PDA

View Full Version : Publisher: McClellan doesn't believe Bush lied


Frankg
05-28-2008, 08:31 PM
George Soros is a radical leftist billionare, he could probably get anyone to say anything for the right amount of $$$ , and it seems very strange that Mcclellen bashes President George W Bush than says how much he respects him in the same book

Just a thought.....
Publisher: McClellan doesn't believe Bush lied

Spokesman 'did not intend to suggest' the president purposely misled him

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/COVER/071120/grid_071120_McClellan_cvr_8p.h2.jpg (http://www.dcjunkies.com/) Win Mcnamee / Getty Images file
President George W. Bush listens as his Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, announces his resignation at the White House April 19, 2006 in Washington, DC.

WASHINGTON - Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan does not believe President Bush lied to him about the role of White House aides I. Lewis Scooter Libby or Karl Rove in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, according to McClellan's publisher.

Peter Osnos, the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan's book in April, tells NBC from his Connecticut home that McCLellan, "Did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him."

Osnos says when McClellan went before the White House press corps in 2003 to publicly exonerate Libby and Rove, the problem was that his statement was not true. Osnos said the president told McClellan what "he thought to be the case." But, he says, McClellan believes, "the president didn't know it was not true."

Osnos says the quotes which appeared on the Public Affairs Books website were part of the roll out of the book catalogues for the spring printings. And he says McClellan had not finished the manuscript for the memoir yet and was working under deadline to have the book completed for the April publishing.

In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, released Monday on the publisher's web site, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Monday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."

Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card.
The excerpt renewed questions about what went on in the West Wing and how much Bush and Cheney knew about the leak. For years, it was McClellan's job to field — and often duck — those types of questions.

Tuesday, White House press secretary Dana Perino said it wasn't clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt and she had no immediate comment.

Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters. Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the leak was retribution for his public criticism of the Iraq war. The accusation dogged the administration and made Plame a cause celebre among many Democrats.
McClellan's book, "What Happened," isn't due out until April, and the excerpt was merely a teaser. It doesn't get into detail about how Bush and Cheney were involved or reveal what happened behind the scenes.

In the fall of 2003, after authorities began investigating the leak, McClellan told reporters that he'd personally spoken to Rove, who was Bush's top political adviser, and Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff.

"They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved," McClellan said at the time.

Both men, however, were involved. Rove was one of the original sources for the newspaper column that identified Plame. Libby also spoke to reporters about the CIA officer and was convicted of lying about those discussions. He is the only person to be charged in the case.

Since that news conference, however, the official White House stance has shifted and it has been difficult to get a clear picture of what happened behind closed doors around the time of the leak.

McClellan's flat denials gave way to a steady drumbeat of "no comment." And Bush's original pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak became a promise to fire anyone who "committed a crime."

Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby's 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.
NBC producer Joel Seidman contributed to this story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917188/

bairdi
05-28-2008, 10:13 PM
frankie......the media world is full of stories about this book today. Why would you post a story from November 2007? Get with the program.

A Bush loyalist turns harsh critic in memoir
Former press secretary says president used propaganda to govern
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24863127?GT1=43001

Frankg
05-28-2008, 10:21 PM
No , you get with the program , why would Mclellan wait 2 years to bash President George W Bush then in the same book turn around and say he has total respect for George W Bush, President of the United States of America ?

He's looking for $$$.....and there are a lot of people looking to smear my president , namely George Soros

Mr, gone
05-29-2008, 04:24 AM
Nice spin frankie, even If McClellan only wrote it for the money, he really must not have held boy george with very much integrity.

He just thew in a few verbal scraps for the simple minds such as yours to make a feast of.

'My president', Frank do maybe have a picture of daddy bush on your night stand? :lmao2:

Moby
05-29-2008, 10:48 AM
I don't believe that Bush lied. It's just not feasible that a man with his background would be allowed by those in charge to see all the facts. The members of The PNAC are not that naive.

Bush is part of the commentary nation where facts don't matter but opinions do. Think about all of his supporters. Almost all listen or watch some type of news commentary show where they are given opinions based on biased information. The entire Neoconservative support unit is based on this. Sure some facts are involved but only those facts needed to support the opinion.

Bush was supplied with ONLY enough facts to support the PNAC agenda started in 1998. He was never qualified with background, experience, intelligence or character judgement to understand that he was being programmed to beleive.

disrupter
05-31-2008, 12:57 AM
The unelected occupant of the Whitehouse is DELUSIONAL,

He is operating on faith, not fact,

That is why he never asked ANY relevant &/or tough questions, which is why he is invariably WRONG,

on EVERYTHING.

Intent is NOT the Question,
Insanity would be the question if it were even a question in Bush's case.

Q: America are you going to allow this nation to be led around by a bunch of psychopathic hooligans or are you going to stand up & say NO?

