellectual honesty that helped take our country into the war in Iraq." He suggests the president and his aides were in permanent campaign mode, putting politics above principle, and chronicles how a "state of denial" led to the mishandling of the response to Hurricane Katrina. (He also includes a critique of the press, which he says acted as "deferential, complicit enablers" of Bush administration "propaganda.")

In small ways, McClellan still seems at times like he's working for Bush, correcting misperceptions about the president's smarts and absolving him of intentional wrongdoing in the leak matter. But on all the major fronts, the president is still his biggest target. McClellan had worked for Bush since the president was Texas governor, and so he can show us how the scales gradually fell from his eyes over time. In one bizarre episode, during the period of Bush's presidential campaign when the press was constantly chasing rumors about his possible cocaine use, McClellan hears a conversation in which Bush tells a friend that he can't remember if he tried cocaine when he was younger. At the time, McClellan wonders how the then-governor could not remember such a thing but portrays it now as the first inkling of Bush's penchant for self-deception.

In general, McClellan describes the president as someone who lacks inquisitiveness and is also deceitfully self-delusional. Long money quote: "As I worked closely with President Bush, I would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment. It is not unlike a witness in court who does not want to implicate himself in wrongdoing, but is also concerned about perjuring himself. So he says, 'I do not recall.' The witness knows no one can get into his head and prove it is not true, so this seems like a much safer course than actually lying. Bush, similarly, has a way of falling back on the hazy memory defense to protect himself from potential political embarrassment. Bush rationalizes it as being acceptable because he is not stating unequivocally anything that could be proven false. If something later is uncovered to show what he knew, then he can deny lying in his own mind."
McClellan's account adds another set of insider anecdotes to the already heaping stack built by previous Bush officials and advisers. Paul O'Neill first described the president's blindness to inconvenient facts six years ago when he talked about Bush's lack of appetite for "analytical rigor, sound information-gathering techniques and real, cost-benefit analysis." The list of administration officials turned bashers includes John Dilulio, Larry Wilkerson, Rand Beers, Richard Clarke, David Kuo, Paul Pillar, and Matthew Dowd

More at http://www.slate.com/id/2192266/pagenum/2/

_________________________________________________________________

This line says it all about Bush:

Paul O'Neill first described the president's blindness to inconvenient facts six years ago when he talked about Bush's lack of appetite for "analytical rigor, sound information-gathering techniques and real, cost-benefit analysis."

The man lives in a world of wishful thinking.
Not quite "Being There" but close

 

[shagdrum]

The tax cuts may have helped the country in the short term - but they have created long term debt that will harm us more over time.

Actually, if anything, the tax cuts have helped offset the debt some; as the tax cuts increased tax revenue in the long run (as they usually do).

The cuts were good, but most of that good was offset by continued deficit spending.

Bush did have a hand in the increased debt, but that is more Congress then him; they control the purse strings, and they pass the budget.

The Ill gov is a putz, we can surely agree on that and I hope they indict him and get him outta here soon.

I read an article recently that says 20% of the price of gas in Chicago is taxes while it is around 13-14% around the nation. I think the article said that Chicago is even higher then New York and California.

He has forced a number of things to happen. i.e. the war, the patriot act, etc.. And the expansion of presidential powers has been big on his agenda.

He didn't "force" anything. He sold it and got people on board. The war and the patriot act passed through Congress and the nation overwhelmingly supported goin into Iraq.

The has been some expansion of power under Bush, but a lot of that is hype without much substance. The FISA stuff, for example.

SO why couldn't he make increased oil exploration happen while he had a republican controlled congress?

You are putting too much emphasis on the republican congress. I pointed out how the president has a different voter base then congress, is term limited, has more media scrutiny and has a different political focus. The president is there for only 4-8 years, while Congress is there for decades; different career outlooks. The republican congress and the president were on the same page on a few issues, but on many others they weren't; that is blatantly obvious and shows that the fact that both Bush and Congress were from the same party is not as strong a connection as you are trying to make it. Just because you think it is a strong connection doesn't mean it is. The reality of what Bush and Congress did and didn't get done shows that the connection is not that strong. Gridlock can still happen; as did on the immigration issue.

