Monday May 28, 2012

McClellan: Bush must blame himself for mistrust

World ( 43 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

43 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    Sarge

    "I think Scott has probably told everyone everything he doesn't know, so I don't know if anyone should expect him to say anything new today."

    • White House spokesman Tony Fratto

    Har!

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Speaking at length about what you don't know has been an essential political skill since the dawn of time. But it's hard work. So that's what press secretaries get paid to do so that their bosses don't have so many occasions to make fools and liars of themselves. Sometimes press secretaries come to realize what has happened to them.

    Selective memory has also been a political gift. I honestly remember every drug I have tried--but not every occasion on which I tried it. Bush not remembering is like Clinton not inhaling. I want a president who inhaled, snorted, shot up--or didn't--and who can be honest about it.

  • 0

    Jahdog

    McClellan recounts hearing Bush on the telephone telling a supporter that “I honestly don’t remember whether I tried [cocaine] or not.” Har-de-har-har-har.

  • 0

    Jahdog

    Or should I say, "Snort!"

  • 0

    Taka313

    Sez and Jahdog,

    I think the H really messed with his memory. That's why he can't remember the coke. ;-)

    Taka

  • 0

    Taka313

    In all seriousness, it's not the secretive nature that has caused mistrust of the president and dick. It's the criminal behavior. That whole "not obeying the law" thingy that I think really resonates.

    Taka

  • 0

    zurcronium

    the wingers wanted to replace clinton who lied about sex and they got bush who lies about everything.

  • 0

    Betzee

    From life-and-death matters on down — the rationale for war, the leaking of classified information, Cheney’s accidental shooting of a friend — the government’s top two leaders undermined their credibility by “packaging” their version of the truth, former press secretary Scott McClellan said.

    Although the Republican Party touts itself as promoting "personal responsibility" this is completely overridden by the belief on the part of those who lead it, as well as many rank-and-file members, that to admit any error will only embolden your enemies. So everything must be hung on someone else.

  • 0

    Taka313

    Betzee, I agree. I think it's kind of funny that there are a host of liberal blogs that constantly rag on the bush presidency.
    But no website does a better job of making this administration look incompetent and corrupt than this one: http://www.gao.gov/

    There's a reason I pegged them with the title: cult of non-accountability.

    Taka

  • 0

    Betzee

    There's a reason I pegged them with the title: cult of non-accountability.

    This is the inherent danger of giving the government the power to detain without charge and wiretap without a warrant. This lack of accountability spreads to other areas. The family of Pat Tillman remains angry no one was ever disciplined for the whoppers told about the circumstances of his death, something they believe GWB was complicit in.

  • 0

    RedMeatKoolAid

    Nearly 70 percent of the country now acknowlegdes the media in America is hopelessly biased. And it ain't in favor of Bush and Cheney's party. Conservatives were also angry with how poorly the WH communicated its message these last 7. Most recognize though that all 3 major networks were(and still are)prepared to openly lie (so long, Dan Rather). There was little the Bush WH could have done to dispel the image the MSM created.

  • 0

    xrc

    Democrats~Conservatives~Right~Left who cares? Better start with we are human beings living on the same planet. I don't trust Bush nor Cheney... and I don't trust most Americans.

  • 0

    Betzee

    There was little the Bush WH could have done to dispel the image the MSM created.

    In fact it was BBC which uncovered the truth about the rescue of Jessica Lynch (remember her?), the liberal media bought the official story fed to them by the GWB administration hook, line, and sinker.

    Dan Rather's career ended over his use of forged documents. But nobody in the WH was disciplined for circulating a forged document purporting to show Saddam had tried to buy yellow cake uranium, it even ended up as evidence in GWB's state of the union address in early 2003.

    We hold journalists to higher standards than government officials, odd ain't it?

  • 0

    Betzee

    I remember a former member of the Reagan administration calling on GWB to apologize for taking the nation to war on false premises. Needless to say, his suggestion was ignored by the president who believes Saddam had WMD and the fact none were found is irrelevant to the case he made.

