I am looking forward to seeing how this one plays out over the next few days, weeks and maybe months. McClellan is beginning his media tour with a stop on the Today show tomorrow and on Countdown with Keith Monday among others. I'm sure he'll be popping up on a lot of different shows soon.
Among the highlights of the book:
• McClellan charges that Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war. (OK, tell us something we didn't already know.)
• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.
• He admits that many of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be "badly misguided."
• He also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them -- and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.
I'm not sure there are any true bombshells in there but it's surprising that McClellan would come forward now with the book and not wait until January. But I guess the book will sell a lot more copies with the current timing. At any rate, it'll be interesting to watch the Republicans squirm for awhile on this one.
Full Version: Scott McClellan's new book slams Bush
Mr. McClennan isn't exactly mincing words about how he viewed things while being the WH Press Secretary. I recall many a controversy where he seemed to have to take the heat, and lots of it for various WH people including Mr. Rove. And guess who isn't going to be at ALL happy about this latest controversy. None other than Mr. John-I-will-never-surrender McCain...its like a shot in the foot for him. The biggest beneficiary will be Obama....Just saw a headline on MSNBC, where the WH is firing back about Scott...........
Then there's this:
He's actually pretty kind to the monsters he worked with. My question about everything relating to the W Mafia and its administration will be, how is it that so many on this board, and others out there, were able to see right through these liars from Day 1, but the establishment media, millions of Democrats, and the vast majority of Republicans, could not? It was clear as a summer day in Portland, Oregon.
QUOTE
McClellan tracks Bush's penchant for self-deception back to an overheard incident on the campaign trail in 1999 when the then-governor was dogged by reports of possible cocaine use in his younger days.
The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.
"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"
"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."
Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."
"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."
In the years that followed, McClellan "would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment." McClellan likened it to a witness who resorts to "I do not recall."
"Bush, similarly, has a way of falling back on the hazy memory to protect himself from potential political embarrassment," McClellan wrote, adding, "In other words, being evasive is not the same as lying in Bush's mind."
And McClellan linked the tactic to the decision to invade Iraq, a decision based on flawed intelligence.
The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.
"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"
"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."
Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."
"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."
In the years that followed, McClellan "would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment." McClellan likened it to a witness who resorts to "I do not recall."
"Bush, similarly, has a way of falling back on the hazy memory to protect himself from potential political embarrassment," McClellan wrote, adding, "In other words, being evasive is not the same as lying in Bush's mind."
And McClellan linked the tactic to the decision to invade Iraq, a decision based on flawed intelligence.
He's actually pretty kind to the monsters he worked with. My question about everything relating to the W Mafia and its administration will be, how is it that so many on this board, and others out there, were able to see right through these liars from Day 1, but the establishment media, millions of Democrats, and the vast majority of Republicans, could not? It was clear as a summer day in Portland, Oregon.
QUOTE(fantomas @ May 28 2008, 11:49 AM) 
My question about everything relating to the W Mafia and its administration will be, how is it that so many on this board, and others out there, were able to see right through these liars from Day 1, but the establishment media, millions of Democrats, and the vast majority of Republicans, could not? It was clear as a summer day in Portland, Oregon.
I think virtually everyone saw what was happening, but millions chose to turn a blind eye to things. Many were afraid to speak up. After 9/11, we were forced by the mainstream media and guilted into a sense of false patriotism. We were basically told as a nation that we had to rally around Bush no matter what. Do you remember how no one could speak out and say anything negative about Bush or the administration at the time? The Dixie Chicks were forced out of country music for god's sake! Whoopi Goldberg made an anti-Bush comment and didn't work for 2 years! Two out of every three cars in the country had an American flag on it at the time. If you spoke out against the government, you were made to be fearful of the consequences. It was a frightening time. The most sickening thing, to me, is this: If Obama becomes president and there ends up being a terrorist attack against the U.S. during his term, I can guarantee you that the Republicans will not rally around him, and he will never see a 91% approval rating. We will be told it was his fault and that he was ill-prepared to be president, and I would imagine impeachment hearings would begin.
