As much as they rail from the bunker about Scott McClellan’s motives and his worthiness and flagging loyalty to Bush uber all else, they are not going to get around the fact that he is telling the truth about their fatal lies.
They can say that now he is a dunce and was never in the “loop” when before they said he was a genius and totally in the loop. They can say he has strayed from the Bush reservation to the unfamiliar land of honesty but that says more about them than him. The point is simply he has turned on the lights and the roaches are skittering.
Predictably, the bloody Bush people are in full howl and their lapdog media henchmen are assailing McClellan, whose boots they once licked. But for all that they can’t dent the fact — well known to all with eyes to see and hearts to break — that George W. Bush and his people lied and twisted the facts resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings. Period.
That McClellan was a deep insider is fobbed off as as a lie and manipulation by the liars and manipulators. That he knows what he is is talking about while his new critics are what he is talking about cannot be hidden. They’ll Swift Boat him to pieces but his message is there for all to see:
People are dead because of George W. Bush and his low crowd. Dead.
Denis,
It’s ironic that the same people who hated McClellan and thought he was a liar are now praising him as a truth teller because he’s saying exactly what they want to hear.
It’s sort of like these endless studies that come out about one thing or another. If the study confirms what we already believe, we say, “See I told you so.” If we don’t like the study’s conclusions, we attack the methodology or the group that sponsored it.
McC was quite possibly the worst press secretary in my lifetime. And he’s entitled to write a tell-all book, but I would think someone with your level of sophistication would be a little more skeptical in assessing it.
Terry,
It’s not on me. Your guy ratted out your war and your pals in office. That’s got nothing to do with me. The blood’s not on me. It’s cute enough to fob off the matter onto the reaction but the substance, the bloody substance, resides at 1600 Penn — and in all those who enabled this thing. there’s no slipping away from that resposnibility by criticizing the audience
denis
Hey, is it true or not? Is there more than one truth? I think not. It sounds like the Terry wants to say it ain’t true? I don’t get that at all. Let’s impeach the bastard or it will happen again.
Denis,
For some crazy reason, you’re making the assumption that Bush is “my guy.” I did not vote for him. And the war is certainly not mine either, as I have been opposed to it for years.
And indeed, a commenter on my blog recently called me “a kool-aid drinker of left-wing talking points and propaganda,” as well as a partisan afflicted with “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”
I don’t know whether everything McC writes is true or not and neither do you. I am not saying what McC spins in his book is untrue, but rather it is worthy of skepticism that you and Greg refuse to give it, evidently because he telling you what you want to hear.
The same people who hate Scott Mc? Would that be MSNBC, CNN, FOX? CBS, NBC, ABC? I find it scary that so many people so much more prominent than Denis Horgan bobbed their heads to this guy and his boss.
Don’t you think we have enough evidence by now? Let’s see where do we start…… For Pete’s sake, Wake Up America!
He’s not telling us ‘what we want to hear’ Terry, he’s confirming what we all knew all along, but which they (and he) denied and obfuscated for most of this decade. The time to be skeptical of Scott McClellan was when he had a job telling lies for a living.
This is not a book of opinions similar to mine that I ‘want to hear’ – he’s not saying Bush is the worst President in American History, that he has the intellect of a monkey, that Dick Cheney is evil and Karl Rove is a criminal.
I love hearing that, and if he wrote that, then maybe – MAYBE – I’d be skeptical that he’d jumped on the anti-Bush bandwagon to make a few bucks.
But that’s not what he wrote, is it?
On the other hand he didn’t pen a sycophantic love letter to Bush either — and why wouldn’t he? He wasn’t fired, he left on great terms, with the President saying he looked forward to sitting with Scottie in rocking chairs years in the future. They all loved him and protected him as long as he toed their line of lies. I’d be skeptical if he wrote the book Ari Fleischer wrote.
But he didn’t.
He told the truth about what this administration did. We all (even you) knew it already, but they never have – and never would have – given up one inch on their denials of that reality. This guy did. They’ll now do everything they can to discredit him and feed your skepticism, Terry – but we’re all smarter than that aren’t we?
Here’s your first paragraph, slightly altered:
‘It’s ironic that the same people who praised McCllellan as a truth teller because he was saying exactly what they want to hear now hate him and think he is a liar. ‘
We’re supposed to be skeptical now and say, ‘nah, you didn’t do that Scottie, you’re lying now about lying then. You were telling the truth then, and now you’re lying. You’re admitting to being part of a coordinated effort to deceive the American people which cost the lives of thousands of our soldiers and countless others – all so you can make some money on a book and be drummed out of politics forever, and oh – maybe even someday face charges for it.’
Nope. Doesn’t make any sense, and you know it doesn’t.
I’m sensing some logical inconsistency here. On the one hand, McC’s allegations are credible because HE was in a position to know the truth. On the other hand, “he’s confirming what WE all knew all along.”
I don’t know if everything McC says in his book is true or not and neither do you. But you are taking much of what he says on faith because he confirms what you already believed — namely that the Bush admin is full of crooks and liars.
But, terry, under that slippery logic no one can ever get at the truth, and the truth isn’t defined by the critics of either side. If it is held against us because he is saying what we believe, how is that our fault? How does that diminish what he says? No one from the other side said anything when he was being praised a satlwart and truth-teller by the very same people who are saying he is a traitor and weasel now. If he wrote a book that said the opposite, would you take the skin off the people on the bloody war camp who would praise him because he is only saying what they believe? I doubt it. Peggy Noonan has an annoyinmgly thoughtful piece in tomorrow’s WSJ about truth-telling in government. Worth a look. (For some reason it runs in advance on Real Clear Politics, a Time Inc. site.)
As before it’s not on us. And if I put you in their camp for speaking their view, I’m sorry.
denis
And you may be sensing logical inconsistency, but this isn’t an elaborate puzzle that needs to be figured out. There’s not much mystery to this anymore.
The only remaining group saying “they weren’t lying” are the ones who ones who were doing the lying.
How much evidence do you need? How may people have to come forward until this logic puzzle can be solved to your satisfaction? Will you only believe it if the liars themselves come clean and admit they were lying?
Well one of them has, and you’re not there yet.
The “Mission Accomplished” banner on the USS Lincoln is a great example of this whole thing in a microcosm.
Bush gives the speech, then later says “I never said Mission Accomplished.”
“But you spoke in front of a great big sign that said “Mission Accomplished.”
‘That was for the guys on the boat, their misssion was accomplished.”
“But it was your banner.”
“No, the boat had the banner already.”
“No, you brought the banner with you, had it made special for the speech, here’s the guy who made the banner saying so.”
“No we didn’t – the boat had it made, we were just carrying it for them.”
“Yes you did, here’s the Captain of the boat saying it was your banner, your idea.”
“Ok, maybe we did, but we didn’t mean to imply that our Mission was Accomplished.”
Five years later they finally admit to it. And in doing so, admit they lied about it over and over again. Yet the right wingers in the media will still stick to the original spin
Yes, I choose to believe the White House in 2008 when they say they were lying for five years about the sign. It’s what we knew all along. The McClellan ‘revelations’ are the same thing.