Bush a deluded man, writes former aide

[El_Machinae]

I think it's pretty obvious that the man is deluded. He's been fooled by many rather evil men for a number of years, and then he's done his very best to rationalize it.

 

[emzie]

The more McClellan is telling the truth, the less respect I have for him.

 

[holy king]

bush has aides?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Neither does it make it true either.

Plus, I would say the incentive to make a buck upon his former position that much more of an excuse to make his allegations as spicey (i.e. hugely out of proportion let alone factual) as legally possible.

ironicly
EDIT: you know Bush cannot tell a lie and if Bush says Scotty is a man of integrity by God and Jesus Christ it must be the truth.

President Bush: “And I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity. He really represents the best of his family, our state and our country.

One of these days 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.

”[4/19/06]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060419-1.html? loc=interstitialskip

 

[Mr. Dictator]

the blind stay blind, and the criers never shut up.

another thread, another day in cfc.

 

[Shylock]

Celine Dion is a deluded man.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=276651

I don't get why Bush gets all the heat for everything. I'm no fan of his, but he isn't the only person in the Executive Branch. People can do things without his backing and get away with it.

 

[Ecofarm]

I KNEW IT!!!!

I knew that FF would be the guy to create this thread! I was going to ask you days ago if we were going to have to suffer through a year of quotes from this hack like we had to when Fiasco came out. I knew this would be your new bible! I'm so proud of myself.

Anyway, the guy is trying to make money. Period. Who cares?

(CNN) — Former White House counselor Dan Bartlett lashed out at Scott McClellan in a telephone interview Wednesday, saying the allegations that the media was soft on the White House are "total crap," adding that advisers of President Bush are "bewildered and puzzled" by the allegations in McClellan's new book.

"It's almost like we're witnessing an out-of-body experience," Bartlett said of McClellan. "We're hearing from a completely different person we didn't have any insight into."

Bartlett added that intimates of the President feel McClellan has violated his trust. "Part of the role of being a trusted adviser is to honor that trust," said Bartlett. "It's not your place now to go out" and criticize the President like this.

"What did he really believe when he was serving as press secretary?" Bartlett asked.


While he said McClellan himself has to "answer as to motive" for writing the book now, Bartlett said, "I do question his judgment."

Bartlett said the bewilderment stems from "Scott's decision to publicly air these deep misgivings he's never shared privately or publicly" with fellow Bush insiders. "To do it now, through a book, is a mistake," he added.

Bartlett asserted that McClellan did not play a major role in key events, noting that the former aide was serving as deputy press secretary for domestic issues during the run-up to the war in Iraq, raising questions about how McClellan could claim the President used "propaganda" to sell the war.

"I don't think he was in a position to know this," Bartlett said flatly. He said it's "troubling" that McClellan is now "gives credibility to every left-wing attack" on anecdotes that are "either thinly-sourced or not witnessed by him" in the White House.

Bartlett bluntly said it was "total crap" for McClellan to suggest the media was too easy on the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war.

"The problem is the intelligence was wrong," said Bartlett. "But this debate has been conflated into either we lied or on your side the tough questions were not asked. I think the truth is the intelligence was wrong."

On the Hurricane Katrina allegations, Bartlett refused to confirm or deny McClellan's claim that he and Bartlett believed the President should not have flown over New Orleans but were overruled by Karl Rove. "I'm not going to rehash internal deliberations," he said. "We've all acknowledged the whole Katrina experience could have been handled better."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/bartlett-rips-mcclellan-calls-allegation-total-crap/

McClellan's take on such books:

As Scottie Sowed, So Is He Reaping
May 28, 2008 3:15 PM

Before he wrote his own memoir, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was rather critical of those who did the same.

In fact, some of the same language now being used to trash McClellan he himself used to trash previous administration authors.

On the book critical of the Bush White House written in cooperation with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," McClellan said on January 12, 2004:

McCLELLAN: "It appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people."

McClellan also took issue with the book by former Bush White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," on March 22, 2004:

McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he 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. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. ...

Q: Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors.

McCLELLAN: Yes, and that's just flat-out wrong. …When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it's important that we set the record straight. And that's what we're doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/as-scottie-sowe.html

And let's not forget: McClellan was asked to leave/fired.

We are going to hear so much crap from this book here at CFC. Some people's idea of critical thinking or the scientific method is to find someone who says what they want to hear and proclaim it to be fact.

I think that the only possible way to evaluate the content of the book would be to actually read it at least.

Read: "I highly suggest you people pay close attention to this propaganda!"

That's not sensible, it's ridiculous. I'm not reading that crap. Do you read every book that gets negative reviews to see for yourself? How absurd. Besides, the above suggestion assumes that someone has the knowledge to critically evaluate the book - HAH. This book will be read by one demographic: hacks - for the purpose of hackery.

Spare me the propaganda.

 

[sonorakitch]

delete......

 

[Berzerker]

To those people who believes that Bush is an okay president, this book will reinforce their ideas that the liberal world is attacking the Bush administration.

Bush's good buddy from Texas is the liberal world?