QUOTE(TheOtherFSU @ May 28 2008, 07:14 PM)
I think virtually everyone saw what was happening, but millions chose to turn a blind eye to things. Many were afraid to speak up. After 9/11, we were forced by the mainstream media and guilted into a sense of false patriotism. We were basically told as a nation that we had to rally around Bush no matter what. Do you remember how no one could speak out and say anything negative about Bush or the administration at the time? The Dixie Chicks were forced out of country music for god's sake! Whoopi Goldberg made an anti-Bush comment and didn't work for 2 years! Two out of every three cars in the country had an American flag on it at the time. If you spoke out against the government, you were made to be fearful of the consequences. It was a frightening time.
Great points, OtherFSU. It was frightening in some ways, but I do recall all the speeches, by Kennedy, by Gore, etc., that the media ignored, all of the pre-war and subsequent anti-war marches that were downplayed, all the vicious attacks on both liberal and conservative critics of this administration's recklessness, and even on this board, the ways in which those of us who not only saw what a disaster Bush was as a president, but how the Iraq War itself was unfolding as a mess, did speak up, again and again. Why was it that so many people refused or were incapable of listening? Even if we take into account 9/11, what about the period from 1999 through the 2000 election, when one of the most capable vice presidents we had was repeatedly trashed and smeared by the media in his campaign against a person whose record gave more than a few clues as to how awful a leader he would be? How did fear factor in then?
This comes down to another question, which is how do we purge our public discourse of right-wing narratives which still continue to have such tremendous power? How do we get the establishment media, which was in the tank for George W. Bush from the beginning, to go back to even a shred of objectivity? Because if (when) Obama wins, they will trash him as they did Clinton like there's no tomorrow. Which leads to the next great point you make:
QUOTE
The most sickening thing, to me, is this: If Obama becomes president and there ends up being a terrorist attack against the U.S. during his term, I can guarantee you that the Republicans will not rally around him, and he will never see a 91% approval rating. We will be told it was his fault and that he was ill-prepared to be president, and I would imagine impeachment hearings would begin.
I agree about the approval rating, but he will, at least for two years, have a Democratic Congress to work with. The Democrats appear poised to win 3-6 US Senate seats (in Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, possibly Oregon, Mississippi, less likely in Minnesota and Kentucky but not inconceivable), so were Obama to win, he'd at least have a Democratic Congress (many of them conservative or moderates, of course) to work with and rely on for support. Clinton also had a Democratic Congress, but it was considerably more conservative, and they hadn't been out of power and shaken up the way the Democrats were from 1994-2006. No guarantee, but I don't think impeachment would be on the table.
I blame the 4th Estate for failing to do their job while letting themselves fall victim to conservative talk radio and FauxNews. It's as if they felt they had to go along with the Bush administration to prove they were unbiased to counteract the propaganda spouted by the "fair & balanced" wing. Journalistic integrity has cratered to ratings and subscription numbers at the expense of truth and healthy skepticism of our leader's motives. It's like living in the Twilight Zone. Power to the bloggers!
Well the American media certainly did not live up to their duty after 9/11. They forgot that the duty of the press is to criticize all government regardless of party and not just print Administration press releases.There was no criticism allowed of the President. There were also those reports of WH created false "news stories" which some tv stations ran as actual news stories.
If you wanted a contrary viewpoint, or at least a less bias viewpoint, you had to look at foreign media sources. Any criticism of the President and his Administration was definitely considered un-patriotic and meant you were in league with or aiding Al Qaeda That was the view of the White House and the media accepted it. Remember "freedom fries" and other ridiculous demonstrations of patriotism, the coalition of the willing, your either with us or against us........
The media cannot take all the blame though, the American people seemed to willing give up their ability to think and reason for themselves and bought into the WH propaganda hook line and sinker. Perhaps had they not done this major media outlets, and more elected officials, would have found the guts to challenge the WH. I doubt it though as even today many Americans still believe Iraq and Saddam were involved with 9/11.