Smurf-Herder
05-31-2008, 01:29 AM
BTW, why was McClellan replaced as Press Secretary?

Moby
05-31-2008, 02:33 AM
BTW, why was McClellan replaced as Press Secretary?
Don't you have Internet access to find the answer to these silly questions?

Smurf-Herder
05-31-2008, 02:40 AM
Don't you have Internet access to find the answer to these silly questions?

Apparently nobody cares.

It's only silly if you want to avoid bothering to look into the "disgruntled employee" charge.


Silly to you is apparently not taking propaganda-making material at face value and running with it.

If it sounds good to you, that's all that counts.

Moby
05-31-2008, 02:47 AM
Apparently nobody cares.
It's just strange that in under 5 minutes you could find the answer if you wanted. You were asking about Obama's background as well and you spent more time listing the committees then it would have taken to find the information that you were asking about.

Bush needed to change his image because most of America knows he's doing a terrible job. Scott and Rove moved on as part of that change.

Scott served for a very long time in the hot seat and his loyalty is notable. He served as press secretary longer then anyone else with a Bush.

disrupter
05-31-2008, 02:59 AM
Smurfy wrote:Silly to you is apparently not taking propaganda-making material at face value and running with it.

Hung upon his own petard.

I rest my case.

Betty Blowtorch
05-31-2008, 03:20 AM
Frankie loves his country.

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/6166/kkkwashingtonan2.png

Frankie loves his flag.

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/8053/bushsatan1op9.jpg

And Frankie LOVES
his president.

Smurf-Herder
05-31-2008, 09:31 PM
Smurfy wrote:

Hung upon his own petard.

I rest my case.

Did you even understand what I was saying?

Cat slave
06-01-2008, 01:59 PM
I thought this was a discussion group! Sounded like a good statement to
provoke thought but only provoked a condescending remark.

IMO....McClellan looks like a little weasel and sounds like a disgruntled former
employee. And that said, Bush is not even on my list and I wouldnt give him
air if he was in a jug, but that doesnt make McClellan a truth bringer.

bairdi
06-01-2008, 02:19 PM
I thought this was a discussion group! Sounded like a good statement to
provoke thought but only provoked a condescending remark.

IMO....McClellan looks like a little weasel and sounds like a disgruntled former
employee. And that said, Bush is not even on my list and I wouldnt give him
air if he was in a jug, but that doesnt make McClellan a truth bringer.
If it was only McClellan saying that Bush deceived us you might have a valid point, but there have been too many people with ties to this administration that have said the same thing. At some point it's time to recognize this administration for what it is. I thought McClellan was a weasel too when he use to stand in front of the press and deliberately lie. I am glad that his conscience got the best of him and in the end truth has won out.

Cat slave
06-01-2008, 02:58 PM
I see what the administration is. I see what the congress is.
I was stating that the little short man looks like to me...a weasel, and if he
knew all he is saying he knew....what cat had his tongue?
I would put nothing past any of them, nothing!!

Moby
06-01-2008, 05:24 PM
Has anyone read the book yet?

Is everyone just listening to the biased media reports of choice?

Smurf-Herder
06-02-2008, 09:27 PM
Has anyone read the book yet?

Is everyone just listening to the biased media reports of choice?

No. I've been watching the writer of the book giving interviews.

He keeps saying everybody's missing the point - on how he wrote the book to help end the gotcha politics and perpetual campaign-like mindset; throughout Washington. But as everybody can see, it's only adding to what the book was written against. Ironic, isn't it?

Is this guy for real?

Moby
06-03-2008, 01:22 AM
No. I've been watching the writer of the book giving interviews.

He keeps saying everybody's missing the point - on how he wrote the book to help end the gotcha politics and perpetual campaign-like mindset; throughout Washington. But as everybody can see, it's only adding to what the book was written against. Ironic, isn't it?

Is this guy for real?
He's not adding to it in any way. He's stating what may turn out to be the absolute truth.

Those that are bashing him, those that are taking a partisan view point and those that are listening to the partisan media are the ones that are adding to it.

Stop blaming the messenger! :banghead:

Smurf-Herder
06-03-2008, 07:08 PM
He's not adding to it in any way. He's stating what may turn out to be the absolute truth.

Those that are bashing him, those that are taking a partisan view point and those that are listening to the partisan media are the ones that are adding to it.

Stop blaming the messenger! :banghead:

How can you separate the two?

He needs the media to promote the book. Every group of people you mention are needed to push the book. And considering the circular reasoning here, it's counter productive by it's very nature; requiring the help of some of the very people who are in the book for the way they spin everything, to sell the book.

Unless of course he leaves the media out of his concerns - which makes the book even more pointless ..... other than to use as partisan attack material.