    In order to tell a convincing lie, you have to convince yourself it's the truth. We do not need another president who engages in such fiction-making exercises to chart policy.

  • 0

    Jahdog

    "the image the MSM created"?! Funny but, as you must remember from 2000 onward: ...there are those carefully programmed stunts to create photo opts for Mr. Bush. You remember them because they are always quite spectacular. The appearance at Ground Zero while the smoke of the attack was swirling around his head, the landing on the aircraft carrier in a fighter jet to proclaim a victory in the war in Iraq (when in fact the conflict was only just started), the Thanksgiving Day visit to troops under siege in Baghdad, and now the John F. Kennedy style announcement that we are launching a new campaign to send men back to the Moon and beyond.

    Everything Mr. Bush is observed doing is carefully staged. Everything he says is carefully programmed. It is all designed to portray him as a great leader of a nation under duress...one of the more sickening tricks, and most obvious, are the pictures emanating from the president's public relations office. Some of them are portrayed on this page for the readers to inspect. If you look at them closely, you realize that they are not accidental. They are staged and Mr. Bush is posing for them. http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/themindofjamesdonahue/id580.html

    As you must know, Roger Ailes was an image-maker for Republicans from Nixon to Bush, before he went to Fox, which has done much to make the media "hopelessly biased" by pushing a rightwing ideology http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/06/17/ailes/

  • 0

    Taka313

    Betzee,

    We hold journalists to higher standards than government officials...

    Only until January, if you know what I mean.

    Taka

  • 0

    Taka313

    Jahdog,

    Some of them are portrayed on this page for the readers to inspect. If you look at them closely, you realize that they are not accidental. They are staged and Mr. Bush is posing for them.

    Do you mean like this one?

    http://www.smithersmpls.com/graphics/bushfake.jpg

    Taka

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Here's something else to add to the pile of reasons why few people trust Dubya - he's not mentioning this -

    Most of the bombs and shells lobbed into Iraq since the start of the conflict contain depleted uranium.

    What is frightening is that US troops on the ground in that country are getting as much, or more, exposure to the radioactive toxic smoke and dust as the people who live there.

    Rather than returning home with Gulf War Syndrome this time around, America may be welcoming home veterans stricken with cancer.

    Are we insane?

  • 0

    pathat

    Does McClellan say anything in his book that we do not already know?

    Why should we care about him and his puffed-up persona?

    In a few months, the George W. Bush administration will be consigned to the waste bin of history. He will be roundly considered by any and all reasonable historians to have been one of our worst presidents.

    What is new about this and all of the other talk of deception and lies to the public about so many things over the past 8 years?

    McClellan had better make a lot of money off this book because I think he has a grossly inflated estimation of his value in future political circles.

  • 0

    Madverts

    Heh, the Obama presidency hasb't even started and some people are already whinging about the "liberal media" being biased to republicans.

    Too funny.

  • 0

    TPOJ

    Nearly 70 percent of the country now acknowlegdes the media in America is hopelessly biased. And it ain't in favor of Bush and Cheney's party.

    First off, I refuse to believe that "statistic" unless you source it.

    Second...Who cares?

    I have a confession to make: I voted for Bush the first time around. For that I genuinely apologize: that was a BIG ^&#@ing error. Very few mistakes in my life have proven themselves to be mistakes with that degree of speed and completeness.

    Since that revelation, I have been absolutely ashamed at how my "party of responsibility" has adopted the "blame everyone but the people in charge" attitude with such enthusiasm and arrogance.

    If "media bias" is to blame for the current state of the country, then Bush is even more unfit to lead than I thought.

    Conservatives were also angry with how poorly the WH communicated its message these last 7.

    Yeah, they've really let him have it (cough.)