Congress is also much more prone to lobbyists; the lobbyists focus their efforts mostly there. The oil drilling issue is a prime example of that. The enviro-lobby is huge and has a large amount of influence in Congress.

 

[fossten]

I do give him credit for advocating more oil exploration. HOWEVER, where I have a problem with him on that issue is that I fully believe he could get it done if he wanted to bad enough. He has forced a number of things to happen. i.e. the war, the patriot act, etc.. And the expansion of presidential powers has been big on his agenda. SO why couldnt he make increased oil exploration happen while he had a republican controlled congress?

Where is the leadership with the economy?

And I'm not projecting my "BDS" - I'm actually concerned that GW's legacy is going to be Obama winning the election.

I actually agree with you there - the President has the bully pulpit, and if he really wanted to, he could have twisted some arms and gotten the ANWR votes. Very good point, Joey. And I sympathize with your feelings about his legacy being Obama winning. Allow me to expand on that and say that his legacy is the likely election of either Obama or McCain, either of which will damage this country.

 

[Joeychgo]

Exactly. GW, during his first term, could have got almost anything done had he put the weight of the White House behind the task. He hand picked only certain things, such as Iraq, and them mismanaged those things.

Shagdrum, you make the President sound as if he is all but powerless on domestic issues. You know that not to be true.

What I dont think you "Bush Loyalists" realize is that GW may very well be the reason you DON'T get a conservative president this time around.

Call it anything you like, but with 70% of the country thinking poorly of GW, even McCain will have to distance himself from Bush. And even with that, there will be a presumption that McCain will follow Bush as a fellow republican.

 

[fossten]

Exactly. GW, during his first term, could have got almost anything done had he put the weight of the White House behind the task. He hand picked only certain things, such as Iraq, and them mismanaged those things.

Shagdrum, you make the President sound as if he is all but powerless on domestic issues. You know that not to be true.

What I dont think you "Bush Loyalists" realize is that GW may very well be the reason you DON'T get a conservative president this time around.

Call it anything you like, but with 70% of the country thinking poorly of GW, even McCain will have to distance himself from Bush. And even with that, there will be a presumption that McCain will follow Bush as a fellow republican.

Joey, I've figured it out. I actually think what you're saying is accurate, it's just the name calling that's off putting. But when I edit that out, I can't argue with what you're saying.

 

[Joeychgo]

er - what name calling? "Bush Loyalists" ?

 

[fossten]

er - what name calling? "Bush Loyalists" ?

Yeah, it's inaccurate. There aren't many conservs on this forum that are totally loyal to Bush. When you say that I wonder who you're even talking to.

 

[fossten]

From the Politico...

Bob Dole unloads on McClellan

Bob Dole yesterday sent a scalding email to Scott McClellan, excoriating the former White House spokesman as a "miserable creature" who greedily betrayed his former patron for a fast buck.

In an extraordinary message obtained and authenticated by Politico, Dole uses his trademark biting wit to portray McClellan as a classic Washington opportunist.

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

Michael Marshall, Dole's spokesman and colleague at the Alston Bird law firm, confirms the message came from the former senator and presidential candidate. "Yes, it is authentic," Marshall wrote in an email.

"In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you," Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate. "No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years"

Dole assures McClellan that he won't read the book -- "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job"

"That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively," Dole concludes. "You’re a hot ticket now but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"

He signs the email simply: "BOB DOLE"

****************************

Let the ED jokes begin.

 

[Joeychgo]

Yeah, it's inaccurate. There aren't many conservs on this forum that are totally loyal to Bush. When you say that I wonder who you're even talking to.

Easy - I'm talking to the "Bush Loyalists" -- You know, the ones that defend bush at every turn no matter what?



Let me point out one more thing... If McClellen's book was full of lies - dont you think someone would have filed a lawsuit for libel? That tells me there has to be some truth and basis for things in the book.

