Former Bush Press Secretary Book about the Bush Administration

[earth_as_one]

Scott MacClennan confesses his sins as Bush's press secretary. Not very flattering.

Scott McClennan accuses Bush White House of deceit over Iraq invasion

A former White House press secretary has accused President Bush of hiding the truth and “veering terribly off course” when he sold the Iraq war to the American public.

In an explosive new book that drew anger from the Bush Administration, Scott McClennan declared: “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder.” He added: “War should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

The book goes on to accuse Mr Bush of managing “the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option” — while also failing to be “open and forthright” about the reasons for military action.

The White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: “Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience in the White House. For those of us who fully supported him before, during and after his time as press secretary, this is puzzling and sad. This is not the Scott we knew.”...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4023298.ece

Worth reading the news item too.

 

[Kreskin]

Most everything in this book could be found on CanadianContent. Tell people to save their money and look through our old posts.

Didn't they hire this guy to bs?

 

[quandary121]

bush cheney

when are they gonna lock away bush cheney and all the other skull & bones
men for the atrocity they committed :?:

 

[talloola]

Yeah, they should end their time in the white house the same way that

SEINFELD ended his show, all in jail, where they belong.

 

[earth_as_one]

I especially like the spin delivered by the new press secretary:

The White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: “Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience in the White House. For those of us who fully supported him before, during and after his time as press secretary, this is puzzling and sad. This is not the Scott we knew.”...

Awesome BS!

 

[Kreskin]

I especially like the spin delivered by the new press secretary:



Awesome BS!

Did he say it with a straight face?

 

[quandary121]

IVE ONLY GOT ONE MORE THING TO SAY ABOUT THIS AND THATS

 

[talloola]

IVE ONLY GOT ONE MORE THING TO SAY ABOUT THIS AND THATS

The above picture should be stuck on every telephone pole in North America!!!

 

[talloola]

There is some opinions on CNN and FOX tonight that states he should have kept this
information to himself till long after the president is out of office, as this is not the
proper way to do things, while the president is still in office.

WELL, why don't they ask the regular person on the street, as they want to know the
truth NOW, so that they don't have to walk around being deceived ALL THE TIME, give
us all a break please.

 

[earth_as_one]

Some quotes from the book:

..."No single decision caused the wheels to come off the Bush White House. But the way we went about executing the decision to go to war -- from making the case to the public to inadequately planning and preparing for its aftermath as we rushed into it -- sent us badly off track."

"The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term. . . . And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."

"If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. . . . The 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."...

About the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to discredit her husband, administration critic Joseph Wilson:

"The top White House officials who knew the truth -- including [Karl] Rove, ["Scooter"] Libby, and possibly Vice President Cheney -- allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie."

"It was all too characteristic of an administration that, too often, chose in defining moments to employ obfuscation and secrecy rather than honesty and candor."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-excerpts29-2008may29,0,2380194.story

Katrina:
..."one of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency."...

...Bush administration spent most of the first week after Katrina "in a state of denial."...

 

[earth_as_one]

There is some opinions on CNN and FOX tonight that states he should have kept this
information to himself till long after the president is out of office, as this is not the
proper way to do things, while the president is still in office.

WELL, why don't they ask the regular person on the street, as they want to know the
truth NOW, so that they don't have to walk around being deceived ALL THE TIME, give
us all a break please.

I wouldn't listen to cable news. Its bad for the brain. It'll warp your perceptions. A much better source of information about what's important and reality is the Daily Show:

O'Reilly: Young Americans "have no idea what's going on" because they "get their news from Jon Stewart"
Summary: Bill O'Reilly asserted that "[m]any Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what's going on," stating that they "get their news from [Comedy Central host] Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers." In fact, studies have shown that viewers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are consistently better informed about current events than consumers of other media, and Daily Show viewers are significantly better educated than viewers of The O'Reilly Factor. Further, consumers of Fox News in general have been found to be significantly more misinformed about current events than consumers of other mainstream media.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250003

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

When the King has gone mad, only the court jester can get away with the truth.

I think The Colbert Report is better.

 

[dancing-loon]

Aww... too late! You folks have already a debate on the go. I have this article from the New York Times in my mouse, so, rather than discarding it I'll drop it here... it's fresh from this morning.

