Home / Republican Truths for Fun and Profit

Republican Truths for Fun and Profit

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Oh, Scotty, I really thought we were done with you. I really felt your failure and dishonesty had shown through so thoroughly that you were going to spend the rest of your life hiding under a rock and begging G-d to forgive you for the lies you told to sell your master’s plan. I suppose that I should have known a weasel like you would find a way to get back into the nation’s minds and, like always, you are spinning out of control. Damage control for the damage you caused I suppose is your plan, or is it guilt?

Scott McClellan, President’ Bush’s mouthpiece after Ari left, has written a book (no shock) that is — are you ready? — critical of the Bush White House and now confirms most of the very things he denied from the podium. Do we believe a liar when he admits that he lied before and is telling the truth now?

Okay, so assume we believe Scotty when he says that Bush lied to him about the war in Iraq and that Rove and Scooter lied to him about the Plame affair. Let’s assume he was just a mouthpiece and a patsy for the greater deceits told to him by the President and his advisors. Assuming all of these things as true, it begs the questions of why he waited for so long to come clean about these revelations and why he chose the format he chose.

First, why wait for so many years to “out” Bush as a liar and the war in Iraq to be based on propaganda? Is it because this is an election year? I wonder because we have had other elections since you left the White House and there was not the slightest of peeps from you. The only reason I can think of is that releasing this information now still shelters Bush (he is leaving office), but sinks McCain even more than he is already sinking.

McCain’s support is largely tied to his support of the war in Iraq and, if the information you are telling us is true, no one is damaged more by this than McCain. Bush and Cheney are leaving not only the White House, but basically elected politics forever, so it does not damage them at all. It does show that McCain's determination to remain in the war is based not on reality, but on self-serving propaganda. It serves as yet another example of where McCain’s judgment is not presidential and his election will only further weaken an already battle-weary nation.

We also know that this is an election year and there is no better time for a politically oriented book to hit the marketplace. The press are starving for anything politically based and are bored of the same Obama/Hillary stories, so this gives them something fresh to talk about. Their excitement over this new subject will only increase the public's curiosity and therefore only serve to sell more books.

Secondly, why a book? It seems to me that this information is a tad bit too important for you to have sat on while the book was shopped to publishers, written, edited, printed, and then released. You knew for certain that this war was based on bad information, that the chief executive misled the nation into war, and yet you remained silent as more people died and more of our nation’s resources were wasted while you worked out the best deal for yourself. You learned well during your tenure, young Padawan — truth is truth, but profit is profit.

Oh, Scotty, why oh why could you not just have faded into the obscurity from which you came? When you could have done something, when it would have mattered, you did nothing and now that it is too late to matter, you take the money and cry victim. Bush is even helping you by condemning the book. You have cemented your place as a piece of opportunistic scum of the Earth in my book. I guess spin is addicting.

Powered by

About Brad Schader

  • McClellan may not have the purest of hearts or motives, but I’d say better late than never. At any rate, it may be a measure of the quality of people the Bush administration staff was (and is) made of.

    McClellan may be the first of many former and perhaps current Bushies who will jump off of the sinking ship and attempt to cash in with their own tell-all books. To switch metaphors, the dam just might be breaking.


  • Brad Schader

    I have no doubts they all are going to “cash in” with books, including Bush. McClellan told the very lies he now takes credit for busting and, as I said in the article, a liar has no creditability.

  • I have no particular regard for McClellan, but believe him or not, as I suggested this may just be the first salvos. That Bush and company told lie upon lie is evident. We will likely learn more particulars and more of the depth of the crap they laid on us to justify a needless war among what else, we probably can’t even imagine.


  • Brad Schader

    Oh, I do believe the things he is saying right now, but I believed them before he said them. I believed them before Richard Clarke said them and he has credibility. Scotty is a nothing and I really do think his release of this book has more to do with McCain and the upcoming election than it does with Bush. This is information we could have used years ago.

    We will likely learn more particulars and more of the depth of the crap they laid on us to justify a needless war among what else, we probably can’t even imagine.

    I am a left-wing-ish blogger. I have read some pretty far out theories.

  • Lumpy

    Haven’t read the book yet but from what I hear his revelations are pretty much already know. No smoking gun. No ‘Bush lied’. More like Bush promoted and Scotty spun. Nothing new and not as controversial as people are making it sound.

  • It may not be so much the content of the book as the source. Bushites who decide to do other tell-all books and cash in may well be coming out of the woodwork over the next several months. How many will be truth tellers and how many not is anybody’s guess.


  • “I’d say better late than never.”

    Why? It doesn’t accomplish anything. It’s like the NBA stating that San Antonio should have been awarded foul shots at the end of Game 4, but the Lakers still get the win. Say something when it’s ongoing. Say something before the 2004 election. It means nothing now.

    “McClellan may be the first”

    Not counting Clarke, wasn’t O’Neil the first? Then some Christian fellow who went to help out the faith-based initiatives. Maybe another.

  • “Why? It doesn’t accomplish anything.”

    I don’t know that that is accurate. It may bring about a harder look at how and why the decision was made to go to war in Iraq. Perhaps it will foster more transparency in future administrations. Perhaps it will encourage more careful consideration in choosing staff members.

    And from my rabid left-winger’s point of view, it may make some undecided voters think twice about voting for McCain for fear of getting more of the same.

    Yeah, I suppose there have been a couple of others who have already spilled some beans, but there may be more – a lot more – and a couple of pieces of “the quicker picker-upper” won’t clean up that mess.


  • Brad Schader

    #8 And from my rabid left-winger’s point of view, it may make some undecided voters think twice about voting for McCain for fear of getting more of the same.

    Funny thing is, from my conspiracy point of view, that is the exact reason Scotty is doing this book: to sink McCain. It is almost as if Bush is not quite done destroying McCain in retaliation for his daring to run against Bush in 1999.

  • Could be. Remember, one of the reasons for the Iraq invasion that was bandied about was revenge for Saddam’s supposed attempt to kill GW’s daddy. Georgie may be more of a grudge carrier than even the Clintons.


  • bliffle

    What surprises me is the reactions of some other people to McLellans revelations (well, maybe not revelations, but merely confirmations of what many of us knew years ago about Bush’s lies and bullying).

    For example, David Brooks (conservative columnist for NYT) is just incorrigible. Brooks says Bush got away with it because there were no people on his staff qualified and brave enough to struggle with Bush. Duh. Well Brooks is smart enough and he could have struggled with Bush, but all he did is repeat the party line, and alibi, rationalize and excuse Bush’s failures and lies. Brooks, if he were intellectually honest would have raised cavils and done his duty as an employees of the NYT and reported the news. Who signed Brooks paychecks? Not the RNC!

    Bob Dole, whom I once admired, called McLellan a bad name. But when McLellan got a job as press character and signed on to the USA payroll he swore an oath to be faithful to the USA Constitution. NOT to the joker who happens to be president.

    Same thing for that bubble-headed spokesmodel (was it Dana Perino?) who told a congressional investigating committee that when she took her job she took an oath to be loyal to the president. No, a congressman pointed out, she actually swore an oath to be loyal to the USA Constitution.

    Don’t those people know anything?