 

[shagdrum]

Exactly. GW, during his first term, could have got almost anything done had he put the weight of the White House behind the task. He hand picked only certain things, such as Iraq, and them mismanaged those things.

That is a gross exaggeration. You are making too much out of the fact that Bush and Congress were of the same part for six years, when reality shows that other factors (some of which I have mentioned) have played a large enough part to counter that. The oil thing and the immigration thing are prime examples of him not getting something done even though he pushed it heavily. You make it sound as if he is all powerful. Just because a president puts his weight behind something and has a Congress of the same party doesn't mean he can get that thing passed. I have spelled out for you some of the reasons why, given you examples, and all you do is keep asserting your irrational view here.

In addition to the oil thing and the immigration thing under Bush, you have health care under Clinton, Carter trying to reduce pork barrel spending, The Dubai Ports deal under Bush, Carter's Consumer Protection Bill and Labor Reform, social security under Bush and the proposed gay marriage amendment under Bush to name a few examples.

Bush is not responsible for actions taken (or not taken) by Congress. No amount of assertion on your part can change that.

Also, any president has to "hand pick" certain issues to push; no presidency can address all the issues it feels need addressing, let alone all the issues you feel need addressing. Be realistic here.

Shagdrum, you make the President sound as if he is all but powerless on domestic issues. You know that not to be true.

No, I am not saying that; you are mischaracterizing me. I am putting his power in context, constitutionally, and realistically. Where is the presidents power strongest, and who has the most domestic power? Compared to his foreign power, the president has little domestic power. Also compared to Congress, the president has little domestic power.

Cite the bully pulpit all you want, but you can't get around the fact that, even with the bully pulpit, the president still has to go through congress to get anything done, domestically. He has to get them to take action; no direct power over legislation in Congress.

For the bully pulpit to be effective, you have to be able to use it effectively, like Reagan. Bush has show that, with rare exceptions, he isn't to effective with the bully pulpit.

Probably one of the biggest factors in dealing with Congress is the Presidents working relationship with them. LBJ and FDR had great working relationships with them; LBJ in particular used to work in Congress and was a taskmaster there. He knew the ins and outs of getting bills passed from his years of experience there. Nixon was even rather successful at getting legislation passed due to his experience there, even though he had an opposition Congress.

Bush has never had a great working relationship with Congress. To get his tax agenda passed, Bush had to conduct "town hall-style" public meetings to gain public support and counter opposition in Congress. Since 9/11, his administration has necessarily been more focused on foreign policy issues; namely the war in terror. Focusing too much on domestic policy would detract from that.

When presidents have high poll numbers, they carry more sway in Congress (FDR, in part). As you love to point out Bush's poll number haven't been that great.

In modern times, the media plays a large roll too. Is the president getting positive or negative press? On what issues? Is the president able to get his message through the media to the people effectively? There have been a number of occasions that most of the media has not carried presidential speeches by Bush that they should have; only to summarize the speech (and often misrepresent it) later in the nightly broadcast.

I actually had to write a paper on this very issue of the scope of presidential domestic power this past semester in my U.S. Presidency class. Unfortunately I had to wipe my hard drive last week and don't have the paper anymore; otherwise I would send it to you.

What I don't think you "Bush Loyalists" realize is that GW may very well be the reason you DON'T get a conservative president this time around.

He is one of the big reasons, or more accurately the negative hype surrounding him is one of the big reasons; maybe the biggest.

Call it anything you like, but with 70% of the country thinking poorly of GW, even McCain will have to distance himself from Bush. And even with that, there will be a presumption that McCain will follow Bush as a fellow republican.

That is a definite issue that McCain will have to deal with.

The fact that Bush and Congress were of the same political party for six years (which you over emphasis) is only one among a number of issues that effect how well presidents can effect domestic policy through congress. Term limits, different political cycles, responsibility, different voter bases and lobbyist influence already put the office of the president at odds with Congress. The presidents working relationship with congress, hostile or positive press, poll numbers, and other factors play a big part in how effective the president is in effecting legislation. Really, can you think of any president more effective at broadly effecting domestic policy then FDR or LBJ? They both had a number of other factors working in their favor besides a Congress that was of the same political affiliation; most notably a strong working relationship with Congress.