Ex-Aide Responds to White House Criticism of Book

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan continued to press his case Thursday that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, and responded to a growing chorus of criticism from other former administration officials.

That, I guess, is a known fact anyway.
.....

Also speaking Thursday morning on “Today,” Dan Bartlett, a former counselor to the president, sought to minimize Mr. McClellan’s participation in events leading up to the Iraq war, noting that during that time he was deputy press secretary for domestic affairs. He said that Mr. McClellan’s assertion in his new book that intelligence was shaded to justify the war “is wrong.”

Of course, he could be right. But then McClellan explains...

Mr. McClellan responded that, as deputy press secretary at the time, he often filled in as press secretary and he participated in meetings leading up to the war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/wa...hp&oref=slogin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading the article I get the impression that either side could be right. To write a book on the corruption of the Bush Junta is a guarantied seller, and thus a money raker, and who doesn't need or want money?

Things McClelland reveals about the Bush administration are not particularly earth-shaking. I don't see anything the public didn't know, or at least, didn't suspected already anyway.

So, what's all the fuss about?

 

[talloola]

I wouldn't listen to cable news. Its bad for the brain. It'll warp your perceptions. A much better source of information about what's important and reality is the Daily Show:



http://www.thedailyshow.com/

When the King has gone mad, only the court jester can get away with the truth.

I think The Colbert Report is better.

umm hmmm I know about cable news, but once you understand where they are coming from, (which is ratings and money), you can disgard them, but they do have many
interesting people on as 'so called experts', and once you learn which ones of those are
sincere and knowledgable, you can decide which ones you are going to listen to with
respect. That takes time, and also everyone must watch/read all sorts of news, not
just cable.

The daily show and The Colbert Report, (who came from the daily show), are good
entertainment, and from what I hear, many young people watch them to learn
about the government, 'not sure' how to think about that aspect of our young people.

 

[Praxius]

I've also create a thread about this book yesterday located here:

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/74103-former-press-secretarys-book-bashes.html
My comments are there, in order to reduce spam on the subject here.

 

[earth_as_one]

Don't confuse news with infotainment. Both the Daily Show and Cable News are infotainment. The Daily Show doesn't pretend (very hard) to be something its not.

Did you ever notice that the cable "experts" usually share the same viewpoint, stick mostly to the official propaganda message of the day and create a perception of consensus, even on completely ridiculous lies. That's not a coincidence. They have to stay on "message" or they won't last on cable news very long.

During the lead up to the Iraq invasion, the American press failed the American people. They never asked obvious questions or questioned obvious lies.

None of the cable "experts" expressed views like this 2002 pre-Iraq invasion interview of Noam Chomsky:

Interview With Noam Chomsky about US Warplans

Various questions are circulating among people worried about war. On August 29, 2002, Michael Albert put some of these to Noam Chomsky, via email. Here are the questions and his responses...

1. Has Saddam Hussein been as evil as mainstream media says? Domestically? Internationally?

He is as evil as they come, ranking with Suharto and other monsters of the modern era. No one would want to be within his reach. But fortunately, his reach does not extend very far.

Internationally, Saddam invaded Iran (with Western support), and when that war was going badly turned to chemical weapons (also with Western support). He invaded Kuwait and was quickly driven out. A major concern in Washington right after the invasion was that Saddam would quickly withdraw, putting "his puppet in [and] everyone in the Arab world will be happy" (Colin Powell, then Chief of Staff). President Bush was concerned that Saudi Arabia might "bug out at the last minute and accept a puppet regime in Kuwait" unless the US prevented Iraqi withdrawal....

2. Looking into the future, is Saddam Hussein as dangerous as mainstream media says?

The world would be better off if he weren't there, no doubt about that. Surely Iraqis would. But he can't be anywhere near as dangerous as he was when the US and Britain were supporting him, even providing him with dual-use technology that he could use for nuclear and chemical weapons development, as he presumably did. 10 years ago the Senate Banking Committee hearings revealed that the Bush administration was granting licences for dual use technology and "materials which were later utilized by the Iraq regime for nuclear missile and chemical purposes." Later hearings added more, and there are press reports and a mainstream scholarly literature on the topic (as well as dissident literature).

