Little Scotty spills his guts for cash

Bush misled U.S. on Iraq, former aide says in new book
Cox News Service

In a book due out Monday, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan offers a blistering review of the administration and concludes that his longtime boss misled the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Even now, in his "tell all" book, Little Scotty still can't come out and tell the actual truth and call a lie, a lie. Instead he finesses reality with words like "misled"

"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided — that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder," McClellan wrote in "What Happened," due out Monday. "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."

Speak for yourself. Some of us don't have to wait "decades" to "fully understand" the magnitude of you and your boss' war crimes, we understand them today. In fact, the ramifications of the illegal invasion of Iraq was spelled out before the first missile was fired. Massive profits for weapons and oil companies, massive death and destruction for innocent Iraqis; a Vietnam-style quagmire we could never win; a free pass for bin-Laden; death and maiming for American soldiers; and finally, lots of weaselly little fucks like you coming our after the fray to peddle their story for millions.

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

That would put you in line with our view of the invasion circa October 2002. And to think, we came up with this view without spending a trillion dollars, squandering hundreds of thousands of lives, ruining the U.S. economy and making three quarters of the world hate us.

The book, which drew a "no comment" from the White House on Tuesday night, comes from a Texan picked by the president and paid by the people to help sell the war to the world. The volume makes McClellan the first longtime Bush aide to put such harsh criticism between hard covers. It is an extraordinarily critical book that questions Bush's intellectual curiosity, his candor in leading the nation to war, his pattern of self-deception and the quality of his advisers.

Again, you could have gotten all of this, free of charge, every single day for the last six years on this, and hundreds of other blogs. Isn't it interesting that so many people came to the same conclusions about Bush at the time he was telling the lies?

"President Bush has always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader. He is not one to delve into all the possible policy options — including sitting around engaging in extended debate about them — before making a choice," McClellan wrote. "Rather, he chooses based on his gut and his most deeply held convictions. Such was the case with Iraq."

Yet, after watching him make bad decision after bad decision, as governor, then as president, you kept working for him, believing him and trusting him. Scotty, you are either a bigger liar than he is, or criminally stupid.

In an interview Tuesday, McClellan said he retains great admiration and respect for Bush

OK, now you are just fucking, flat out lying. Lie your ass off, sunshine, the knives are still going to come out for you for writing this.

"My job was to advocate and defend his policies and speak on his behalf," he said. "This is an opportunity for me now to share my own views and perspective on things. There were things we did right and things we did wrong. Unfortunately, much of what went wrong overshadowed the good things we did."

Good things? What good things? Also, don't ya just love how lying to the American public is perfectly OK as long as some one is paying you to do it? There are crack-whores peddling the organs of stolen infants with more ethics than Little Scotty.

In the book — subtitled "Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception" — McClellan said 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," according to McClellan.

The law defines these people as "accomplices".

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

I think it has been conclusively established that "intelligence" in all contexts is absent from this administration. The hallmarks of the Bush Imperium are arrogance, deceit, greed, megalomania, sadism, and incompetence.

In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness," something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.

The president's real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.

It wasn't about transforming the Middle East, it was about showing his daddy whose penis was bigger. Your job was to stretch it out and hold the magnifying glass steady.

"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he wrote of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an effort he said used "innuendo and implication" and "intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary."

Or as us normal people call it, "lying through your goddamned teeth".

"I know the president pretty well. I believe that, if he had been given a crystal ball in which he could have foreseen the costs of war — more than 4,000 American troops killed, 30,000 injured and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead — he would never have made the decision to invade, despite what he might say or feel he has to say publicly today," McClellan wrote.

Then you don't know Bush very well at all. He doesn't care about other people's suffering, only his own glory.

In a summation, McClellan said the decision to invade Iraq "goes to an important question that critics have raised about the president: Is Bush intellectually incurious or, as some assert, actually stupid?"

"Bush is plenty smart enough to be president," he concluded.

President of his fifth grade class, perhaps, but not the United States of America.

To paraphrase Obi-wan Kenobi, "Who's more stupid, the stupid, or the stupids who follow him?"

