Another book the WH won't be happy about

[Justin5 20]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/g...s_n_104664.html

The Washington Post points out that in the hubbub of the McClellan book, another scathing memoir has come out exposing the truth behind Iraq.

Getting lost in the media furor over McClellan's memoir is the new autobiography of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions."

Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S. response that was reportedly egged on by the president.

During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:

"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

A White House spokesman had no comment.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yeah, there were some major screw ups in a military action. Pretty big ones, but still, it happens. Getting a bit tired of the back biting and yapping that's going on here.

[RunInRed 16,492]

I can't remember an Administration that has had this many defects. From Colin Powell to Scott McClellan, to many generals...the list is ever growing. I imagine even more will come clean about the corruption, incompetance, and lies over the past 8 years once he leaves office.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I can't remember an Administration that has had this many defects. From Colin Powell to Scott McClellan, to many generals...the list is ever growing. I imagine even more will come clean about the corruption, incompetance, and lies over the past 8 years once he leaves office.

You imagine based on what ? Oh, that's right, you have nothing. McClellan is just a sorry opportunist who is trying to get something from his miserable effort at Press Secretary. Others are just bureaucratic lifers who simply want to get in w/ the 'in' crowd, which clearly W isn't part. There have been no lies , unlike the Clinton administration, only folks who change their mind after the checks are signed over to them. It's opinion and personality based, not facts.

[RunInRed 16,492]

I can't remember an Administration that has had this many defects. From Colin Powell to Scott McClellan, to many generals...the list is ever growing. I imagine even more will come clean about the corruption, incompetance, and lies over the past 8 years once he leaves office.

You imagine based on what ? Oh, that's right, you have nothing. McClellan is just a sorry opportunist who is trying to get something from his miserable effort at Press Secretary. Others are just bureaucratic lifers who simply want to get in w/ the 'in' crowd, which clearly W isn't part. There have been no lies , unlike the Clinton administration, only folks who change their mind after the checks are signed over to them. It's opinion and personality based, not facts.

Colin Powell is trying to get in with Washington insiders? Riiiiight. Your defense of this administration is well beyond unexplainable. It really makes you look, well, like a Kool-Aid drinker. And there's so much of it out there...surely you could find a better flavor.

[Shire5k 19]

I can't remember an Administration that has had this many defects. From Colin Powell to Scott McClellan, to many generals...the list is ever growing. I imagine even more will come clean about the corruption, incompetance, and lies over the past 8 years once he leaves office.

You imagine based on what ? Oh, that's right, you have nothing. McClellan is just a sorry opportunist who is trying to get something from his miserable effort at Press Secretary. Others are just bureaucratic lifers who simply want to get in w/ the 'in' crowd, which clearly W isn't part. There have been no lies , unlike the Clinton administration, only folks who change their mind after the checks are signed over to them. It's opinion and personality based, not facts.

How do you know what these guys are saying aren't facts? Oh, that's right, you don't. Something tells me the former commander of the troops in Iraq has a better handle on the situation than you do. Discounting what he says out of hand is rather ignorant.

[Tiger Al 0]

How do you know what these guys are saying aren't facts? Oh, that's right, you don't. Something tells me the former commander of the troops in Iraq has a better handle on the situation than you do. Discounting what he says out of hand is rather ignorant.

That is the MO of the 10%'ers. like Raptor. By the time you get to them, Laura and Barney have already packed up and moved out, but, they'll still be there cheering George on!!!

[arnaldoabru 11]

Alberto Gonzales couldn't write a tell all.He can't recall or remember anything.

[autigeremt 6,717]

KOOL-AID on all fronts here today. Let's get past the ass and the elephant here and see it for what it is.

Powell was/still is one of the best people ever to grace Washington. He should have been the Sec. of Defense. Bush screwed that one up! He paid for it.

McClellan is using his free speech to sell books. I have watched two interviews of him the past three days. He looked like two different people. I say he's accurate on some things, but to change his book (due to publisher demands) after finishing it once makes me a little skeptical. I don't discount some of the things he states. Bush, as much as I like the man as a person, has made some bad calls over the last few years. In MY opinion, Iraq isn't one of them. How he handled it, that's another issue.

Clinton had his defectors. Nixon, Carter, Johnson, so on and so forth. It's the nature of the political beast, and Obama is not immune to it. Don't let the 1970's, 2008 version of "Change the Nation" get you fooled.

[Tiger Al 0]

...but to change his book (due to publisher demands) after finishing it once makes me a little skeptical.

Either you weren't paying attention when McClellan was asked about this several times by O'Reilly, or, you are hoping that no one else was. McClellan said, several times, that his publisher never asked him to change the tone of the book, nor, did the editor do that, either.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

...but to change his book (due to publisher demands) after finishing it once makes me a little skeptical.

