This is main page news...We can all read it from any of the multiple mainstay news pages or catch it on the 5' o'clock. That is most likely why it has yet to be posted.

The preface to the book can be read here

Could be, still... I thought it should be here... so here it is... I want NOTHING to do with the debate tho... I'm sick to death of politics... I'm gonna go live in a cave somewhere :P

Debate??

One would think this speaks for itself.

DOES it?!

/debate starter

I do think it speaks for itself, the only criticism I've heard was that he was "deputy press secretary" and he dealt with "domestic affairs". Yet he was called upon to defend foreign policy and specifically the war so he had to have been briefed, he had to have had inside knowledge and frankly this book simply confirms what is obvious to all but the staunchest defenders of a hapless liar of a president (and his equally hapless or worse, malicious) administration.

I don't really think there's a debate, there's only those who refuse to see what is patently obvious to everyone else and feel the need to try to convince us that their fantasy is the truth.

That's where the tiresome part comes in. If what lies before the defenders, in open mockery of (at very least) common sense and at most factual accounting and data, isn't going to convince them debating the plimates who aren't misguided won't convince them either. It's an exercise in futility.

Of course there is a debate... just because you want (and immediately accept) something to be true, doesn't mean that it is! I'll never understand the people who are either so sure of themselves, so confident in their "rightness," or so arrogant as to immediately dismiss those who disagree as fools, that they refuse to debate. Seems like a cop out.


As for Mr. McClelland, I was never a fan of his. Of this administration's Press Secretaries, I felt he was the least prepared. He always had this "dear in headlights" kind of look to him, and seem to be easily flustered by the questions of the reporters. He didn't seem to have the strength the position (and the times) required.

As for his book... who knows. I feel currently that publishers need to release things like this to the press, or else the book won't get covered at all. After all, an "I liked working for George W. Bush" book doesn't really make the headlines. But who knows what he actually says in the book?

My only question is towards the people who are now grasping for this like it's the new bible. A few years ago, you thought he was the Devil (or at least part of the Devil's team)... everything he said was a lie, and he should not be trusted in the least. But now that he's saying things you agree with, he's "breaking free," and he "must be telling the truth." So which is it? Is he a big liar, or a truth teller? It appears to me that in your work, the "truthiness" of the situation only really depends on WHAT he's saying... if the content agrees with our current opinions, than he must be telling the truth. To me, that's pretty shallow and hypocritical... although not unexpected.

I question people who make such big 180s. I wonder, why they didn't speak up before? If things were so bad, why didn't they start talking then? Why wait for a book to be published... or is this about financial gain, more than it is about getting out the truth? Or is this some sort of revenge (see d**k Morris vs. Clintons)? There are a lot of things that make me a bit skeptical... but I'll reserve judgment until I read the book myself.

Oook... so I lied... but I have to respond to this ...

Hrmmm... sounds an awful lot like the people who still defend the Administration as well...

Why debate with someone so deluded that they refuse to believe or even recognize ANY evidence that contradicts what they WANT to be the truth? Why waste your breath when insurmountable proof is placed on the table, and they plug their ears and go "lalalalala"

The evidence supporting those who believe Bush policy has destroyed America just keeps piling up... Where is the evidence that these policies put into effect were a great idea? Where is the positive outcome of the plan placed into action? Where is the light at the end of the tunnel? This isn't a desperate grab at whomever agrees with us and a refusal to listen to anything else... which seems to be the stance of those still supporting this cluster-f**k... its a decision based on the facts, and regardless of how you spin them the facts are REALLY starting to show that the administration drug us into a pointless war under false pretense (whether intentional or not) with no exit strategy, no real idea how to conduct the post-invasion and the audacity to assume that they need to take no accountability for these mistakes.

Wait... "the "truthiness" of the situation only really depends on WHAT he's saying..."?

That sounds like some twisted politi-speak way of saying "You only believe him because he's telling the truth".

It isn't that the content agrees with opinion, its that the content agrees the facts at hand... no matter how hard you twist it, turn it or gloss it over... there are no VERSIONS of the truth... and to agree with the truths that are presented to us is no more "hypocritical or shallow" than to mindlessly defend ill-fated policy and opinion because to question it would mean admitting you were wrong, made mistakes or at worst... outright lied.

I agree with you on some points here... this could just be a chance at cashing in on the current “Hate Bush” current flowing thru our country… but considering how people were lambasted before when they spoke out against the policies of this administration... can you blame him for waiting?

Everyone, and it seems it is EVERYONE from inside the administration has had their career's ruined for even questioning Bush's decisions, much less taking a stand against them...

Recently a general "retired" immediately after saying that the administrations stance on Iran was flawed... the response was almost immediate... like the next day...

Valerie Plame's husband made a comment that he didn't agree with Bush's reasoning for going to war and in retaliation her career was ruined and her life put in jeopardy when she was outed as an undercover CIA operative by the VP’s office...
Hell... the Dixie Chicks made a joke about Bush being from Texas and they were ostracized and humiliated...

