« Discrimination Victims Giving Unwarranted Legitimacy To McCain's Awful Record On Discrimination Votes | Main | We've Been Here Before »

Bush Lied


George Bush lied to the American public -- intentionally and deliberatively. So says former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, the mouthpiece who helped Bush lie to the American people.

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush "veered terribly off course," was not "open and forthright on Iraq," and took a "permanent campaign approach" to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

McClellan charges that Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war.

Propaganda out of the mouth of the President of the United States.

He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be "badly misguided."

The longtime Bush loyalist 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.

McClellan asserts that the aides -- Karl Rove, the president's senior adviser, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff -- "had at best misled" him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

McClellan's memoir should provide some interesting campaign fodder for Obama, and it'll be even more interesting to watch John McBush defend this administration.

This isn't the first revelation from McClellan. Back in November of last year McClellan spoke out on the Libby/Plame controversy:

In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recount the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Monday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. 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."

The take-away from the eight years of conservatives in positions of power -- Republicans cannot be trusted in the White House.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 1.8/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 1.8/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (18)

DJ Drummond:

You must have shaved fast this morning, you still have a lot of foam around your mouth ... oh, sorry, that's just your BDS kicking up really bad again, huh?

Lee Ward:

Just like clockwork. Mention Bush's lying - as confirmed by the press secretary who told his lies for him for 7 years and who is now confessing - and some conservative asshole will show up to give you grief.


The main purposes of McClellan's book, as I see it, are to provide for stubborn doubters confirmation from a Republican of the duplicity of the Bush White House, and to more precisely pinpoint who was actually doing the lying (e.g., hitherto, I had always wondered, "Is McClellan knowingly lying to us, or was he himself lied to?"). Of course, if Congress was deceived, then hearings need to be conducted. And Congress was deceived.

Hopefully, Keith and Jon can get McClellan to appear on their television shows.

Tellingly, the Bush Bootlicker Extraordinaire, DJ Drummond, chooses to go the ad hominem route rather than defend the indefensible, the latter option having become increasingly fatiguing.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

McClellan was used as a patsy and he obviously resents it.

Seems a bit naive on his part though. He must have know he was a puppet mouthpiece, and he went along with it anyway.


Can anyone offer me one good reason McCellan's book is any more valid than Ari Fleischer's book in reflecting the Bush WH in the run up to the war?

Actually, from the Washington Post:

"McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not "employing out-and-out deception" to make their case for war in 2002."

You said something about someone telling a lie?

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Propaganda is lying -- it's lying by omission. Leaving out pertinent facts and information to sell Americans on the war is lying.

Lying conservatives seems to have difficulty admitting that.


"Propaganda is lying -- it's lying by omission. Leaving out pertinent facts and information to sell Americans on the war is lying."

What if the propaganda is spun the other way, with an anti-war slant? Does it automatically become truthful if it agrees with your preconceptions, no matter how false the information provided?

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Jlawson, You can expect partisans to argue their relative positions without listing every damn fact pro and con, but I expect more from the President.

When the President tells me the reasons why we are going to war, I need to trust that he's not hiding information which doesn't support his partisan agenda -- and trust that he's being honest by giving us all of the relevant facts and not, as was the case here, lying by omission.

Yes, it's a two-way street.


Lee -

I hate to be all Devil's Advocate here - but not having read the book I'm going on other people's interpretations.

I understand that this book is virtually line by line all the things that the anti-war crowd have been objecting to for the last 7 years. Line by line, Lee - as if someone were writing something they really, really wanted you to believe, had a checklist of the points you'd believe, and went down one by one making sure they're included.

My skepticism went nuts at that. What are the chances of pretty much every single thing that's been on the "Reasons To Hate Bush" list being true? 5%, 10%, even 50% I might barely be able to credit - but ALL?

What if McClellan wrote this book with the express purpose of selling it to as many people as he could - and knew this was what he had to do to do it? Political memoirs get remaindered fast these days, so you've got to get the right audience and the right tone. (See how Feith's book never even got reviewed by the NYTimes.) How better to get good reviews by telling what the reviewers really want to hear?

Is it possible he would have compromised his integrity by keeping silent on all these points at the time they occurred? And if so, why release this now? Or could he just be going "I can write this, sell a few million copies, and get out of the Washington DC Insane Asylum."?

All I'm saying, beware when a 'gift' like this drops into your lap. He was a member of Bush's inner circle - and a press secretary to boot. Who would know better just what would sell in the political arena?

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

The truth in politics has always had a left-leaning bias.

"I understand that this book is virtually line by line all the things that the anti-war crowd have been objecting to for the last 7 years."

So you think McClellan is pandering to the anti-war crowd?

Telling readers want they want to hear is fine as long as it's the truth. What do you suggest is not true in what McClellan has written?