Either you weren't paying attention when McClellan was asked about this several times by O'Reilly, or, you are hoping that no one else was. McClellan said, several times, that his publisher never asked him to change the tone of the book, nor, did the editor do that, either.

But the editor was a dirty left-winger! And we know that the only reason you have an editor is if they are going to change it all around to fit their own person viewpoint! And the administrations hit men spokespeople suggested it doesn't sound like the Scott they knew!

Good grief the silliness of these weak comebacks.

[Tigermike 3,055]

...but to change his book (due to publisher demands) after finishing it once makes me a little skeptical.

Either you weren't paying attention when McClellan was asked about this several times by O'Reilly, or, you are hoping that no one else was. McClellan said, several times, that his publisher never asked him to change the tone of the book, nor, did the editor do that, either.

Well there is this from Newsbusters.

McClellan's Publisher Required 'Integrity & Candor,' Not Bush Defense

By Brent Baker | May 30, 2008 - 03:34 ET

Peter Osnos, the liberal founder of PublicAffairs books who “worked very closely” with Scott McClellan on his anti-Bush screed which has enraptured the news media, denied, the Washington Post reported Friday, that McClellan had “undergone heavy-handed editing,” but in maintaining that he had not steered McClellan to write anything he didn't believe, Osnos exposed a political agenda as he conceded he had no interest in a pro-George W. Bush book. Equating criticism of the Bush administration with “integrity and candor,” Osnos, the former Washington Post reporter and editor who in March denounced Rush Limbaugh as “bombastic, aggressive, and mean,” told the Post:

"We are journalists, independent-minded publishers. We weren't interested in a book that was just a defense of the Bush administration. It had to pass our test of independence, integrity and candor."

An excerpt from the May 30 front page Washington Post article, “McClellan Says Book's Tone Evolved: Aide-Turned-Critic Tells of Growing Disillusionment with Bush Administration,” by reporters Dan Eggen and Linton Weeks:

"....McClellan and Peter Osnos, the founder of PublicAffairs, the small company that published "What Happened," rebutted suggestions from some Bush defenders, including former press secretary Ari Fleischer, that McClellan may have had a ghostwriter or undergone heavy-handed editing. Fleischer and others have repeatedly said that the book does not "sound like" McClellan, who is known as genial and soft-spoken.

McClellan said that he started focusing on writing the book about a year ago and that the work was especially intense over the past several months as the publishing date approached.

Osnos said McClellan just needed editorial guidance to tell the story he wanted to tell all along.

"First we had to ascertain what kind of book he wanted to write," said Osnos, a former Washington Post reporter and editor. "We are journalists, independent-minded publishers. We weren't interested in a book that was just a defense of the Bush administration. It had to pass our test of independence, integrity and candor."...

Osnos called the book "a really sophisticated, thoughtful, reasoned and, in many ways, pained portrait of a president" and said, "The Bush he came to serve went off the rails."

He also dismissed suggestions that McClellan is merely hoping to cash in. Unlike some larger publishing houses, he said, PublicAffairs almost never pays more than a five-figure advance. "No one has ever done a book for PublicAffairs for the money," he said...."

My May 29 NewsBusters posting, “McClellan's Publisher a Liberal: Advances Soros & Slams Limbaugh,” recounted:

"Peter Osnos, who wrote Wednesday that he "worked very closely" with Scott McClellan on McClellan's new book published by PublicAffairs which Osnos founded, is a liberal whose publishing house is affiliated with the far-left The Nation magazine and the publisher of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. PublicAffairs has a roster of authors who are nearly all liberals and/or liberal-leaning mainstream media figures, including six books by far-left bank-roller George Soros. On Wednesday's CBS Evening News, Ari Fleischer related that "Scott told me that his editor did 'tweak,' in Scott's word, a lot of the writing, especially in the last few months." In an "Eat the Press" blog entry Wednesday, Rachel Sklar asked Osnos: "Did you work directly on the book with McClellan? (Who was his editor?)" Osnos replied: "The editor was Lisa Kaufman and yes, I worked very closely with them."

A reporter and editor at the Washington Post during the 1970s and 1980s before going into book publishing, Osnos pens a weekly column for the left of center The Century Foundation. In a March column he denounced Rush Limbaugh as "bombastic, aggressive, and mean," bemoaning how the late William F. Buckley Jr. left behind "a right-wing culture that tends to be as coarse and leaden as his demeanor could be buoyant," charging Buckley provided "unfortunate cover to others who followed with a spirit that was distinctly and consistently malevolent."

