Should McClellan give book proceeds to charity?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Screw this 'free thinker ' nonsense. That just sounds like shallow, empty headed babble to give SM cover. What would REALLY sound legit is if we had heard, at the time, that SM was having a difficult time seeing eye to eye with W, or that he found it hard to stand in front of the press after butting heads w/ the administration over how this or that should be worded, how to best present the President's polices...SOMETHING,but no. Instead we get a whiney little man's excuse making as he cashes in the big advance from the publisher. And speaking of this publisher, make no mistake. When others bring up the issue of 'tweaking', it's not being used in the common, every day sense. What's really being hinted at is GHOST WRITER, though there's no evidence or folks are too polite to come right out and say it. Of course, a ghost writer would explain why SM's delayed recollection seemingly fits EXACTLY what the Left wingers have been saying for all this time, since a few months after the war, that is. There's nothing new here, nothing concrete, just more innuendo, biased speculation and negative spin, trying to paint the administration in the worst possible light.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Raptor, for what it's worth, Scott McClellan has done numerous interviews and he's never claimed that the 'tweaking' the editor did differed from his beliefs. Do you really think he didn't read and OK the final manuscript before it was printed?

I guess your issue is w/ Ari Fleischer, and not me then. I think what SM was most interested in was signing the back of the check he got for his advance. Nothing more.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So Shrub hired someone that was incompetent?

Apparently not according to TitanTiger.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Screw this 'free thinker ' nonsense. That just sounds like shallow, empty headed babble to give SM cover.

Actually, the freethinker remark was directed at you.

What would REALLY sound legit is if we had heard, at the time, that SM was having a difficult time seeing eye to eye with W, or that he found it hard to stand in front of the press after butting heads w/ the administration over how this or that should be worded, how to best present the President's polices...SOMETHING,but no. Instead we get a whiney little man's excuse making as he cashes in the big advance from the publisher.

Oh, so one can't sit back, reflect on things that happened, compare it with additional facts not known at the time, remember conversations, give deep thought to how that affects or perhaps changes your impressions of things and come to a point where after putting all of that together, you feel quite differently than you did in the heat of the battle. That's impossible?

No, it's not. It's actually what real people do all the time. We aren't robots. We don't have the perfect responses, we don't grasp all the implications of things right away, we struggle to put all the data together. But after some time to think and read and recall, things often look a tad different.

What you're asking for is blind inflexibility.

And newsflash: he didn't get a huge bonus. This publisher typically gives 5-figure advances on books. That's peanuts in publishing, especially with something as blockbuster as this has been.

And speaking of this publisher, make no mistake. When others bring up the issue of 'tweaking', it's not being used in the common, every day sense. What's really being hinted at is GHOST WRITER, though there's no evidence or folks are too polite to come right out and say it.

I know exactly what they are hinting at and it's not politeness keeping them from saying it. But the bolded portion is a big part. But rather than any "politeness" it's more that they don't want to write a check with their mouths that their ass can't cash.

Of course, a ghost writer would explain why SM's delayed recollection seemingly fits EXACTLY what the Left wingers have been saying for all this time, since a few months after the war, that is. There's nothing new here, nothing concrete, just more innuendo, biased speculation and negative spin, trying to paint the administration in the worst possible light.

Of course it would explain it if your presuppositions are to not believe him simply because he says things that you don't like. Of course the other perfectly logical explanation is exactly the process I described that I've gone through myself on a host of issues. If one is willing to be truthful with themselves, sometimes they end up coming to conclusions that at one time they would have railed against. Sometimes they realize their opponents had a point on some issues.

Of course I understand such a concept is foreign to you, Raptor. No further reflection or consideration or additional info ever causes a change of mind or heart for you because of your incomparable ability to assess things with infallible accuracy the first time. Amazingly, even the stuff you didn't know at the time you're right about because you're just that good. You're a rock.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The fact that SM hasn't come up w/ anything new to say, that it was exactly the same as the tired old spin the Left has spewed out for years is telling on many different levels. I've already gone over this, but it seems you're immune to the facts. I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll call it a night.