    Just once, I'd love to hear a right winger criticize Bush without immediately shifting attention to something else. Case in point:

    Most recognize though that all 3 major networks were(and still are)prepared to openly lie (so long, Dan Rather).

    Dan Rather did not "openly lie." The documents he reported on were forged, he did not know this, and the information the documents themselves contained was found to be accurate. Interesting how, even now, some people don't realize this. Do you also still think Saddaam was responsible for 9/11?

    There was little the Bush WH could have done to dispel the image the MSM created.

    Then they shouldn't be in charge. Period.

    Bush's failures belong to him. Bringing the media, Liberals, whoever into the picture is pure, uncut apologism. THE. BUCK. SHOULD. STOP. HERE.

    Moderator: Readers, stay on topic please. Posts that do not refer to McClellan will be removed.

  • 0

    yosun

    It's not serious thing compared to tens of thousands of children killed in Iraq since Bush started the war, then, he can never clean his bloody hands! so, is this thing matter?

  • 0

    Sarge

    Jahdog - "Or should I say "Snort!"

    Nah, you should say, "McClellan doesn't have any proof that Bush said that."

    Madverts - "Heh, the Obama presidency ( hasn't ) even started"

    Heh, it's never going to start.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    RedMeatKoolAid,

    I wonder where the 70% figure comes from.

    Anyway, that paragon of fair and balanced reporting, Fox News, apparently gets the attention of only a small fraction of those who are disaffected with "the media bias". I guess that's partially because something like 88% of Fox viewers preferred Bush to Kerry, as opposed to 51% for the nation as a whole. Somehow, that must show up in the ledgers as being not quite balanced and perhaps not quite fair.

    So it seems probable that no matter what numbers you push into the remote control, the news stations always come up biased. However, "bias" is not the problem. Bias is a fact of life and is inescapable. What is not inescapable are systems which have no mechanisms to challenge their biases.

    What McClellan is saying is that the White House set about to destroy those mechanisms wherever they were found. He is not alleging that this is simply a matter of poorly communicating a message, nor is it likely that this is a case of poor communication. Far more likely is the case--and this is what McClellan is saying--that this is a matter of so maladroitly weaving a tissue of half-truths and misdirections that even one's trusted spokespeople are embarrassed.

    You can have poor communication of an honest message. You can have deft communication of a dishonest one. We have had cloaked-and-daggered communication of a daft one.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge - you've been proven wrong so many times before, you'd be dreaming if you think anybody takes you seriously at this stage of the game.

    Pity that - like Bush, you have contributed to your own terminal lack of credibility.

    Obama in '08

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    "Oh, dear, Dubya what you been and done"

    Is he cunning? Is he stupid? Is he a puppet of his neo-con fellow travellers?

    And the even bigger question - Should the US voters blame themselves? Maybe not for the first term but they were real stupid to take a second hit.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Moderator: Readers, stay on topic please. Posts that do not refer to McClellan will be removed.

    I only count five posts this entire thread that even mentions McClellan. I understand my post was removed for being 'off-topic' but the question was asked by more than one poster of proof of media bias and I just provided a non-partisan study on the subject so readers can make up their own mind. Since McClellan was a the face of the whitehouse to the media it should be in my opinion very relevant as to how the whitehouse has spun the media trying to win favor and the perception that the media is biased agaisn't the whitehouse, and that would cause some in the Bush administration to adopt a 'bunker mentality'. The media is a two way street that both left and right try to use to thier advantage and the media does a left tilt that works for those on the left and agaisn't those on the right. The study I linked was just the reality of what the left and right spin rooms use and face everyday to try to get their competing messages across.

  • 0

    apecNetworks

    Mr. McClellan is discussing something that has been developing since the end of the Cold War and the advent of instantaneous transmissions of hard info. The speed of news being discussed on the internet is amazing. I have insight into this Administration's policies in the Asia-Pacific, and though not known to many, they are really schrewd - these are smart people, though not candid. I saw the same thing developing during the Clinton Administration, but I was being fed the info. This way of conducting policies is making policies of any consequence "classified" - example: the actual economic conditions in the US. The internet is definitely affecting this trend, so whoever is in office, the US is more transparent than ever before.