The 1991 war was extremely destructive, and since then Iraq has been devastated by a decade of sanctions, which probably strengthened Saddam himself (by weakening possible resistance in a shattered society), but surely reduced very significantly his capacity for war-making or support for terror. Furthermore, since 1991 his regime has been constrained by "no fly zones," regular overflights and bombing, and very tight surveillance. Chances are that the events of Sept. 11 weakened him still further. If there are any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, they would be far more difficult to maintain now because of the sharply intensified surveillance and controls. That aside, links are not very likely. Despite enormous efforts to tie Saddam to the 9-11 attacks, nothing has been found, which is not too surprising. Saddam and bin Laden were bitter enemies, and there's no particular reason to suppose that there have been any changes in that regard...

4. Some argue that there is ample justification for treating Iraq's potential for weapons of mass destruction differently from those of other countries because, under the terms of Security Council Resolution 687, agreed to by Saddam Hussein, Iraq is to be disarmed, in part as punishment for its flagrant violation of international law in invading Kuwait. Is the international community justified in trying to restrict Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? If one accepts this argument, as put, what would be the international ramifications? Is there a different version of this argument with better logic and methodology, and what would be its implications?

As noted, 687 has other provisions, rather significant ones.

The invasion of Kuwait is one of Saddam's lesser crimes. It is not very different from one of the footnotes to US crimes in its own traditional domains: the invasion of Panama a few months earlier, which didn't have even a marginally credible pretext. The main difference is that the US could veto Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion, disregard the harsh condemnations from the Latin American democracies (barely reported), and basically do what it liked. It's all removed from sanitized history for the same reasons. As I mentioned, Washington feared that Saddam would emulate the Panama invasion and worked hard to prevent it. In the region itself, the invasion of Kuwait, criminal as it was, doesn't compare with the US-supported Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which left some 20,000 dead. And it's embarrassingly easy to continue with much worse cases that we all know...

5. Hasn't the history of previous weapons inspections shown that weapons inspectors can be fooled, delayed, and otherwise prevented from actually accomplishing their task? Is there a viable inspections method or related policy, and could it be applied universally?

Sure they can be fooled. However, the weapons inspections were vastly more effective than bombing in destroying Iraq's military capacities, and appear to have been largely successful. Going a step beyond, when was the last time there was a meaningful (or any) international inspection of Israel's nuclear and (probably) chemical weapons facilities? Or those of the US? Inspection regimes should be established, and universalized, but that again requires US acquiescence.

6. During the recent Congressional hearings on Iraq, one witness stated that for inspections to be truly effective, a rapid reaction military force would be needed, so that Saddam Hussein could not prevent the inspectors from making a surprise visit to some site where improper activity was going on. The witness said there's no way Iraq would agree to this, but by demanding such a force the U.S. would seize the high moral ground. Is such a force a necessary component of an effective inspection regime? Would the U.S. be on high moral ground? What reciprocal demands might others reasonably make of us?

Is the goal propaganda ("seizing the high moral ground")? Or reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)? If the former, we can dismiss the matter. If the latter, some obvious questions arise. Weapons inspection appears to have been highly effective, even if imperfect. Scott Ritter's testimony on the topic is compelling, and I know of no serious refutation of it. Those who want to reduce the threat of WMD will, therefore, try to create the conditions for meaningful inspection, as required by resolution 687 and earlier ones, and supported by the actual international community. For some years, the US has sought in every way to block such eventualities. The inspections were used as a cover for spying on Iraq, with the open intent of overthrowing the regime and probably assassinating the leadership. Apart from the violation of elementary norms, these practices were sure to undermine the inspections regime, and to sharply reduce the likelihood that Iraq would accept inspections. Would Israel agree to inspection of its military facilities by spies for Hamas? In 1998, Clinton withdrew the inspectors in preparation for bombing -- acts that have been reconstructed in propaganda as Iraqi expulsion of the inspectors. The US-UK bombing was carefully timed to coincide with an emergency meeting of the Security Council on inspections, hence to demonstrate the utter contempt of the enforcers for the UN. And the bombing was another blow to the renewal of inspections. Since then, Washington has been insisting that even if Iraq accepts the most intrusive inspections by American spies seeking to prepare the ground for invasion, it will not make any difference. In Cheney's recent version, "A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of [Saddam's] compliance with U.N. resolutions." This stance amounts to pleading with Iraq not to accept inspectors. It has been reported, not implausibly, that one reason why Washington forced out the highly respected director of the UN Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Jose Bustani, was that he was seeking to arrange inspections of chemical weapons in Iraq, thus interfering with Washington's efforts to prevent WMD inspections. The hypocrisy was particularly stunning, mainstream commentators pointed out, after the Bush administration undermined the Chemical and Biological weapons conventions by refusing at the last minute to ratify enforcement protocols, in part because of its opposition to arms agreements, in part to protect commercial secrets of US corporations, and possibly in part to keep its own violations of the conventions from too much exposure (though some has already leaked).

