Comments on: Ari Fleischer speaks out on McClellan’s book

By: joe schmoe

joe schmoe — Fri, 30 May 2008 04:56:17 +0000

ARI FLEISCHER is obviously a liar. Watching him try and defend Bush on CNN is nauseating. As this Presidency grinds to a halt is it not obvious this administration has been deceitful? It must make the Bush camp nervous that McClellan has delivered such a devasting direct hit to their credibility. It is not reasonable to conclude someone on the inside of the world most powerful clique would write a tell all book for a few hundred thousand dollars in publishing royalties. Once these guys leave office they begin careers where they wipe their nose with that sort of money.

Lets not pretend that the military industrial complex, Cheney, Haliburton, and large oil were not driving many of the decisions from this administration.

By: Tim Hays

Tim Hays — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:04:42 +0000

Friends: book publishing is “the arena of many ideas,” as my mentor in the business explained to me some years ago (he had begun his career as President Eisenhower’s editor, then developed WFB as a novelist; Sam Vaughan also was generous with Alex Haley, allowing him ten years to finish “Roots.”)

Twenty years ago, Don Regan and Larry Speakes published their own memoirs, in the last year of the Reagan Administration. Each book (owing to good ghostwriters) contained eye-opening statements about RWR (Nancy’s astrologers, for example).

We Americans are entitled to know the unvarnished truth about our elected officials. History will decide their fate.

As for Public Affairs, Mr. McClellan’s publisher, it has an eclectic list of good books. Its founder is a former Washington Post reporter, a one-time Vietnam correspondent, who has an open mind. (And possibly some of Mr. Soros’ dollars, but publishers need financing.)

As to other voices, you may rest assured there will be a flurry of good controversial books next year on the administration of our president (disclosure: I voted for him). Again, we Americans are fortunate to live in a country where information is open and opinions are debatable. It certainly wasn’t that way in Iraq up until five years ago, eh?

History is the ultimate judge. Our children are its beneficiaries.

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:37:33 +0000

Consultant….Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions. And all the Western Intelligence agencies believed he had weapons of mass destruction. Bill Clinton and his administration also believed he did. I agree the war was handled badly, mostly because the Bush administration tried to fight it in a “politically correct” manner. Ie., not enough troops going in. “Shock and Awe” was a failure.

But, based on all available data at the time, I think the facts show the war itself was justified.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:49:06 +0000

suggested reading for Wahoo:
The war on Iraq:
Conceived in Israel
by Stephen J. Sniegoski

suggest with all due respect that you familiarize yourself
with just exactly why the US went to war…why they US
changed its foreign policy..why the President was so
anxious to justify the invasion etc….forget about
Scott MccLlen..as Fleisher said..he never expressed
any reservations while in the white house…
However this war is historically a deviation from
CONSERVATIVE POLICY…..

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:06:29 +0000

Scott McClellan’s father, Barr, authored a book a few years ago which claimed Lyndon Johnson orchestrated JFK’s assassination. That is a fact. You can look it up.

I also believe Scott McClellan’s publisher handles all of George Soros’ publishing projects. McClellan took the money and set out to write things, true or not, that would appeal to Bush-haters. That’s who will buy his book. The left-leaning media outlets are salivating to book him. McClellan is a bum. And a hypocrite, and he is going for the bucks at the cost of integrity. Period.

And, the Consultant is becoming a real bore with his constant incorrect statements about Iraq. Every Intel service in the Western world (and Bill Clinton) believed Saddam had WMD. The Consultant’s hatred of the “Neo-Cons” has to be considered when viewing his comments about Iraq.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Thu, 29 May 2008 11:24:41 +0000

quite the contrary….Iraq was a check against Iran..
there was no “al queda in Iraq” before the invasion
Iraq was a dictatorship and a brutal one at that but
that has never been the standard for an amercian
invasion. THis president has deviated from traditional
republican policy..and he has done so on the advice
and urging of a group surrounding cheney called neocons
who believe that democracy can be imposed on a country
like Iraq…not possible because of ethnic rivalries
and because of no democratic tradition…
they were also motivated by the notion that establishing
a democratic mid east would innure to the benefit of
Israel…the oppposite has happened by enabling Iran
to bolden itself and develop nuclear fissile material
whiel the armed forces of the US are stretched to the
point where we are unable to make a credible threat
to stop them …this will go down in history as the
bigget foreign policy blunder ever made..and it was made
on hyped up misleading intelligence that turned out to
be wrong…Had we known that there was no WMD ..the
congress would not have authorized the ivasion…

By: ed

ed — Thu, 29 May 2008 03:21:02 +0000

Right. He certainly can’t make any advance money writing a book with a pro-Bush, or an even-handed angle, nor would he get the publicity needed by his publisher to make them enough dollars to even interest them in a book project. Who would have heard of, or have any interest in Benedict Arnold if he simply served honorably and retired to Boca with the Consultant? And that list of his includes those who are astute enough to realize that if we weren’t doing the heavy-lifting in that part of the world, Israel would, and we would be paying $250 a barrel by now and probably be engaged in a much wider war.

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:38:42 +0000

Because the tide has turned, that’s why. But you keep beating on that same drum. Why do you think Iraq has almost vanished from the headlines? It’s because the tide has turned, but much of the media doesn’t want to admit it.

But there finally was a big AP story today or yesterday pointing out all the progress.

As for McClellan, there is something wrong with this picture. Very possibly, since he had never once voiced any misgivings in private, he is trying to make a quick buck. Not very honorable. But he is a guy with an ax to grind. He was replaced as press spokesman, remember?

By: the consultant

the consultant — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:30:28 +0000

scott realizes now not then that the war was the fantasy
of the neocons who owned cheney..and who in turn influenced
bush….they attempted to impose a democracy on a country
which had absolutely no democratic history…it didn;t
work..and what is worse is that they manipulated intelligence to justify the invasion…unfortunately
ari fleishher, joe lieberman, paul wolfawitz, ed koch
and others still think the war was a good idea…
I wonder why?