It may be cowardly to wait until the winds favor you to make a stand, but cowards are always pragmatic if nothing else... it doesn't make what he has to say any less truthful... it just means he didn't have the balls to do it earlier in the game. Any other decisions on his character will have to wait, as you said, until I’ve read the book…

Very quickly, what you have said is your opinion. You may not recognize it as an opinion, but it is nonetheless.

My opinion (at least for certain parts of this) is different. The facts I use are from generals on the ground who say we're making progress, from historians and terrorism experts who talk about the danger of a precipitous withdrawal, and the widespread acceptance that "The Surge" is producing positive results. Now those may be things you feel are either inconsequential, foolish, or wrong... but I would disagree.

Either way, using that evidence, I could say the same thing about you (and those like you), that you don't want to hear any positive news... you'd rather stick your fingers in your ear and go, "lalalala... failure failure failure."



No, you only believe him because what he's saying agrees with your version of, "the truth." In other words, he was a liar when he was telling you want you didn't want to hear, but a hero when he changes his story.

There is only one version of "the truth." However, there are many opinions of what "the truth" really is. And while you may strongly believe in your opinion, it does not necessarily mean you are correct.


Yes, I can blame him. If what he says is true, why did he only recently wake up? Was it just so that he could capitalize on it? If he's claiming injustice happened, and he was privy do it, but didn't stand up, than he's a coward.

(Arguing your side, for you) If what he say is true, how many people died because he was trying to protect his career? Personally, I have trouble trusting such a coward.

Then why are other former Press Secretaries defending Bush, and discrediting McClellan?



I'm not familiar with that story. But sometimes, a leader doesn't get to make those decisions. Think of this on a lower level, like a police station. If the captain tells one of his men to go out and do something, and the officer tells the press he thinks the Captain's plan is wrong... what happens? Sometimes you have to follow orders, sometimes you have to voice concern internally, and sometimes if you really believe you're right, you have to risk your job and tell anyone who will listen. I don't know the details of this situation, but if you talk to the press, you gotta know the risks... that's just a fundamental.

False. Joe Wilson wrote a report about how everything was wrong and a lie. Only one problem, after congress convened a hearing, they determined what he wrote in his report to be a wrong and a lie. So he was rightfully discredited.

Furthermore, despite what some would like to believe, it was Richard Armitage, not the Cheney's office who leaked the name. Plame was only debatably undercover, as she was not out in the field and hadn't been for years, she had a desk job for the CIA. And if her life was really in jeopardy, she probably shouldn't have posed for all those magazine covers after the story broke... that would be a silly thing to do, no?



Which had nothing to do with the actually Bush administration, rather with country music fans. They were the ones who stopped buying the records, and going to the concerts. You really can't blame that on Bush at all.

Cowards only know one thing... how to save their own a$$es. You may believe McClellan to be telling the truth, because you want what he says to be true. The other side of that is he may be telling you want to hear, so he can once again have a career... and perhaps make a few bucks off his book.

A hero stands up when they see injustice, a coward waits until it benefits them. And gives excellent cause to doubt.

False, a conclusion based on the facts at hand is not an opinion.
If it is documented that there were over 200 falshoods spoken by the Administrations leading up to the war, then we were lied to. If intelegence was ignored because it didn't fit the plan of "Invade" then it is a lie by omission or ignorance... the previous is only SLIGHTLY more heinous than the later. Ignorance isn't a defense in a court of law, nor should it be in the court of the world stage.
I listen to these experts... I dont turn a deaf ear... I've listened to Patreaus' reports the last 2 times he has spoken. But my opinion (and yes, I will admint this is opinion) is that there is NO progress so long as war is in the equation. The reasons for invading were filmy and fleeting ... and saying "Well ... now that we're here, we cant leave" is NOT a strategy.
As much as I disagree with the war, I would feel better if someone would come out and SAY what we are striving for... to actually lay out our strategy and what goals we hope to obtain... "Democracy in the Middle East" is a tad too broad... isn't it?

There are no versions of the truth, and no opinion, regardless of how loudly voiced or repeated changes what the truth is... this is its fundamental nature...

I can say from now till end of days that the sky is green and the grass is blue... I may even get some poor diluted souls to agree with me... hell... even if the whole world joined in chorus of "sky is green, grass is blue" it would not make it the truth. Popular concencus does not dictate reality. The truth is the sum total of the facts at hand... and you can try to discredit everyone who has a negative thing to say about the war, you can fire them, or transferr them or say they eat babies... it still doesn't change the truth... and the evedence is piling up rapidly to point that we are right about this failed monarchy... its scary you dont understand that...


Twice in two paragraphs you referr to him as a coward... but who is more cowardly? The coward that waits until he is safe to voice his opinion of the leader? Or the leader that allows hundreds of thousands of innocent people to die due to his unwillingness to compromise? or admit mistakes and try to rectify them? If (and I'm willing to admit, this may be just a ploy to sell a book and cash in) IF this man is correct... then our leaders are fools...



Oh... I dont know... could it possibly be the very same retribution or fear of it that has fallen in heaps on everyone who has dared to question our leadership? Or perhaps its just the foolish following the fool.



Sorry... out of time... cant volley back on the rest of this stuff... just ask yourself... how much evedence do you need before this is no longer an opinion and becomes the truth?