You can't blame Bush for not addressing all the issues you feel he should, considering the various political, constitutional, PR and time constraints on the Bush Administration, among other constraints. Most often, no president, regardless of party affiliation of him or of Congress, is ever as effective in the area of domestic policy as you are saying Bush should be. Your expectations have to be realistic and from what you have posted here, it seems they aren't.

 

[shagdrum]

If McClellen's book was full of lies - dont you think someone would have filed a lawsuit for libel? That tells me there has to be some truth and basis for things in the book.

The fact that there are no lawsuits for libel against McClellen says nothing about the factual or fallacious content of the book.

The legal threshold for proving libel in court is rather high due to the First Amendment. The legal threshold for proving libel of a public figure is a lot higher then for a private citizen, as well. It is really hard to prove in court, and in the case of this book and who it discusses, is next to impossible to prove.

You have to be able to prove "malicious intent" (or some similar wording) for libel of a public figure to stick.

 

[shagdrum]

Easy - I'm talking to the "Bush Loyalists" -- You know, the ones that defend bush at every turn no matter what?

Names!

 

[04SCTLS]

some fun from the cartoonists

 

[shagdrum]

Not the biggest fan of O'Reily (too self-aggrandizing), but this was an interesting article...

http://www.billoreilly.com/column;jsessionid=B075B3FACC53CCD6CBA473189A256CC3?pid=23632

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, May 29, 2008
This just in: Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan has written a new book that hammers President Bush! Among other things, McClellan says Mr. Bush did not handle Hurricane Katrina correctly, botched the Iraq war which never should have been fought in the first place, and partied hard as a young guy.

That sounds like it's worth $30, does it not?

But the far-left media is swooning. Yeah, baby, a former Bush guy coming clean. Can't get enough of that!

Some inside baseball: Last November, Factor producers contacted McClellan's "people" about the book and were assured the author would be anxious to appear on my program since it routinely sells a ton of books. Great.

But now old Scott has had second thoughts, and has booked himself on every far-left venue around, avoiding your humble correspondent. Interesting. Maybe that's because McClellan knows that in April of 2007, he appeared on Bill Maher's program still supporting the Iraq action. On that show, former Senator Bill Bradley actually got annoyed with McClellan for his hawkish stance.

But that was then.

McClellan's former boss, Ari Fleischer, says that Scott confessed to him that the publisher, Public Affairs, made him "revise" some of the book, putting in more negative stuff about Bush. If that's true, it makes sense. Few people these days are in the mood to read anything good about the President.

Now, I predict McClellan's book will disappear in a few weeks, but the media angle here is fascinating. Today in America there is a "vast left-wing media conspiracy," no question. Overwhelmingly, the press has made a sharp left hand turn even as there is little traffic in the right hand lane.

That's because many in the conservative media do not like John McCain, so there's no drive to support him as there was with George W. Bush. The right may not like Barack Obama, but, without a champion, their zeal for the election is muted.

But the left-wing media simply loves Senator Obama. It is all affection all the time, a constant drumbeat of good vibrations. Bush and McCain bad, Barack good. And, as the election draws closer, the Obama media chorus will grow louder.

So, how will this affect the actual vote? No way of telling at this point, but it can't hurt Obama. Independents will decide the election, and they will be subjected to quite an avalanche of glad Obama tidings. Once Hillary gets out of the way, the summer of Obama love will commence.

There is something rather unsettling about the situation. With Gore vs. Bush and Kerry vs. Bush, the media was divided but equally passionate. Talk radio leading the way for Bush, the networks and big city papers heralding the Democrats. But this time, the deck is stacked for Obama.

Good break for him, bad deal for McCain. That's all there's left to say.

 

[fossten]

...[And here is] what McClellan said in his press briefing on March 22, 2004 when asked about Richard Clarke’s book blasting the Bush Administration for 9/11 and CIA intelligence failures:

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he (Richard Clarke) 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. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.

Source: Gatewaypundit

*owned*