  • 0

    Jahdog

    While questioning McClellan, GOP stooge Steve King takes the cake with this gem: “Couldn’t you have taken this to the grave with you and done this country a favor?”

    You see, in bizarro Republican world, staying silent and allowing your fellow citizens to remain clueless about how their leaders lie to them is the right, patriotic thing to do. Only traitors speak up about how their country is being flushed down the toilet when there’s still time to actually do something about it. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/20/rep-steve-king-r-ia-to-mcclellan-why-couldnt-you-just-shut-up/

  • 0

    Taka313

    Jahdog,

    Only traitors speak up about how their country is being flushed down the toilet when there’s still time to actually do something about it.

    I think the phenomena of which you speak is referred to as "being Shinseki'd."

    Taka

  • 0

    Betzee

    I linked was just the reality of what the left and right spin rooms use and face everyday to try to get their competing messages across.

    Spinning is putting a positive gloss on news. Number of casualties up in Iraq? Well, it means the insurgency is in its last throes. It's speculation about future trends which cannot be proven right or wrong at that moment in time.

    The GWB aministration went a lot farther than that. I remember reading Judith Miller, formerly of the NYT's, did draw the line at Karl Rove's suggestion she cite "hill staffer knowledgeable about nuclear issues" for information he was feedng her about Saddam's WMD arsenal. She was canned for lying to her supervisors. But such a standard has ceased to apply to government employees who lie to the public.

    I personally fely sorry for McClellan when he learned he has conveyed information he thought was truthful, namely that Rove and Libby had no involvement in outing Valerie Plame, when in fact they did. He appreciated the difference between lying and spinning.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sarge: "Heh, it's never going to start."

    hehehe... thanks, sarge. You're 'predictions' are almost always the guarantee of the opposite.

    Anyway, McClellan is only stating the truth, and when Fratto 'retires' he'll be making his own book printing the same facts about lies at the top of this government. Nothing new here. As has been said many, many times, Bush will go down as the worst president in US history -- he's already there in most people's books, and now they're being published.

  • 0

    yabits

    But nobody in the WH was disciplined for circulating a forged document purporting to show Saddam had tried to buy yellow cake uranium, it even ended up as evidence in GWB's state of the union address in early 2003.

    When Bush said that there was complete agreement among experts that the aluminum tubes Saddam purchased had a nuclear purpose, he was lying through his teeth. There was anything but agreement, and the real experts knew that the aluminum tubes could not have been for that purpose. (And they were proven right.)

  • 0

    yabits

    Since McClellan was a the face of the whitehouse to the media it should be in my opinion very relevant as to how the whitehouse has spun the media trying to win favor and the perception that the media is biased agaisn't the whitehouse, and that would cause some in the Bush administration to adopt a 'bunker mentality'

    What McClellan eventually found out is that no matter how the media spins anything, honesty is always the best policy. He was serving a man who promised to bring honor and dignity back to the White House. Choosing to feed spokespersons like McClellan with lies and trying to excuse it all is not any reasonable person's definition of honor or dignity. A lot of the worst lies came when Bush's popularity was above 80% -- so much for a justification of "bunker mentality."

  • 0

    Betzee

    When Dick Cheney gravely intoned "There is no doubt..." in fact there was a whole lot of doubt. McClellan is simply asking that GWB take responsibility for the mistrust which ensued rather than, as some of his supporters have here, put the blame on the media. Maybe somebody could dust off the sign which Harry Truman kept on his desk informing visitors "The Buck Stops Here."

  • 0

    Madverts

    "Heh, it's never going to start."

    Well, uh, sarge, based on your past Preditions that had such a sublime knack in getting it Wrong, - I'd say that's a definite President Obama will be taking the oath in Jan '09.