In contrast, he hailed the late left-wing columnist Molly Ivins and wished she had more impact: "In the contest for power in America, Molly Ivins had a good perch in her column, nearly perfect pitch, and, alas, too little influence." Ruminating this week about the Kennedy family's legacy in the wake of Senator Ted Kennedy's cancer diagnosis, Osnos asserted that "we are a distinctly better country for the message" which "Ted conveyed about our priorities as a people."...

PublicAffairs is part of the Perseus Books Group, which also owns Nation Books, "a project of The Nation Institute" which publishes the magazine of the same name, and Vanguard Press, whose home page now features The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, a new book by Vincent Bugliosi that "presents a tight, meticulously researched legal case that puts George W. Bush on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq."..."

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center

link

[Tiger Al 0]

Tigermike is right on cue!

[autigeremt 6,717]

I was listening, and not to the parts that made me feel good. George Sorros being involved makes me very, very skeptical! He is a traitor if there ever has been.

Here's what I heard after the Ari Fleischer tape rolled:

O'REILLY: All right. Politico.com's also reporting that your initial outline to your publisher was not what the book eventually turned out to be. Did your publisher make you go back in and change some things?

MCCLELLAN: No, they did not. In fact...

O'REILLY: Did they suggest...

MCCLELLAN: ...when I was talking to Ari, what I was talking about was exactly what he was talking about what was like the last three or four months. He said he same thing. Yes, it's crazy when you're going back and forth with your editor, trying to finish it up on time. And this was actually delayed a couple times, because I wanted to make sure I got it absolutely right.

?????? he was talking, I was talking......???????

O'REILLY: But were they suggesting...

MCCLELLAN: And in terms of the proposal, that was written in December of 2006. It was some ideas and some questions to explore.

O'REILLY: Right.

I see this as rat. Why? Because when he was on MSNBC before this, and he made a comment that spurned interest with me.

Instead of effective government, Americans were subjected to a "permanent campaign" that was "all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage," McClellan writes in a book stunning for its harsh criticism of Bush. "Presidential initiatives from health care programs to foreign invasions are regularly devised, named, timed and launched with one eye (or both eyes) on the electoral calendar."

Bush never has, and obviously doesn't care, about polls or public opinion. This is where it all get's cloudy to me with McClellan.

Here's what I do see as truth:

It wasn't about Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction, McClellan writes. It was Bush's fervor to transform the Middle East through the spread of democracy.

I do think Bush looked at it from this perspective. Right or wrong, this is something that I have always believed.

I still think it's about money at the end of the day. This book is a #1 Best Seller as of today. It will roll in the hay. Good luck, McClellan. You are now in bed with the worst, most radical group in America.

For better, or worse????

[Justin5 20]

Bush's 2nd term 'campaign' that McClellan is referring to was his desire to remembered as a great President. Of course he didn't care about public opinion polls, he isn't running for a 3rd term re-election. Lincoln wasn't entirely popular DURING his presidency, and Bush no doubt convinced himself if he could get this war done he could be remembered (in the long haul) as great.

He says it elsewhere in the book, (in so many words) 'only wartime Presidents are remembered'

NOTE: I am only responding to autigeremt's comment. I am not validating or explaining Bush's or McClellan's thoughts on this.

[autigeremt 6,717]

If Democracy prevails in Iraq, Bush will be considered great from a historical perspective. It may be 10 years before you hear or see that, but it would be historical to say the least.

[Tiger Al 0]

George Sorros being involved makes me very, very skeptical!

Let's nip this in the bud right now. What is Soros' involvement? Do not backpedal here. Don't provide some nefarious quote from Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. No innuendo from some right-wing blogger.

What factual evidence of Soros' involvement are you talking about?

[DKW 86 7,441]

Dont call me a traitor on this. But I have deep respect for Sanchez and believe it or not, believe McClellan.

Bush has been the absolute bottom for Conservatives. He really isnt Conservative at all. He isnt Moderate much either. He is really just incompetent. He has just about gutted the Conservative movement in this country for this election cycle. He has shown us what total lack of fiscal responsibility looks like. Other than the tax cuts, he is pretty much a failure in my book. Most Conservatives I know disowned him shortly after the 2004 election.

As bad as Bush is, I still feel he is not as bad as Gore or Kerry would have been.

This is just sad that for the last three election cycles we have gotten candidates that in personal opinion are not good enough to even be compared to Reagan. on any level.

[Tiger Al 0]

George Sorros being involved makes me very, very skeptical!

Let's nip this in the bud right now. What is Soros' involvement? Do not backpedal here. Don't provide some nefarious quote from Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. No innuendo from some right-wing blogger.

What factual evidence of Soros' involvement are you talking about?

autigeremt?