Your facts seem to me no different than how you define other's facts. They are not facts. You give them credence simply because they're stated by men who wear different clothing than common people, and make a living killing the common people. Anyone who chooses war as a career is in my opinion, not capable of speaking truth, and in no way should have a major decision on the path of a country.

I think he is just trying to make a quick buck just like most politicians.

Well, the problem is records disagree with you. Records like that from congress, who saw the same information and agreed with the Administration's POV that invading Iraq was necessary, and that they had WMDs. Records of Saddam himself telling his generals and troops that they did, in fact, have WMDs... attempting to bolster his status amongst the global audience. Records of the previous administration believing in the dangers of Iraq and their involvement in global terrorism.

So it's not as cut an dry as you believe it is. That is, unless you're accusing more than just the current Administration of lying... but of 95% of Washington too... as well as other parts of the world.

Well, I respectfully disagree with part of what you've said there, although I can certainly see where you're coming from. I also agree that a more well defined, public set of goals wouldn't be a bad thing, although I doubt it would have much effect on some people.

But you see, despite evidence that contradicts your opinion (or “truth”) of what’s going on in Iraq, you’ve decided to ignore it. I don’t understand how you can so cavalierly determine what’s the truth and what’s not. And that’s really my point. Because Patreaus disagrees with your predetermined opinion, you’ve determined what he says to be unworthy and unimportant. McClellan is the same thing! You already determined the premise, and since he now agrees with that premise, he must be telling the truth! That’s simply not how the “truth” is determined.

This is mostly true. There often is only "one" truth. HOWEVER, sometimes there is no one absolute truth.

Let me give you an example. I'm walking in a McDonalds, when I slip in a puddle, and break my arm. Now, when I sue McDonalds, I can say with 100% certainty that I fell because they left a puddle on the floor, and that cause me to break my arm. On the other hand, they can say that I'm clumsy, and would have fallen on my own, and the puddle had nothing to do with it. Who's telling the truth?

This is the same for the current Iraq situation. What you believe were "obvious lies," I (sometimes) believe were "mistakes," "bad information," or "the truth, that has been made to seem like lies by people who disagree." Who's right? Neither of us, it's an opinion.

There are some undeniable truths... and then there's a lot of interpretation of the truth. And in this situation, there are far too many things being called "the truth," that just aren't.




What you don't understand is that the "evidence" you site (at least in this situation), is faulty. There are too many other factors surrounding this that call it's "truth" into question. You've already arrived at your "truth," or more aptly, your "opinion about Iraq." This story seems to agree with that opinion, so you're prepared to accept it as fact. But there are far too many questions that need answering before that can happen.

Just because it supports your views, doesn't mean it's correct.

Well, I don't really see how your "either/or" statement is relevant. If he saw this happening, before his eyes, then is no better than the leader who let it happen.

At the end of WWII there were many leaders and soldiers who said they were "Just following orders" for Hitler... and after the trial, they too were just as dead as him. It doesn't matter that they determined (once they saw themselves as on the loosing team) that what they were doing was wrong, the fact is... they had already done it. Their time to speak up was while it was happening, not afterwards.

If what McClellan says is true, than he needs to answer for why it took him a book deal to speak up. (There's some new information about this, I'll mention at the end.)

What kind of retribution would they get? They're already out of a job... how are they going to get more out of a job?

I'd ask you the same question.

___________

Appendix:
As I mentioned there are some interesting stories and points being made in regards to the book.

Former secretary Ari Fleicher says that he's friendly with McClellan, and talked to him while he was writing the book, as well as recently. He says at first, McClellan told him the book would be very positive, and then a few days ago told him that his publisher had gone over the book again, they had "tweaked" it, and that the publisher had actually wrote much of it. Additionally, publisher already has a number of anti-Bush/anti-Iraq books under his belt, so this adds to his chorus.

Also, a little less than a year ago, McClellan was on Bill Maher’s program, where he talked very positively about the President, Iraq, and the Administration. It is reasonable to assume that during that time, he was in the process of writing the book. So why, if he was already writing a negative book, would he have been so positive? In other words, what changed between now and then?

There's a lot of fishy stuff going on with this story... and the more the info comes out, the more likely it seems that this is a ploy for money. How much evidence would it take for you to see that?

Than who should? If people experienced in war and combat, shouldn't make the decisions... who should?

That's like saying because firemen are in the business of fires... they can't be trusted to talk about fires. They WANT fires too much... because if they didn't, they'd be out of a job.

That's just silly.

No, that's like saying firemen shouldn't make the decisions where the city is headed, and Firemen are just slightly different than Generals (you know, NOT killing, saving). I have nothing against the Generals except for their ritualistic clothing and their desire to rule the planet.

Firemen as well as Generals and policemen, are very susceptible to having a bad apple or three in their midst. It's the Generals of today's secretive government who need the most watching.

Um... okay... but you didn't answer the question. Who should make the decisions?

Personally, I didn't realize that camouflage, was "ritualistic clothing." I thought that was, you know, stuff they wore to try to prevent them from getting shot.

Congress should make the decision to go to war. When Congress has been misled by the president, the president should be impeached.