    Sott McClellan is just jumping on his former employer because it is politicaly and financially expedient to do so.

    The rest of us knew years back the true nature of Bush Co.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Madverts - "uh, sarge"

    I'm laughing at the superior intellect.

    "Sott McClellan..."

    Har!

    "... is just jumping on his former employer because it is politicaly and financially expedient to do so."

    Hey, you got that one right, Madverts!

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge, almost as many people believe you as the number who believe Bush and the bad news for both of you is that that figure is getting closer to zero by the day.

    Mate, the number of times you've been proven left-right, up-down, black-white Flat Wrong is reaching near Biblical proportions.

    As a Republican, that's something you can put in your pipe and smoke :-)

    McClellan is right to come out and expose Bush - Cheney on this one.

    The nutjob thing is that many Republicans are criticizing him for not speaking out earlier, and for speaking out at all - ie: when he was employed by Bush and would have got his arse fired in an instant had he done so - instead of analyzing McClellan's claims on their own merits.

    ie: attack the messenger, not the message.

    McClellan did the sensible thing and waited until he was not in Bush's employment before he spoke out, and good on him for putting it in book form for everyone to read about how their Dear Leader has been misleading and lying to them for so many years.

    Are any Republicans here going to honestly look at McClellan's claims, analyze why he is claiming they were lied to and misled, etc?

    Or are Republicans simply too gutless to examine the message?

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Madvert - "Madverts - "uh, sarge"

    Sarge - "I'm laughing at the superior intellect."

    That's only about the 10th time you've written exactly the same quote in the last 3 days.

    Congrats on your consistency - you must be proud :-)

  • 0

    RedMeatKoolAid

    What's really funny, har har, is the video of Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Jay Rockefeller, Teddy Kennedy, HRC, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Evan Bayh et al gravely intoning the exact same assertions Bush made about Iraq. http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

    Shame.

    Shame on those who come here with "Bush lied."

  • 0

    SezWho2

    The telling comment in the video is Edwards' statement that Congress had seen briefings on the progress of weapons development in Iraq.

    Despite what Bush said in 2005 about there being "no pressure" to shape the intelligence, we now know that this was not the case and that the administration consistently ignored evidence that suggested that Saddam did not have weapons or weapons programs. Not the least of this evidence was from the inspectors on the ground.

    Some will find it funny that a person who complains of media bias will be caught posting propaganda paid for by the Republican National Committee. What Bush did was worse than simply lying. He showed no interest in the truth.

  • 0

    Taka313

    Nice vid there redmeat. So...what do you suppose we do about this?

    Should we make them all accountable? I think that would be a fantastic idea. You make a list; I'll make a list and we'll hold them all accountable for their actions and misdeeds.

    Or was this just a "quit picking on my dear leader" thing for you?

    Here's a little poker advice: Don't bluff on any hand you aren't willing to lose their sports fan.

    Also, I think it's kind of funny that your little vid stops with the wmd issue. Your argument fails to take into consideration bush's lies regarding the ties between saddam and al quaeda. Your argument fails to take into consideration bush's lies about the aluminum tubes bush said saddam was after. Your argument fails to take into consideration bush's yellowcake uranium lie. Your argument fails to take into consideration bush's lies about saddam's unmanned aerial vehicles. He's lied about stem cell research. He's lied about his criminal record. He's lied about his military service.

    Why? Because bush lies.

    That's what liars do. They lie.

    Deal.with.it.

    Taka

  • 0

    Betzee

    He showed no interest in the truth.

    Exactly. David Kay said, after concluding his exhaustive search for WMD, "We were all wrong and that's very disturbing." Yet there was never any sense GWB was disturbed in the slightest. Quite the contrary; he's emphasized he would make the same decision to invade Iraq all over again. But how would he sell it to the public? Presumably the same way. I take this as an admission he knew the case he made, in which nuclear weapons figured prominently, was not supported by the evidence but the ends justified the means.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all