If you wanted a contrary viewpoint, or at least a less bias viewpoint, you had to look at foreign media sources. Any criticism of the President and his Administration was definitely considered un-patriotic and meant you were in league with or aiding Al Qaeda That was the view of the White House and the media accepted it. Remember "freedom fries" and other ridiculous demonstrations of patriotism, the coalition of the willing, your either with us or against us........
The media cannot take all the blame though, the American people seemed to willing give up their ability to think and reason for themselves and bought into the WH propaganda hook line and sinker. Perhaps had they not done this major media outlets, and more elected officials, would have found the guts to challenge the WH. I doubt it though as even today many Americans still believe Iraq and Saddam were involved with 9/11.
The media definitley let this adminstration intimidate them. Helen Thomas was not intimidated, so they just blatantly ignored her questions. Those looking to advance their careers certainly couldn't let THAT happen to them. They were too afraid of losing their "face time" to ask the hard questions or write the critical article, so they became willing mouthpieces for BushCo. To do otherwise and you were sure to lose access to the Whitehouse much like Bush 1 did to Dan Rather. So I guess it was either play along, or let FoxNews have all the "gets". Disgusting on so many levels.
I'm sure I'm in the minority here with my opinions of McClellan's book, but to be honest with you guys, as much as I think Bush is a bleepin' idiot (among other things) who couldn't tie his shoes without instructions, I am rather leery of this book.
I mean, let's look at its author. Here's a guy who got fired from his job, a job at which he certainly was inept. I never thought I'd hear someone mangle the English language worse than Bush, but McClelland did just that. He's legendary for his incoherence.
Plus, one has to ask himself: if McClelland believes what he's writing, what did he believe then while working for President Doofus? Is Scott lying now or was he lying then? And if he's telling the truth now, that doesn't say much for his moral authority or his credibility as someone who perpetuated that which he's claiming was occurring. After all, he's the one who helped craft the propaganda that he now claims went on.
Either he's one of the most dishonorable men in Washington, having been directly involved in the high crimes that he asserts occurred, or he's a disgruntled man who just happened to have had one of the most undistinguished careers as a press secretary that ever existed.
I'm sorry if I'm a minority of one, but if we here are going to continually praise these tell-all books, even when they're about people we do not like, as is the case here, then I believe we've sunk to the level of National Enquirer types.
Just my objective 2c, even if it means I'll get flamed.
I mean, let's look at its author. Here's a guy who got fired from his job, a job at which he certainly was inept. I never thought I'd hear someone mangle the English language worse than Bush, but McClelland did just that. He's legendary for his incoherence.
Plus, one has to ask himself: if McClelland believes what he's writing, what did he believe then while working for President Doofus? Is Scott lying now or was he lying then? And if he's telling the truth now, that doesn't say much for his moral authority or his credibility as someone who perpetuated that which he's claiming was occurring. After all, he's the one who helped craft the propaganda that he now claims went on.
Either he's one of the most dishonorable men in Washington, having been directly involved in the high crimes that he asserts occurred, or he's a disgruntled man who just happened to have had one of the most undistinguished careers as a press secretary that ever existed.
I'm sorry if I'm a minority of one, but if we here are going to continually praise these tell-all books, even when they're about people we do not like, as is the case here, then I believe we've sunk to the level of National Enquirer types.
Just my objective 2c, even if it means I'll get flamed.
QUOTE(Crew Chief @ May 28 2008, 07:05 PM)
Plus, one has to ask himself: if McClelland believes what he's writing, what did he believe then while working for President Doofus? Is Scott lying now or was he lying then? And if he's telling the truth now, that doesn't say much for his moral authority or his credibility as someone who perpetuated that which he's claiming was occurring. After all, he's the one who helped craft the propaganda that he now claims went on.
All of these people who write books after the fact are pathetic. All of them. If they were in position to stop some of the garbage that's gone on, or make it public so that others could take action to stop it, and they either did nothing or, worse, publicly supported said garbage, instead of getting book royalties they ought to have their books shot at their heads with cannons.