McClellan also expresses amazement that Bush seemed flummoxed by a query by NBC's Tim Russert in February 2004 as to whether the invasion of Iraq was "a war of choice or a war of necessity."

He was flummoxed by the fact that Russert would actually ask a pertinent question, as opposed to just sit there and bask in the manly glow of Bush's testicles as was his normal practice.

"It strikes me today as an indication of his lack of inquisitiveness and his detrimental resistance to reflection," McClellan wrote, "something his advisers needed to compensate for better than they did."

Yeah, because it isn't Bush's fault he's an arrogant, ignorant asshole, it's his advisers' fault.

McClellan tracks Bush's penchant for self-deception back to an overheard incident on the campaign trail in 1999 when the then-governor was dogged by reports of possible cocaine use in his younger days.

The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.

"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"

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

What can we learn from this boys and girls?

1) That Little Scotty knew as early as 1999 that Bush was incompetent, deceitful and a very, very bad liar.

2) That Little Scotty is going demonstrate how bad he is at Jedi Mind Tricks.

Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."

Damn, I must be psychic.

Bush isn't a liar. Bush is a decent guy. These aren't the droids you are looking for.

"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," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."

As opposed to being a pathological liar.

In the years that followed, McClellan "would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment." McClellan likened it to a witness who resorts to "I do not recall."

"Bush, similarly, has a way of falling back on the hazy memory to protect himself from potential political embarrassment," McClellan wrote, adding, "In other words, being evasive is not the same as lying in Bush's mind."

Or yours, apparently, since you helped quite often with "the President doesn't recall".

"It would not be the last time Bush mishandled potential controversy," he said of the cocaine rumors. "But the cases to come would involve the public trust, and the failure to deal with them early, directly and head-on would lead to far greater suspicion and far more destructive partisan warfare," he wrote.

Hmmm... lying to the public about using cocaine some how doesn't violate the public trust?

The book also recounts Bush's unwillingness or inability to come up with a mistake he had made when asked by a reporter to do so.

A page later, he recounts what he perceived as a moment of doubt by a president who never expresses any. It occurred in a dimly lit room at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a room where an injured Texas veteran was being watched over by his wife and 7-year-old son as Bush arrived.

The vet's head was bandaged and "he was clearly not aware of his surroundings, the brain injury was severe," McClellan recalled. Bush hugged the wife, told the boy his dad was brave and kissed the injured vet's head while whispering 'God bless you' into his ear.

"Then he turned and walked toward the door," McClellan wrote. "Looking straight ahead, he moved his right hand to wipe away a tear. In that moment, I could see the doubt in his eyes and the vivid realization of the irrevocable consequences of his decision."

Then he walked out the door and continued destroying people's lives as he had that soldier's life and that of his family. He did so without hesitation, without qualm, without remorse and for the sole purpose of feeding his messianic delusions. And you sat in the passenger seat with your mouth shut, and made a note to yourself to include this little vignette in this book. And the next morning, you got up, went into the bathroom, looked into the mirror, and failed to cut your throat yet again.

McClellan's criticism of Rice — who he pegs as "hard to get to know" — is blistering.

"I was struck by how deft she is at protecting her reputation," he wrote. "No matter what went wrong, she was somehow able to keep her hands clean, even when the problems related to matters under her direct purview, including the WMD rationale for the war in Iraq, the decision to invade Iraq ... and post-war planning and implementation of the strategy in Iraq."

She managed it so well because she had toadying little smegma lickers like you to push her lies.

McClellan brands Vice President Cheney as "the magic man" mysteriously directing outcomes in "every policy area he cared about, from the invasion of Iraq to expansion of presidential power to the treatment of detainees and the use of surveillance against terror suspects."

"Cheney always seemed to get his way," McClellan wrote.

See comment about Rice above.

"One of these days," Bush, with McClellan at his side, told reporters that day, "he and I are going to be rocking on chairs in Texas, talking about the good old days and his time as the press secretary. And I can assure you, I will feel the same way then that I feel now, that I can say to Scott, 'Job well done.'"

I imagine that a hunting trip with Dick Cheney will be on the morning schedule that day, so I wouldn't set out the bourbon on the porch.

If there is any justice left in the world, you will waddle off on that trip, full of the bovine contentment of a cow on his way to the slaughter house.