[Tiger Al 0]

The fact that SM hasn't come up w/ anything new to say, that it was exactly the same as the tired old spin the Left has spewed out for years is telling on many different levels. I've already gone over this, but it seems you're immune to the facts. I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll call it a night.

You haven't even read the book! How do you know he's said nothing new?

[AURaptor 1,126]

The fact that SM hasn't come up w/ anything new to say, that it was exactly the same as the tired old spin the Left has spewed out for years is telling on many different levels. I've already gone over this, but it seems you're immune to the facts. I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll call it a night.

You haven't even read the book! How do you know he's said nothing new?

Due to the " highlights" which have been reported. That generally all you need to know. If there were some true revelations, those'd be discussed too. But there are none.

[Tiger Al 0]

The fact that SM hasn't come up w/ anything new to say, that it was exactly the same as the tired old spin the Left has spewed out for years is telling on many different levels. I've already gone over this, but it seems you're immune to the facts. I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll call it a night.

You haven't even read the book! How do you know he's said nothing new?

Due to the " highlights" which have been reported. That generally all you need to know. If there were some true revelations, those'd be discussed too. But there are none.

Don't you ever get tired of having to defend the indefensible?

[otterinbham 0]

I think he should get every dime he makes. He'll need it, because he'll probably never work in that town again. Either that or become an investigative reporter for some third-rate cable network like Court TV.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

The fact that SM hasn't come up w/ anything new to say, that it was exactly the same as the tired old spin the Left has spewed out for years is telling on many different levels. I've already gone over this, but it seems you're immune to the facts. I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll call it a night.

You're not offering facts. You're offering your slanted take on some facts. I see some similarities but I see striking differences in what McClellan says and the left has been spewing as well. You're papering over those differences because it doesn't say the things you want it to say.

I've often chuckled at how some on the left could simultaneously believe that Bush was some evil, lying, scheming mastermind manipulating the press and the democratic process who and that he was the dumbest human being ever to walk the earth. McClellan says that he believes Bush is basically decent and honest person who tries and believes he's doing the right thing...something I've never heard anyone on the left say about him.

The left has floated "war for oil" memes and notions of imperialism. McClellan says that the basic rationale was to make Iraq a lynchpin for democracy in the Middle East...a grand design for a radically transformed Middle East.

That's just two off the top of my head. Given some time and actually reading the book, I could show you several more. You like to dismiss it as regurgitation of lefty bullet points, but you're oversimplifying or making up such things out of whole cloth simply because it doesn't fit your preconceived paradigm of how things are in your head.

I expect better from you Raptor.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

The fact that SM hasn't come up w/ anything new to say, that it was exactly the same as the tired old spin the Left has spewed out for years is telling on many different levels. I've already gone over this, but it seems you're immune to the facts. I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll call it a night.

You haven't even read the book! How do you know he's said nothing new?

Due to the " highlights" which have been reported. That generally all you need to know. If there were some true revelations, those'd be discussed too. But there are none.

So the same mainstream media you utterly distrust is the one you trust to accurately tell you the "highlights" and to give you an accurate synopsis of the book's contents? Interesting.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The fact that SM hasn't come up w/ anything new to say, that it was exactly the same as the tired old spin the Left has spewed out for years is telling on many different levels. I've already gone over this, but it seems you're immune to the facts. I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll call it a night.

You're not offering facts. You're offering your slanted take on some facts. I see some similarities but I see striking differences in what McClellan says and the left has been spewing as well. You're papering over those differences because it doesn't say the things you want it to say.

I've often chuckled at how some on the left could simultaneously believe that Bush was some evil, lying, scheming mastermind manipulating the press and the democratic process who and that he was the dumbest human being ever to walk the earth. McClellan says that he believes Bush is basically decent and honest person who tries and believes he's doing the right thing...something I've never heard anyone on the left say about him.

The left has floated "war for oil" memes and notions of imperialism. McClellan says that the basic rationale was to make Iraq a lynchpin for democracy in the Middle East...a grand design for a radically transformed Middle East.