Regarding the media not doing its job: while that's true, it's also true that the people have allowed it to happen because of their stupidity...and that's something that isn't going away any time soon.
Joe, you bring up a good point about the book royalties, because I had heard that since leaving the White House under less than favorable conditions, McClelland has had a tough go of things financially. What better way to earn a ton of money than to write a book blasting your president/recent employer, whom most of the country dislikes anyway?
Is it no surprise that as of today, if I am correct, his book was #1 on Amazon.com? Americans, and I fear especially many of us Democrats, are going to lap this stuff up. It's kind of disgusting, if you ask me.
Is it no surprise that as of today, if I am correct, his book was #1 on Amazon.com? Americans, and I fear especially many of us Democrats, are going to lap this stuff up. It's kind of disgusting, if you ask me.
I just saw a clip of McClellen commenting on a book by Gen Wesley Clark (I think) that he wrote after leaving the administration. He basically said owrd for word what the White House is saying today about McClellen's book.
You have to give McClellan a lot of credit for writing the things he did. It's better late than never. Anyone who believes that McClellan could have stepped forward and expressed his opinions while he was the press secretary is mistaken. Check out what happened to Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, Paul O'Neill, Wes Clark and others. If you think the White House is going full bore on McClellan now, imagine what they would have done to him if he'd said these things a few years ago. I doubt it was an easy decision even now to come forward with all of this, but good for him.
QUOTE(George Twins fan @ May 29 2008, 01:21 AM)
I just saw a clip of McClellen commenting on a book by Gen Wesley Clark (I think) that he wrote after leaving the administration. He basically said owrd for word what the White House is saying today about McClellen's book.
I think it's Richard Clarke, who warned Bush about Al Qaeda repeatedly before 9/11, but was ignored.
Wesley Clark is a Democrat who prosecuted the Balkans War under President Clinton.
McClellan was a loyal Bushite. Whatever his reasons for writing the book, he was complicit with the administration since he was a part of it, but what he's saying also squares with what we already know, and as a former insider, his book only clarifies the truth for the country. The administration sold the war to this country through propaganda and lies. McClellan's book restates this in a way that's not so kind to Cheney and Rove, but still fairly kind to Bush, whom he basically says is a moron. Big surprise there.
He and every other member of this administration will carry the taint of having been part of it. I don't gainsay his trying to earn a living by telling the truth, or some part of it. We need to hear those who were part of this disastrous administration admit to what they've done. Douglas Feith, one of the architects of the Iraq War, wrote a book and is blaming everyone under the sun but himself. He should be tried for war crimes, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.
No doubt McClellan is a douchebag. No doubt he's gonna make some scratch with this book. I have no problem with him writing the book, nor the timing of publication. As far as I'm concerned, it's never too late to tell the truth.
The war in Iraq has caused many lives to be lost at great expense to our country. Based on lies and Bush's desire to be a war time President for "legacy" material.
No matter the timing, one way or another, someone will be "killing the messenger".
Does anyone honestly think [McClellan's] opinion or objections would have been tolerated for a second? I don't think he was there to advise (not while Karl Rove was pulling the strings). His job was to regurgitate what he was told to spew. Maybe the truth has set him free? That would go real well with a lot of cash.
The war in Iraq has caused many lives to be lost at great expense to our country. Based on lies and Bush's desire to be a war time President for "legacy" material.
No matter the timing, one way or another, someone will be "killing the messenger".Does anyone honestly think [McClellan's] opinion or objections would have been tolerated for a second? I don't think he was there to advise (not while Karl Rove was pulling the strings). His job was to regurgitate what he was told to spew. Maybe the truth has set him free? That would go real well with a lot of cash.
