<p>"Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated “political propaganda campaign” led by President Bush and aimed at “manipulating sources of public opinion” and “downplaying the major reason for going to war.”</p>
<p>McClellan includes the charges in a 341-page book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” that delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade. He describes Bush as demonstrating a “lack of inquisitiveness,” says the White House operated in “permanent campaign” mode, and admits to having been deceived by some in the president’s inner circle about the leak of a CIA operative’s name.</p>
<p>The book, coming from a man who was a tight-lipped defender of administration aides and policy, is certain to give fuel to critics of the administration…</p>
<p>McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not “employing out-and-out deception” to make their case for war in 2002.</p>
<p>But in a chapter titled “Selling the War,” he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush “managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.”"
[McClellan:</a> Bush misled U.S. on Iraq - Washington Post - MSNBC.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24848910/]McClellan:”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24848910/)</p>
<p>I couldn’t care less left or right whether the book is true or false. What bothers me is McClellan himself. He loses all respect from me are we to believe the one that stood up in defense or the one speaking now? Either way he has sold himself out…if he stood up and lied as a spokesperson, than he sold out the country for his personal gain…if he is lieing now he is selling out the people who helped him get a book deal!</p>
<p>“he sold out the country for his personal gain”</p>
<p>Exactly. He doesn’t get any points from me for “blowing the whistle” long after the big story came out. You knew they were acting shady at the time, Scott, and you not only failed to warn us back then, you kept working for them and helping them to sell their terrible plan. Now that we’ve learned the truth through painful experience, you want to make money by telling us what we already know. In other words, you’re a bad human being, Scott, and I won’t be reading your book.</p>
<p>He said it himself he was never in the inner circle. He claims he “felt” like he was lied to. </p>
<p>WHAT?!?! You wrote an entire book on how you “felt”, and what you “thought” was going on? He just needed a retirement plan, and bashing Bush was the easiest way to get one.</p>
<p>You get what you pay (vote) for. Bush was the candidate people could have a beer with. The awe shucks Texan with a swagger. We need a democrat in the White House so the whole world will get the details about the worst presidency ever.</p>
<p>It does seem that McClellan really got angry when he found that others in the Administration were lying to him, but not so much when he was repeating the typical political lies that he knew were lies. In particular, I think they hung him out to dry and destroyed his credibility over the Plame affair.</p>
<p>You mean a press secretary loses credibility if he lies? I always thought that’s what he got paid to do!</p>
<p>People should be upset by Mr. (Powell) and Madam (Rice) "We-Don’t-Rendition
Mendaciousness, but a press secretary’s credibility is only on the line to the extent that what he says reflects what he is told to say.</p>
<p>“We need a democrat in the White House so the whole world will get the details about the worst presidency ever.”</p>
<p>Oh, the Democrats are a bunch of moral cowards. Remember how after the Dems took control we were going to have big hearings about the Abramoff affair? I’m still waiting. About Plame? Still waiting. About the $190 million that Gen. Betrayus “lost”, much of which found its way to Al-Qaeda and used to kill Americans? The Halliburton no-bid contracts? I’m still waiting. Just a bunch of cowards.</p>
<p>They don’t have the margin of power in Congress to drive the efforts you lay out here. My hope is they will after November. However, it will largely be too little too late. In a democracy, one has to be patient, sometimes too patient.</p>
<p>Wait a minute, they have control of the Congress to pass legislation, but now it is not large enough? How many more do they need to pass their programs and issues?</p>
<p>“They don’t have the margin of power in Congress to drive the efforts you lay out here.”</p>
<p>They have a majority in both houses of Congress, all committee chairmanships, and complete power of subpoena (which can’t be vetoed or blocked by minority members). They could have done ALL of the above. They promised to do all of the above if elected. </p>
<p>They have a razor-thin margin in the Senate and none at all if you count Joe Lieberman for the Republican he is. Easy to call them moral cowards, not entirely realistic. Though on Iraq itself, many more should have questioned.</p>
<p>And on all the issues you raise – which are examples of Republican malfeasance – why are you spending more time blaming the Democrats than those who actually committed the crimes?</p>
<p>There is no honor among thieves and Scotty is just the latest rat to jump ship. </p>
<p>It is amazing that this book is coming from the administration’s former representative in charge of lying but, if a little truth comes out of it, at least a baby step in the right direction.</p>
<p>The answer is simple…why haven’t they done something. To blame the republicans for the fact that the dems haven’t done anything is insane. Even you admit they have a margin, albeit razor thin, but the repubs had a small majority when they did all of the horrors that you acknowledge. Thus, if the republicans do damage when they had a majority, than why can’t the dems correct it? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Had Pelosi spent less time argueing about what type of jet she should have and putting her nose in the national campaign than maybe something could have been accomplished.</p>
<p>Yet you are not answering the question the dems have control of Congress, 2 yrs later nothing has changed, nothing has moved foward…so what have they proved? What have the dems accomplished? If you blame the republican Congress for doing horrible acts, than you must blame the democratic Congress for failing to correct after 2 yrs of control.</p>
<p>We hear over and over again about how the republicans will lose more seats. Personally I don’t care…my mission is to get rid of every incumbent and then maybe we will actually see someting happening on the hill. That is my suggestion to everyone, don’t vote for a party instead vote for the challenger to get rid of the clog on the hill</p>
<p>With the margins they have, they have little room to maneuver. Nothing much has changed, true, but the main part of that is our president hasn’t changed and the secondary part of that is the congressional margin of power is so thin that filibusters or veto-overrides are impossible. This is actually pretty simple to understand.</p>