McClellan gives no new evidence

According to McClellan, George Bush told him point blank that he authorized leaking the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to the press. That's a felony, and a very serious violation which can have major consequences to our national security because it undermines the ability of all intelligence officers to gain the confidence of informants in other countries. For that alone I thank Mr. McClellan for writing the book. I am continually astounded by the unending nightmare of this Bush administration. (And I'm a Republican who voted for the guy in 2000, I'm sorry to say.)

This article quotes several administration officials as saying that Mr. McClellan is not saying anything new. This response seems intended to disqualify McClellan's comments without saying they are incorrect. If Mr McClellan is incorrect, one would think the appropriate response would be to become outraged at the falsehoods contained in the book, rather than simply saying "there is nothing new." If nothing else, it does seem "new" that an inside administration player is now confirming what has previously been reported. McClellan is quoted as saying the President was "too stubborn to change and grow." One wonders if there is any other evidence of such a charge. We have all seen that after Secretary Rumsfeld's departure, the situation in Iraq has improved considerably. It is a historical fact that the President made the decision to stick with Rumsfeld through years of increasingly horrible results. And so we return to the question whether there is evidence that the President is "too stubborn to change and grow?" Let's further bring this question back to it's relevance concerning a central allegation of the McClellan book: the permanent campaign and it's impact on governance. We should wonder whether the president's reluctance to admit error and to replace Rumsfeld was in any way influenced by his political perception that he would appear weak by admitting error and replacing Rumsfeld. And if that is the case, we must further wonder if quite a large number of American service men have died because it was politically inconvenient to admit and correct errors in Iraq. And if that is the case, then Mr. McClellan's charges are very relevant regardless of whether "he (McClellan) reveals no new information about the presidents motives.

...Or as if because the damning nature of the things he has to say "are nothing new" means that they are somehow less important. Please! The only difference is, now there is another person close enough to it, confirming what many citizens already knew---and we are equally as guilty for not impeaching the man in office right at the start of this whole sordid affair.

Give Scott a lot of respect..At this point in his life he can sleep well enough without a guilty conscience.It goes to show what this administration had done and been doing for the past eight years,, lies and deceptions. BLOGGERS for the republicans, please show the CITIZENS of this country why this isn't so..Post some more lies for US TO READ.

McClellan gives no new evidence? Neither does the second eyewitness to any other crime. But the fact that a second eyewitness agrees with the first -does- have weight. Frankly, I was of the opinion that the reason Rumsfeld quit was that he had had enough of being lied to behind closed doors and publicly embarrassed for mouthing the party line. To say that the war in Iraq / Afghanistan or wherever has gone better for his absence is just simple-minded and based on 'iffy' reporting, at best, for its facts. An awful lot of money and weapons are missing from the arsenal. Is that Rumsfelds fault too?

Another columnist providing cover for the Bush administration. Thanks Jon Ward for doing your part to undermine democracy. McCain in '08!!!

Mr. Ward needs either a lesson in English composition or a better editor. He writes that Mr McClellan "charges President Bush with a misleading the country into war", "information about the presidents motives" and "the Texan native". Can you find the errors?

White House press secretary Dana Perino said on Friday that their "central objection" to Mr. McClellan's book centers on the claim that the Bush administration "misled" the nation to war. Actually the "misled" contention is not true. If just misleading was their only sin here, they are off the hook. The fact here is that this adminstration made up lots of "intelligence" to justify the Iraq invasion. That means that they knew it was not factual. That is the definition of a lie. And people who knowingly tell untrue statements are called liars... at least in my book. This is not merely misleading, it is lying. Explain that to the families of the dead and to the maimed and to their families.

We should also take the time to investigate the rapes, murders and lies associated with Bill Clinton and his administration. The misconduct of that administration led directly to the deaths of over 3000 on 9/11. Bill Clinton and the rest of his administration should be behind bars for rape and war crimes.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said on Friday that their "central objection" to Mr. McClellan's book centers on the claim that the Bush administration "misled" the nation to war. The administration did in fact "mislead" the nation to war. It is true that intelligence agencies around the world "suspected" the worst of Saddam. They had very good reason to be suspicious. Rumsfeld dismissed the findings of the weapons inspectors by saying that "we know where the WMD are." Likewise Cheney came out and trumpeted what we "know" about Saddam's WMD. We told the world that we knew Saddam had WMD and that we would show those weapons after the invasion. But the simple fact is that we did not know, we suspected with good reason. What ever their flaws, the intelligence reports did not say that we "knew." Administration claims of knowledge" evidences either lies or stupidity.

"No new information"? Is there any reason to suppose he's wrong? Isn't that the more important question? Well, there's one solid reason to think he's a liar. He's a former Bush press secretary. So we know he's a liar. He had the job of lying about the march to war in 2002 and thereabouts. Is he telling the truth now? I don't know. But what he says now matches up with everything else we know.

Is Jon Ward used up as a news reporter? Are there enough people left who want to believe in Bush for Ward to continue this line of tripe? Or will people forget, and continue reading when he switches to some new line?

White House press secretary Dana Perino said on Friday that their "central objection" to Mr. McClellan's book centers on the claim that the Bush administration "misled" the nation to war. We now know that the Administration cherry picked the available intelligence in order to make the case for war. Beyond that, they actively suppressed contrary views/evidence such a Joe Wilson's report on his trip to Niger. They suppressed the fact that many experts thought the the "aluminum tubes" had nothing to do with uranium enrichment. They leaked unsubstantiated stories to friendly reporters and then seized upon publication of those stories as independent verification of Saddam's guilt. It may not technically be a lying, but it certainly seems misleading to me.

According to Bush, he didn't have any knowledge of Plame's accusations. Which have been repeatedly and soundly refuted. Are you going to trust someone intending to cash in on a job he couldn't hold on to? Ever heard of disgruntled former employee? The Bush-bashers in this country will end up wishing they had a president with a spine after the appeasers take office next year. Yes, I acknowledge that the Republicrats have messed up big-time with over-spending and pork. But when Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and other Obama supporters / Islamofascists see the weak knees and pandering they will start attacking us, something which has not happened since 9/11. That part of the world acts on perceived strength, not kumbayah foreign policy. When Detroit decides to burn itself like Paris "youths" did, it will signify just the start of our "troubles".

You obviously got the memo from HQ. Spin frame: nothing new here. Yes they are war criminals: nothing new here. Yes the violated international law: nothing new here. Yes they failed to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United State: nothing new here. Yes they lied to the American public:nothing new here. Yes the cherry picked intelligence: nothing new here. Your loyalty score today: 97. To date: 1,245,950 Way to go.