I also get a weird vibe from this book. Scott McClellan's job was to prevaricate and to propagandize--and he did a bad job at it. Most observers considered him the worst press secretary in memory. This isn't a Richard Clarke situation, where a competent government bureaucrat apparently worked hard behind the scenes to educate decision makers. It's not even a George Tenet situation, where the guy seemed a bit over his head but at least tried to be evenhanded. This kind of 100% rebuke shows that McClellan is unbelievably stupid, unbelievably crass, or both. He has already proven himself to be the latter by virtue of holding his position in the administration and spending time in the spotlight defending Bush's performance in Iraq and after Katrina.
The question I keep coming back to--why should any of us care what Scott McClellan thinks?
The question I keep coming back to--why should any of us care what Scott McClellan thinks?
The worst Press Secretary for the worst President in U.S. history as far as I am concerned...too bad he wasn't impeached...this story is ALL over the news cycle, was last night and is so again this morning...I repeat what I said th eother day, McCain is going to be running for cover. I loved how th eother night he had a fundraiser, where Bush was there, and McCain allowed NO cameras and NO Reporters. Gotta keep that distance, hey John? 
Talk about revealing body language, Scott McClellan always seemed like Elmer Fudd to George Bush's Bugs Bunny.
He never seemed to have a clue, and was never well-informed, for someone who was suppose to be informing the public.
That he still insists on defending George W. Bush's motives either makes him a saint or a sinner. Take your pick.
The fact that the book was released now instead of after the election probably has more to do with the greed of the publishers than with McClellan, who is likely still being manipulated, just by others, and by other means.
Still the few new facts that appear to have come out of the book concern his role in the machinations in the White House. If Bush and Co. are indeed prosecuted one day, he will certainly be a target because I suspect any lawyer would love to be able to drill him on the witness stand.
As for how this will play in the current political race for the presidency, I think it should only help Obama. He is the only one who offers a ghost of a chance that this silly season of scheming obfuscation will end.
He never seemed to have a clue, and was never well-informed, for someone who was suppose to be informing the public.
That he still insists on defending George W. Bush's motives either makes him a saint or a sinner. Take your pick.
The fact that the book was released now instead of after the election probably has more to do with the greed of the publishers than with McClellan, who is likely still being manipulated, just by others, and by other means.
Still the few new facts that appear to have come out of the book concern his role in the machinations in the White House. If Bush and Co. are indeed prosecuted one day, he will certainly be a target because I suspect any lawyer would love to be able to drill him on the witness stand.
As for how this will play in the current political race for the presidency, I think it should only help Obama. He is the only one who offers a ghost of a chance that this silly season of scheming obfuscation will end.
QUOTE(golfer 25 @ May 28 2008, 09:48 PM)
The question I keep coming back to--why should any of us care what Scott McClellan thinks?
Why? Because of how rare it is that someone with close ties to Bush reveals the truth. As Rahm Emanuel said today, McClellan's book demonstrates "the price to America for this presidency is even beyond what we actually have calculated." When you have McCain running for president and promising to keep things the same in Iraq, that's why this matters.
Yesterday, this thread talked about how ridiculous and scary it was to express different opinions after 9/11 and in the run-up to the Iraq war. To show you how far we haven't come, we don't need to look any further than companies like Dunkin' Donuts. Yesterday, Dunkin' Donuts caved in to pressure from right-wingers who complained about the scarf worn by chef Rachael Ray in ads for the company. Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin and others said that Rachael Ray's black and white scarf worn in the ad "offers support for Muslim extremism and terrorism." Are you f'ing kidding me? This is happening in 2008! It is beyond ridiculous.
Am I the only one who thinks McClellan is kind of hot?
Thats not the only thing thats ridiculous. I keep hearing polls that say anywhere from 6-10% or more, that state that people still think Obama is a Muslim.
QUOTE(Manilow Is Dead @ May 29 2008, 05:42 PM)
Am I the only one who thinks McClellan is kind of hot?
Yes, you are.
Jeff Gannon
Former prostitute / reporter Jeff Gannon says he knew Scott better than anyone......guess that explians why Jeff had such easy access to the WH and was called on by Scott at each briefing.
Former prostitute / reporter Jeff Gannon says he knew Scott better than anyone......guess that explians why Jeff had such easy access to the WH and was called on by Scott at each briefing.