Scott McClellan writes that the decision to invade Iraq was a "serious strategic blunder", sold to Americans with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by Mr Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war".

Yeah, sure he's honest. But what was "the major reason for going to war"? He cant be saying the WMD were downplayed, so whats this about? As for making a buck, this is a capitalist system boys.
Lets see some actual criticism of his claims...

 

[JollyRoger]

At the very least, Bush has exercised poor judgment in regards to all the greedy SOBs he surrounded himself with. Lots of them cashing in with negative books.

 

[Berzerker]

Former White House counselor Dan Bartlett lashed out at Scott McClellan in a telephone interview Wednesday, saying the allegations that the media was soft on the White House are "total crap," adding that advisers of President Bush are "bewildered and puzzled" by the allegations in McClellan's new book.

Would Mr Bartlett like to compare how many minutes were given to pro and anti advocates in the mainstream media? Did he forget Judy Miller at the NYT writing up the BS being fed her by the WH? Phil Donahue got canceled at MSNBC because corporate brass didn't wanna appear anti-war. The media did little to counter the wave of propaganda put out by the WH and its media whores.

Bartlett added that intimates of the President feel McClellan has violated his trust. "Part of the role of being a trusted adviser is to honor that trust," said Bartlett. "It's not your place now to go out" and criticize the President like this.

How about honoring our trust? You took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not clean dirty laundry.

Bartlett asserted that McClellan did not play a major role in key events, noting that the former aide was serving as deputy press secretary for domestic issues during the run-up to the war in Iraq, raising questions about how McClellan could claim the President used "propaganda" to sell the war.

By listening? By remembering? Did he lose his memory when he did become an insider?

"The problem is the intelligence was wrong," said Bartlett. "But this debate has been conflated into either we lied or on your side the tough questions were not asked. I think the truth is the intelligence was wrong."

Yeah Bushit. Blame the CIA for the way the White House "interpreted" the intelligence. Didn't the CIA warn the WH about using Chalabi and "Curveball" and Nigerian yellowcake? Wasn't it our own experts at the dept of energy who said the aluminum tubes were not for enriching uranium? This a-hole wants to blame the intelligence. I went thru his BS and didn't find 1 rebuttal, just this:

On the Hurricane Katrina allegations, Bartlett refused to confirm or deny McClellan's claim that he and Bartlett believed the President should not have flown over New Orleans but were overruled by Karl Rove. "I'm not going to rehash internal deliberations," he said. "We've all acknowledged the whole Katrina experience could have been handled better."

Thats about as close to an admission as we're gonna get from this weasel.

 

[Ecofarm]

Bush's good buddy from Texas is the liberal world?

He is now.

Lets see some actual criticism of his claims...

Do you think any of his claims are new? Do you think they have not been debated and rehashed for the last, ohh... 5 years? If you would like to see criticism of his claims, try reading every political thread on CFC for the last 5 years. Sorry, nothing new from McClellan.

At the very least, Bush has exercised poor judgment in regards to all the greedy SOBs he surrounded himself with. Lots of them cashing in with negative books.

Good one. Seriously. One thing: instead of "At the very least," (which betrays your bias), I would have used "Assuming McClellan is full of crap," (much more rhetorical and yet non-committal).

 

[Berzerker]

Do you think any of his claims are new? Do you think they have not been debated and rehashed for the last, ohh... 5 years? If you would like to see criticism of his claims, try reading every political thread on CFC for the last 5 years. Sorry, nothing new from McClellan.

Thats true, but I dont wanna read all those debates

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Neither does it make it true either.

Plus, I would say the incentive to make a buck upon his former position that much more of an excuse to make his allegations as spicey (i.e. hugely out of proportion let alone factual) as legally possible.

I always wondered, how does Bushaid taste? Oh .. oh ... look another Bushomaniac. Clearly Bush is your Texan Jesus and can't do a thing wrong.

Hmmm, nope.

It's really also not funny on the other foot.

Move along ... this was just a test. No MobBosses were meant to be offended during the making of this post.

 

[Berzerker]

ah, the major reason for invading they downplayed was "coerced democracy"... To transform the ME by making Iraq a beacon of liberty.

Wasn't that the neo-con ideology?

 

[Ecofarm]

ah, the major reason for invading they downplayed was "coerced democracy"... To transform the ME by making Iraq a beacon of liberty.

Wasn't that the neo-con ideology?

Wait, are you saying that spreading democracy WAS a major reason for the invasion?

 

[Berzerker]

according to Scott, but they downplayed that reason and pushed WMD

 

[bathsheba666]

I do admire this morally pure world people inhabit whereby making money from writing a book is sniffed at, whilst accepting lots of lobbying lucre to fine tune policy is an unremarkable thing.

 

[Rambuchan]

bush has aides?

No. He just carries the virus.

 

[RedRalph]

He's not saying anything the vast majority of the world dosent know. Some people's minds wont be changed, however it seems even the vast majority of Americans have copped on to Bush, so there's hope for the country yet. some people on the other hand, wouldnt change their opinion on him even if Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld and Laura Bush came out and said he was a deluded man and a congenital liar, so whaddayagonnado