That's just two off the top of my head. Given some time and actually reading the book, I could show you several more. You like to dismiss it as regurgitation of lefty bullet points, but you're oversimplifying or making up such things out of whole cloth simply because it doesn't fit your preconceived paradigm of how things are in your head.

I expect better from you Raptor.

No, the Left has said repeatedly that the war was based on LIES, and that Bush fudged the intel to suit his needs. That's NOT what happened. The Left has ALSO said that , had they known what Bush REALLY knew , they'd never have voted for the war. That TOO is a lie, because they were talking about what Saddam, how dangerous he was and what needed to be done when Clinton was in office. It's such a transparent tactic, but that's all they have left.

I'm glad you expected better from me. That means a lot. I just wish you'd pay attention to what I'm saying instead of assuming I'm blindly sidling up w/ the administration's talking points. I'm not.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

No, the Left has said repeatedly that the war was based on LIES, and that Bush fudged the intel to suit his needs. That's NOT what happened.

You're minimizing what they said to keep your argument afloat. That is not all they said and you know it.

The Left has ALSO said that , had they known what Bush REALLY knew , they'd never have voted for the war. That TOO is a lie, because they were talking about what Saddam, how dangerous he was and what needed to be done when Clinton was in office. It's such a transparent tactic, but that's all they have left.

Interestingly, this is not even a subject McClellan broaches. He talks about what Bush would do if he knew then what he knows NOW, but he doesn't speculate in the manner you're describing.

I'm glad you expected better from me. That means a lot. I just wish you'd pay attention to what I'm saying instead of assuming I'm blindly sidling up w/ the administration's talking points. I'm not.

Funny, I wish you'd read what I said as well. I've had to correct you at least once where you attributed views that not only were inaccurate, but were the complete opposite of what I said.

But help me out. How does your argument differ from the administrations bullet points?

[AURaptor 1,126]

You're minimizing what they said to keep your argument afloat. That is not all they said and you know it.

WHERE am I minimalizing ANYTHING ? That's exactly what they've said, time and time again. Doesn't matter that it's not " all they said" , it's the most important thing, by far, and it itself is a lie.

Interestingly, this is not even a subject McClellan broaches. He talks about what Bush would do if he knew then what he knows NOW, but he doesn't speculate in the manner you're describing.

Huh? McClellan says that the war is immoral and based on lies. WTF are you talking about ?

But help me out. How does your argument differ from the administrations bullet points?

You'll have to be a bit less vague for me to answer that one.

[tiger88 934]

McClellan is on O'Reilly tonight I think.

[AURaptor 1,126]

McClellan is on O'Reilly tonight I think.

Color me shocked. Really? I thought he was staying clear of conservative shows. Good for him.

[AU alum 2]

Nor less valid.

Not to mention, if McClellan really wanted to make the big bucks, he'd have done much better to just keep this to himself and take advantage of the contacts made within that circle, serving on boards and such. He's virtually cut himself off from any of that now and he knew that going in. The publisher he chose does not give big advances either.

I hardly think he did it for the money, otherwise there are any number of other bigger publishing houses that would have given him a huge advance, not to mention a much larger marketing budget.

He has gone from being a below average employee in one camp to a hero of sorts in another. I think it is safe to say that his financial future is a wee bit brighter than it was before the book was a reality.

You keep harping on the fact that he didn't get a big bonus. So, what? If he had went for a big signing bonus it REALLY would have made him look like even more of an opportunist. He would have been digging his grave in that respect. The fact that he received a small bonus shows that he was smart enough to know that a big one would have made him look really bad. Or at least it shows that those helping him orchestrate this deal knew how bad it would make him look.

Anyway you paint it the guy is a bit of a worm. Something tells me the actual $$ off of sales won't be the only money/benefits he sees off of his backstabbing.

A bit of a worm???

[TitanTiger 20,511]

You're minimizing what they said to keep your argument afloat. That is not all they said and you know it.