Comments

Absolutely ridiculous

Thanks, Kosh, for the trenchant comments. To me, of all the passages you quoted, the most patently absurd is where McClellan said that Bush stated Iraq was his opportunity to create a "legacy of greatness," available only to wartime presidents.It's true that FDR created a legacy of greatness during a war, but it wasn't solely the war that created the legacy of greatness.
I can think of no other president, either, other than Lincoln, whose legacy of greatness was established solely because of a war and war-related issues. In fact, perhaps the contrary is true. LBJ might have created a legacy of greatness had it not been for Vietnam.

Nixon did some great things - creating the EPA at the cabinet level and opening up to China - but in addition to Watergate, Vietnam is his legacy of failure, notwithstanding the fact that he finally did get us out with essential prodding from much of the nation.

In my opinion, a legacy of greatness might best be achieved, barring the absolute need for a war, such as WW II, by keeping us out of unnecessary wars, in addition to serving the public interest by addressing myriad social and economic issues.

And to be totally honest, based on my readings of history, I can't think of a president other than FDR, Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington, who has an unqualified legacy of "greatness." Certainly none in my 51-year lifetime. In short, the word "great" is much abused and certainly seriously overused when pertaining to American presidents. Only a very, very few make that cut. Bush the Younger would have been at the bottom of that list even if Iraq had been a sunny day at the beach.

bradford

bradford

Well, despite his best efforts

he didn't start WWIII.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Reagan's legacy

1. We'll all be much happier if we ignore AIDS
2. We'll all be much happier if we ignore Poverty.
3. People who want to talk about AIDS and poverty are just poopy-heads.

There was an extremely interesting review in this last Sunday's NYTimes Book Review of a book by J. Peter Scoblic, who argues that it isn't neoconservatism that led to Bush's foreign policy but rather the conservatism that goes back to Reagan, and back before Reagan. I also recommend the reviews that immediately preceded this one, which dealt with two books out on William F. Buckley (never a dull subject).

Beyond absurdity

Of course Queen Condi defended the Iraq war against McClellan's charges yesterday, but she merely proved she's as stupid as the rest of 'em.

"So the story is there for everyone to see. You can't now transplant yourself into the present and say we should have known things that we in fact did not know in 2001, 2002, 2003. The record on weapons of mass destruction was one that appeared to be very clear," Rice said.

Absurd. It only "appeared to be very clear" if you ignored, as they did, all the contrary evidence that was all over the internet for everyone to read from various sources, including weapons inspectors.

Politicians serve only themselves, not the public, when they choose to ignore evidence and opinions contrary to the evidence and opinions they want to believe in order to advance their agendas. My favorite thing about JFK was his policy of gathering staffers of widely divergent opinions and listening intently to all of them before making decisions. Clinton also did this frequently, from what I've read, and although he often was criticized for interminable policy debates before making decisions, it seems to me that on matters of import, full debate is almost always crucial.

The U.N. resolutions showed that the world knew Saddam was a threat, Rice added. "Why in the world would you allow the Iraqi people to suffer?"

If "suffering people" is an iron-clad case for an invasion, why don't we invade or sponsor invasions of every country where people suffer? Why don't we now invade Myannmar? Why not Sudan and Zimbabwe? Heck, why don't we invade our own pockets of persistent poverty?
Conservatives have always chided liberals for desiring to ease domestic suffering...God thse people make me want to throw up.

bradford

bradford

I agree with your points on the book, Kosh, but...

I, for one, welcome any dissension among these low lifes. I watched a few of the 'White House' replies, and you could plainly see how they must have practiced their answers, and tried to steer all comments to focus on McClellan, himself. How they hardly recognized him, and their great disappointment, etc. Naturally, the media people went along mostly, but at least there was some questions about the 'content' of the book. McClellan is supposed to be on 'Countdown', tonight at 8pm. So might be interesting to see if Olbermann can get more focus on Bush's lying and conniving. This gang in the White House is going to get a fee pass from Pelosi & gang, so I want to get all their slime out in the daylight!

Indeed

Iraq was invaded for two reasons:

1) Ego
2) Oil

All other claims are bullshit.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.