So back to the first question: is the goal to block inspections, or to expedite them?...

Read it here:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11742

So what we know today was known then. Chomsky isn't a pyschic, he's an "expert". But I never saw him on cable news. In fact you would have been hard pressed to hear his voice during the pre-Iraq war run up.

Not just Chomsky, lots of people weren't heard. Remember Phil Donahue?

Phil Donahue–one of the best-known talk show hosts in the history of television in the United States–joins us in our firehouse studio to discuss the state of the media in this country. Donahue’s show was on the air for more than 29 years. In 2003, he was fired by MSNBC because he was allowing antiwar voices on the air....


...AMY GOODMAN: Well, we all learned about this memo, just soon after you were fired that came out of NBC, that was—that said that as we led into the invasion of Iraq, they didn’t want to have their flagship show, no matter how successful it was, the most popular show on MSNBC, being one that provided a forum for anti-war voices. They didn’t want an anti-war face when the other networks were waving the American flag.

PHIL DONAHUE: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response?

PHIL DONAHUE: Well, that memo was a fact, and it was reported by The New York Times and other publications. Our program was doing reasonably well. We weren’t Elvis, but the program for its—the numbers of our program on the family of NBC—MSNBC at night, was very respectable, and I think had a prospect of growing even larger. So, the numbers did not warrant our departure, our dismissal. And along the way it became clear to us that they were terrified that we were going to become a place—an anti-war kind of platform, where all of these radicals would come and oppose the war....

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/3/24/phil_donahue_we_have_an_emergency

He's not the only one. The people who control the media fired lots of anti-war people. News in general became more distorted:

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War

October 2, 2003
Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq
Highly Related to Support for War
Full Report
Questionnaire



A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.
The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.
An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.
Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war. Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war. Among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, “While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions.”
The frequency of Americans’ misperceptions varies significantly depending on their source of news. The percentage of respondents who had one or more of the three misperceptions listed above is shown below.

Variations in misperceptions according to news source cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the rate of misperceptions within demographic subgroups of each audience.
Another key perception—one that US intelligence agencies regard as unfounded—is that Iraq was directly involved in September 11. Before the war approximately one in five believed this and 13% even said they believed that they had seen conclusive evidence of it. Polled June through September, the percentage saying that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 continued to be in the 20-25% range, while another 33-36% said they believed that Iraq gave al-Qaeda substantial support. [Note: An August Washington Post poll found that 69% thought it was at least “somewhat likely” that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11—a different question than the PIPA/KN question that asked respondents to come to a conclusion.]
In the run-up to the war misperceptions were also highly related to support for going to war. In February, among those who believed that Iraq was directly involved in September 11, 58% said they would agree with the President’s decision to go to war without UN approval. Among those who believed that Iraq had given al Qaeda substantial support, but was not involved in September 11, approval dropped to 37%. Among those who believed that a few al Qaeda individuals had contact with Iraqi officials 32% were supportive, while among those who believed that there was no connection at all just 25% felt that way. Polled during the war, among those who incorrectly believed that world public opinion favored going to the war, 81% agreed with the President’s decision to do so, while among those who knew that the world public opinion was opposed only 28% agreed.
While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.
The level of misperceptions varies according to Americans’ political positions. Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions. However, misperceptions do not appear to only be the result of bias, because a significant number of people who do not have such political positions also have misperceptions.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

The former Press Secretary is just a small part of the overall propaganda picture.

 

[normbc9]

I'm not even trying to question McClellan's motives but by the way the old guard Republicans reacted I think there is some merit to his statements. The fastest way to kill a political adversary is to do it by inuendo and that is certainly evident tonight on the media. Only time will bear out the facts but I'll bet a few are stated in this book.

 

[gopher]

;-)Gee, I thought Bush was the closest thing to God.