WHERE am I minimalizing ANYTHING ? That's exactly what they've said, time and time again. Doesn't matter that it's not " all they said" , it's the most important thing, by far, and it itself is a lie.

You are trying to distill what they've said to someone so broad that virtually anyone who questions the motivation of the administration on the war is "regurgitating lefty talking points." That's absurd. There are plenty of people on the right who question such things that give no credence to left-wing goofballs.

Huh? McClellan says that the war is immoral and based on lies. WTF are you talking about ?

He says that based on what we know now. That's the point that he's making...that no matter what Bush says or feels he has to say now, that he doesn't believe if he knew then what he knows now that he would make the same decision. And based on what we know now, it is immoral and based on bad information, shaded intel, lacked proper consideration of contrary data and so on.

You'll have to be a bit less vague for me to answer that one.

I'm not sure. You made an assertion that you're not just spitting out admin talking points. Everything you've said sound right out of their playbook on this whole thing. Give me a couple of examples from this thread where you're saying something of any significant difference from what the administration is saying about this war.

[tiger88 934]

McClellan is on O'Reilly tonight I think.

Color me shocked. Really? I thought he was staying clear of conservative shows. Good for him.

I saw it on fox this morning. Wanna say it is tonight, but I'm not sure.

[tiger88 934]

Nor less valid.

Not to mention, if McClellan really wanted to make the big bucks, he'd have done much better to just keep this to himself and take advantage of the contacts made within that circle, serving on boards and such. He's virtually cut himself off from any of that now and he knew that going in. The publisher he chose does not give big advances either.

I hardly think he did it for the money, otherwise there are any number of other bigger publishing houses that would have given him a huge advance, not to mention a much larger marketing budget.

He has gone from being a below average employee in one camp to a hero of sorts in another. I think it is safe to say that his financial future is a wee bit brighter than it was before the book was a reality.

You keep harping on the fact that he didn't get a big bonus. So, what? If he had went for a big signing bonus it REALLY would have made him look like even more of an opportunist. He would have been digging his grave in that respect. The fact that he received a small bonus shows that he was smart enough to know that a big one would have made him look really bad. Or at least it shows that those helping him orchestrate this deal knew how bad it would make him look.

Anyway you paint it the guy is a bit of a worm. Something tells me the actual $$ off of sales won't be the only money/benefits he sees off of his backstabbing.

A bit of a worm???

Well, in my book he is a big worm. Even painted in the most favorable light he is a bit of a worm, was my point.

[Tiger Al 0]

Back to the original question of this thread for a moment, McClellan has said he will donate a portion of the proceeds to Iraq war vets.

LINK

[RunInRed 16,492]

Back to the original question of this thread for a moment, McClellan has said he will donate a portion of the proceeds to Iraq war vets.

LINK

This + his appearance tonight on O'Reilly = smart move.

[AURaptor 1,126]

" I intend to " . Leaves some wiggle room there, if you ask me. He didn't flatly declare " I will, I am, or I defiantly will do that... " , but " I intend to ".

But what about this biased, Left wing reporting by Tim Russert ? Calling McClellan " part of the propaganda " ?? WTF ??? How the hell do you explain the 17 UN resolutions, LIL RUS'?? Where's the call for The Clinton Administration's " propaganda " over the 10 yrs of phony UN inspections?? Why phony ? They'd HAVE to be phony if Saddam and Iraq were 100 % scott free innocent, right ?

******* DUMBA$$ TRAITORS. Talk about Corporate Media! It's the FAR FAR LEFT WING media that's in control of the news here. The George Soros, moveon.org gang.

[Tiger Al 0]

Back to the original question of this thread for a moment, McClellan has said he will donate a portion of the proceeds to Iraq war vets.

LINK

This + his appearance tonight on O'Reilly = smart move.

I'm buying my copy tonight.

[Tiger Al 0]

" I intend to " . Leaves some wiggle room there, if you ask me. He didn't flatly declare " I will, I am, or I defiantly will do that... " , but " I intend to ".

Well, we'll see, then. I think he will, but, he IS still a republican so you never know.