Scott McClellan just released his memoirs titled What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. It is a scathing indictment of the bush administration, and the methods they used to manipulate the truth. He said Bush relied on an aggressive "political propaganda campaign" instead of the truth to sell the Iraq war. He said Bush made "a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed". And that the way Bush managed the Iraq issue "almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."
So is McClellan telling the truth, or is he only "disgruntled about his experience at the White House" as current press secretary Dana Perino said?
"American citizenship swears hostility against tyranny of terrorism."
Oh really? And what did Iraq have to do with terrorism?
"Propaganda seems unnecessary. Justice is being served"
These guys wouldn't know justice if it hit them in the face. Justice is the last thing on their minds. And propaganda is their primary tool. As dubya himself said: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
"A simple assassination of such a tyrant serves no immediate purpose beyond uncertain chaos and risky reproach to the supporters a governing tyrant. National purposes maintain Canadian peacekeeping role internationally and duties to the UN in support. The American-Iraq war does not include a direct Canadian partner for this and other reasons. Pro-war propaganda against Iraq following 9/11 seems unnecessary. Arguably a sensible approach to enforcing the underlying principles of your Christian nation that your politicians have sworn to uphold, bringing hostility to terrorist correction involved as determined of intelligence."
Do you write in code or something? All I can say to this is: Huh?
"Disgruntled experiences of Mr. McClellan may be due to personal convictions against war instead of public commitment to national policies, it is for the reader to decide."
I doubt it has anything to do with his personal convictions about the war. If it did, he would have resigned at the time. It has to do with him having been constantly held out to dry in front of the press, while cheney and rove committed crimes he had to cover for.
He may be a little disgruntled, but I seriously doubt he made up an entire book. I'm sure he has some great insight.
I haven't read the book yet, but it sounds worth reading.
I believe it. I wouldn't trust Bush as far as I can throw him.