And if it's the truth it doesn't really matter why he's written it, now does it? ... but feel free to call McClellan a liar, and explain where he's lying.

Or is it a situation that because there are a lot of people who believe what McClellan is saying about this administration -- therefore it's not the truth?!?!?


Lee -

"The truth in politics has always had a left-leaning bias."

If it's the truth, why should it have any bias at all?

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

The truth favors the left. At least for the last 7 years it has.

ok, so I botched the quote from Stephen Colbert... It goes "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"

It's as if someone from the right is always there to accuse someone who's telling the truth that what they are saying has a "liberal bias"...

Yes, reality has a liberal bias, especially over the last 7 years. McCellan is proving that point -- for all of these years, anyone who's challenged Bush's bullshit has been accused of having a liberal bias. DJ the Dummy calls it BDS. Calling Bush the liar that he is results in me being called names. Go figure, it's Bush that lied...

Well, the truth has a liberal bias - the truth has consistently worked against conservatives since 2000, thanks to Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rove, etc, etc...

Reality has no bias. Media networks do - and regularly spin stories to create the impression they want. People do - and they put that bias to work interpreting what they see and hear. Those on the 'liberal' side of things are going to interpret reality to reflect that. Same thing with those on the 'conservative' side.

By the by, what did Bush lie about? Don't answer WMDs - when the chief of the CIA tells you there's WMDs, when the major western intelligence agencies say there's WMDs, when Saddam used WMDs on his own people AND was telling his own generals he had them, it would see a fair bet there's something nasty waiting in the fridge.

What else?

"seem" "seem a fair bet" Sorry about that...

By the way, the bias has been lately to blame pretty much every major event (even the earthquakes in China) on global warming.

But apparently reality isn't cooperating. Sea ice up in the Arctic is much thicker than usual. Thick enough, even at this late date, to trap an icebreaker.


It's been 12 years since the last solar sunspot maximum. It's supposedly about a 11 year cycle. There's very few sunspots to be found, which may well indicate a real cooling trend.



Reality has no bias, liberal or conservative. Interpretations, however, do.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Funny you should mention global warming -- this is another area that President Bush misled the American public. He's been the chief denial agent of global warming. Now that's another example of the stellar leadership we get from the right.

Even John McCain acknowledges that Global Warming is real, and needs to be addressed. I was impressed by that.

Reality -- once again -- favors the left.

Is there over-the-top excitement about Global Warming? Probably, but considering the impact of a rising sea, shrinking ice shelfs, etc. a little bit of "overly cautious" excitement is called for imho. Let's err on the side of overly cautious when it comes to the planet, eh? Better safe than sorry is a good idea.

And what's the harm in reducing the amount of oil we burn? Even if you believe there is nothing to worry about with respect to warming...

Oh, I forgot. Republicans have been hypnotized into believing that unless Exxon stuffs more billions into their pockets, the world as we know it might end.

Let's throw the dice on the planet in order to protect the oil company stockholders instead... feh.

Hate to ask, Lee - but did you even check the links?

"And what's the harm in reducing the amount of oil we burn?" Not a blessed thing. I'm all for it, myself - but that's not what I was talking about.

We're talking about how reality isn't controlled or modified by ideological bents.

Global warming, as pushed by Al Gore, can be alleviated by buying carbon credits... also, oddly enough, handled by a company Al Gore invests in. You don't find that just a trifle... convenient? Would you be so confident in his assertions of immediate, dangerous global warming if he were a Republican?

I'm not a global warming denier, Lee. However - as pushed by the global warming advocates these days, I'm against it as they model it. I think it started much longer ago than the GW folks would want to even admit - and it's a damn good thing.

If you take a look at Ruddiman's paper on Anthropogenic Global Warming, you'll see a number of interesting graphs. Figure 1, Graph B shows the methane levels in the atmosphere departed the normal curve about 7,000 years ago. If they hadn't - we'd be in the middle of an ice age due to global cooling and reduced heating from the sun. (It does vary a fair amount, over a fairly regular schedule.)

On page 20 (or 280, if you take the number in the corner of the page) on figure 7, you'll see a correlation between massive epidemics and CO2 declines. Those declines were followed by decades or centuries of significantly colder weather.

Page 27 (or 287) shows that the climate in Northeast Canada has been kept warm enough to avoid glaciation - which should have started 5000 years ago.

Global warming? I'm all for it. The alternative, if we were at the temperatures that would seem to be indicated in Ruddiman's work, would be for polar bears to be snacking on penguins around Panama. (Sounds good, but they'd probably be a thousand miles or so apart. I don't think we'd have a Snowball Earth scenario.)

As far as Bush and McCain signing onto the current GW foolishness - that's their business, and it smells more to me of political posturing than actual conviction. If it's true, they're on the record. If the current cooling trend continues, they can forget they ever said anything.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.