McClellan points finger at Bush, Rove
In the days when it was Scotty's job to defend the administration from the podium, he would have dismissed the very charges he is now making as the rantings of someone wanting to "sell a book".
However, we always treated such claims with a pinch of salt when Scott made them regarding others, so we can only hope that there is some serious investigation into the claims that McLellan is making regarding why he misled the press over the involvement of "Scooter" Libby and Karl Rove in the outing of Valerie Plame.
In a new book that Scott McLellan is publishing concerning his time as White House press secretary, he names names regarding who he thinks was behind the cover up.
“I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the most senior aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby,” McClellan wrote.Politico has caught up with Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper to ask what they think of McLellan's revelations.
“There was one problem. It was not true.”
McClellan then absolves himself and makes an inflammatory — and potentially lucrative for his publisher — charge.
“I had unknowingly passed along false information,” McClellan wrote.
“And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."
McClellan says he was in that position because he trusted the president: "The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
“You’re only as good as your sources,” Miller, who was a reporter at the New York Times when the imbroglio broke, said with a mischievous laugh.Now, there's something funny about Miller defending herself by claiming that you are only as good as your sources, as if the concept of journalists checking the credibility of information spoon fed to them by an administration seeking war is one that had never occurred to her, but McLellan's position was different. He was the administration's paid spokesperson and it was his job to stand there and deliver whatever the administration told him was the truth.
Miller, now an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, spent 85 days in jail by not revealing her source. “Nothing surprises me about Washington during this administration anymore,” she said.
Cooper, who was a White House correspondent for TIME magazine and is now the Washington bureau chief of Portfolio magazine, said he “was always frustrated that Rove and Libby misled McClellan.”
“I’m glad McClellan is, too,” Cooper said.
The names he gives go directly to the heart of the Bush administration and, although not remotely surprising, are simply further confirmation of how startlingly little the truth means to the current White House inhabitants.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
4 comments:
are simply further confirmation of how startlingly little the truth means to the current White House inhabitants.
You mean, as contrasted with the previous inhabitants? One of whom, it should be mentioned, was impeached for perjury. Then there was the one who stole and destroyed classified information from the National Archives (and now he's an adviser for Hillary). I could go on, but you get the idea.
If you want to make the claim that the current administration is dishonest, that's fine, but let's not pretend if that's the case that it would be anything new, given that the previous administration was possibly the most dishonest to ever inhabit the White House.
You mean, as contrasted with the previous inhabitants?
I really don't want any more to do with a torture enabler like yourself, but surely even a constant defender of the Bushites such as you would have to concede that I made no reference to ANY previous administration. I was talking about THIS administration's relationship with honesty. It was not a comparative study.
Your defence, that "the Democrats were even worse", simply further undermines your spurious claims of independence.
Your desire to constantly defend the Republicans - even by insisting on comparative studies when I was not making any - can only be described as a "knee jerk" response. It's almost in your DNA to defend the Republican position. And that goes as far as defending torture, whilst claiming not to be giving your own opinion on the matter.
You'll defend them, whether you agree or not. You can't help yourself. As I say, it's in your DNA.
More insults. Never a surprise. I would think you might have realized by now how resorting to insults and fallacious arguments to dismiss what you don't agree with reflects more on your inability to defend your own positions then anything else. But whatever works for you.
Your defence, that "the Democrats were even worse"
I made no such defense. I took your use of the word "current" as an attempt at exclusivity and pointed out how the conduct of the previous administration means that wouldn't hold (even if I were to accept your characterization of dishonesty). If you intended no such exclusivity, then so be it.
And that goes as far as defending torture, whilst claiming not to be giving your own opinion on the matter.
Again, I'm sorry you were unable to comprehend the other thread. As any unbiased reader of those comments should be able to point out, I have neither defended "torture", nor have I failed to give you my opinions on whether or not waterboarding is legally considered torture in the US. When I offered to give my opinion whether or not it should legally be considered torture in the US, you stated that you were not interested in my opinion. This is just another case of you attempting to alter the truth.
As any unbiased reader of those comments should be able to point out, I have neither defended "torture"
Unbiased readers can read what you actually said here.
It was an astonishing attempt to justify waterboarding by claiming it was not illegal and then, at one point, insisting that my calling waterboarding "drowning" was somehow "loading" the question of whether or not it was torture. As if there is a way to waterboard that does not involve drowning.
I really think that was equivalent of refusing to discuss the merits of electrocution because I had "loaded" the question by mentioning "electric shock". I really do hope people read it. It's a classic example of the lengths Bush supporters will go to in order to defend his actions.
And as for your claim that you did not "defend torture", what you actually said when I called you an enabler for torture was:
Enabler, eh? If by "enabler" you mean someone who doesn't get all broken up over waterboarding being used on three occasions (none since 2003), then I guess that's me.
You actually agreed that you were an enabler who didn't get "all broken up over waterboarding" because it had only happened three times. That's not only defending torture, that's implying that - as long as it is only done on very few occasions - then it's fine by you.
As I say, people really do need to read the whole thing to take in how often the argument changed. From being someone who didn't "all broken up over waterboarding", you then attempted to state that you disapproved of the very act that you wouldn't get "all broken up over" if it turned out to be illegal. And, of course, you then sought to defend it's legality. It was a classic example of a Bush supporter pulling out all the stops to defend the indefensible.
nor have I failed to give you my opinions on whether or not waterboarding is legally considered torture in the US.
You certainly implied that you thought it was legal, but you didn't really tell me why. You supplied a link to a 17 page document that you hoped would make the argument for you. When asked which part of the document made the point you were claiming, you refused to be specific, claiming that I had to read the whole the whole thing and presumably find your argument for you. It was obviously beyond you to succinctly summarise the argument with appropriate quotes from a source and links to that source, which is the way most people present arguments. Most people when quoting the Geneva Conventions for example would refer to a particular article, rather than simply supply a link to the entire Convention and ask the other person to wade through the entire document searching for a point that validates their opponents argument. But that was, literally, what you asked me to do. In almost two years of running this blog, that's the oddest thing anyone has ever asked me to do.
When I offered to give my opinion whether or not it should legally be considered torture in the US, you stated that you were not interested in my opinion. This is just another case of you attempting to alter the truth.
That is simply a bare faced lie.
You said I was "loading" the question when I called waterboarding what it is, which is drowning someone; and then - when I called you a coward for claiming that nothing that you were stating represented your own opinion - came out with this:
"I don't feel the need to express my positions in a blog. Just the fact that you post something is inviting having it challenged. There is no implied contract of quid pro quo."
So the notion that you were offering your opinion and were told that I was "not interested" is simply a bare faced lie. I constantly asked for your personal opinion and you constantly - and for varying reasons - refused to give it. Indeed, you seemed to find my interest in your personal opinions an irrelevance and stated:
If you either can't defend or find it distasteful to defend your own positions, then again, you might as well just turn off comments.
Clearly implying that your role was to challenge what I had written simply because I had written and published it. The classic argument of a troll!
I made it very clear to that you were not "a university lecturer correcting my thesis paper" and that "if you think that you can challenge my beliefs whilst cowardly hiding your own, then I am honestly not interested."
The argument ended when you made clear that this was, indeed, the role you saw yourself in.
At that point I felt my original theory about you had been confirmed and that you were a troll: Someone who stirs things up simply for the sake of it rather than because they are defending what they believe.
I really urge anyone reading this to follow the link, read the conversation, and then look at how Jason has sought to dishonestly portray in this thread what his position was in the latter thread.
Post a Comment