QUOTE(Manilow Is Dead @ May 29 2008, 01:42 PM)
Am I the only one who thinks McClellan is kind of hot?
Umm...yes.
Very telling interview on "Countdown" tonight. McClellan said that most Americans, well alot of Americans turned a blind eye to any questions that started to come up about us going into Iraq, and basically played follow the leader. Keith did his part to say that alot of the so called left or liberal media were out there asking lots of questions. He was able to get Scott to say that for the most part, we who opposed this war, and KNEW it was wrong, and KNEW what a mess it would make and cause were right, all along.
QUOTE(swiminbuff @ May 29 2008, 05:32 PM)
Former prostitute / reporter Jeff Gannon
That should read: Former prostitute / "reporter" Jeff Gannon...
QUOTE(hockeyTom @ May 29 2008, 08:37 PM)
Very telling interview on "Countdown" tonight. McClellan said that most Americans, well alot of Americans turned a blind eye to any questions that started to come up about us going into Iraq, and basically played follow the leader. Keith did his part to say that alot of the so called left or liberal media were out there asking lots of questions. He was able to get Scott to say that for the most part, we who opposed this war, and KNEW it was wrong, and KNEW what a mess it would make and cause were right, all along.
So this book is released now, yet in April, McClelland's making the rounds defending the Iraq war at the time he's writing or had finished this book. Something isn't right here. I'm sorry, but I can't believe a word this idiot said, either then or now. Having come from this Administration, this doesn't surprise me.
QUOTE(Manilow Is Dead @ May 29 2008, 01:42 PM)
Am I the only one who thinks McClellan is kind of hot?
LOL...I woulnd't go as far as saying he's hot....but he's got a bear thing goin' on which is kinda cute....but if he's furry, that makes it better.
Katie Couric spoke out Wednesday about the pressure journalists, analysts and TV types faced...
From the NYTimes:
Couric, the anchor of “CBS Evening News,” said that she had felt pressure from government officials and corporate executives to cast the war in a positive light. Speaking on “The Early Show” on CBS, Ms. Couric said the lack of skepticism shown by journalists about the Bush administration’s case for war amounted to “one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism.” She also said she felt pressure from “the corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kind of dissent or any kind of questioning of it.”
From the NYTimes:
Couric, the anchor of “CBS Evening News,” said that she had felt pressure from government officials and corporate executives to cast the war in a positive light. Speaking on “The Early Show” on CBS, Ms. Couric said the lack of skepticism shown by journalists about the Bush administration’s case for war amounted to “one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism.” She also said she felt pressure from “the corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kind of dissent or any kind of questioning of it.”
Thats pretty telling for her to admit that, but she is right. I recall very vividly, that if you questioned your government, and its intentions, you were not patriotic. And I also recall just after the invasion of Iraq, and when Shrub said " Mission Accomplished, all the cars around here driving around with American flags draped all over them, so yes I completely get her point of view. Those were the good ole days for Fixed News, when their ratings must have been in heaven....
QUOTE(hockeyTom @ May 30 2008, 03:40 PM)
Thats pretty telling for her to admit that, but she is right. I recall very vividly, that if you questioned your government, and its intentions, you were not patriotic. And I also recall just after the invasion of Iraq, and when Shrub said " Mission Accomplished, all the cars around here driving around with American flags draped all over them, so yes I completely get her point of view. Those were the good ole days for Fixed News, when their ratings must have been in heaven....
From August 2002-March 2003:
Outsports: Bush's UN Speech
Outsports: Bush planned Iraq War before presidency
Outsports: US career diplomat resigns because of administration policies
Outsports: Question for those in favor of the war only
Maybe we should have been paid the millions the idiot commentators and pundits on TV were, since a number of us saw right through the W Mafia's crap, and we wouldn't have to be worrying about "stimulus" checks.
He is on "Meet The Press" in 3 minutes, and then Monday afternoon Chris Matthews plans on grilling him..
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.