Bush Admin Lying Machine coming apart, Be careful whose bed you choose to lie in McCain Options

[Hellfighter]

So here we go;
Straight from the source like never before;
One of Bush's own about to reveal the whole Bush Admin/neocon lying machine scheme-
No surprise really -but now its about to be officially 'explored'.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html

some doubters may venture to say he's just selling a book - but he seems to be like Colin Powell and the Generals who criticized the Iraq war from its outset, a virtuous person who was slapped around by the neocon villains in the admin revealing the formerly deliberately obscured facts for themselves for everyone to judge-finally.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/28/08 9:16am

[Robert]

LOL
as I was typing
could of / would of / should of
I thought it didn't look/sound right but drew a complete blank on how it should have looked.

Anyhoo...
Back to McClellan an his book.
I downloaded the audiobook version of it last night, just finished listening to it.
For all those who were wanting/expecting a detail accounting of Bush's failures.
Well, the book is going to leave you very disappointed.
Don't get me wrong, there is list of Bush's failures, just nothing new and not what most people would expect it to be.
Now after reading the book I'm genuinely amazed by some of the reviews an editorials by people who "SUPPOSEDLY" read this.
I guess all the people praising this book as some kind of proof or inside look at Bush's propaganda machine must be reading between the lines or more likely, reading what the want to into each line as a way to feed their preconceived opinions.

Overall, not a bad book.
Definitely not the what most people have been lead to believe the book was about or what it even says.
It starts out with a long but not totally boring bio of McClellan himself.
A personal history, then moving into a history of his time with Bush in Texas.
Then it leads into details opinion of how McClellan thinks the "The Political Machine known as Washington" changed Bush in many fundamental ways.
Something the Liberals won't like reading is his opinion how things started down hill due to their poor display during the Florida recounts.
He doesn't come out and say it directly but implies this was partly to blame why Bush wasn't a more effective leader.
Did a great job in Texas because he was willing to reach out to Democrats but after Florida, he changed his ways.

While their has been alot of talk about him bashing Bush for the propaganda campaign about Iraq. I think a lot of people mistakenly try to associate lies, with propaganda, which isn't the case.
He does a fair job ensuring the reader what he means, something which wasn't touched on during
his book interviews.
I really have to wonder if Obermann, who keep calling the book, the Rosetta stone of the Bush war machine would have said that if he had read the book and not just excerpts from it before the show.
McClellan goes as far as to say "Bush never knowing mislead the people"
The propaganda angle comes more from the decision to make WMD's the forefront reason behind Iraq.
BTW for all the critics who claim Bush and Co. knew there wasn't WMD's or made it up as an excuse for their Iraq War Agenda. Well, if that's what you think, you probably won't like the part where McClellan talks about how genuinely surprised Bush and the Administration was when it turned out there where no WMD's.
So if your holding McClellan up as some honest, well meaning, whistle blower.
Does your opinion of his honesty suddenly drop because he says the opposite of what you expected?

As much as the media tried to sale this an anti bush book, it's more to do with McClellan's personal
opinion of failed Washington politics in general. from his point of view as press secretary.
How Washington is a disaster because politics is more important then making good policy.
( Something I agree with him on )
The final chapters have little to do with Bush, they focus on changes he would like to see take place in Washington.

The only strong attack piece out of the book deals with the Plame affair.
Even on that subject he doesn't offer anything new, but it is a detailed criticism of Libby, also Rove to a lesser extent.

Overall I would give it 2 and a half, maybe 3 starts out of 5
If anyone is interest, another book about Washington, Politic and Presidents is
Second Acts.
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/15922...nDateDescending
4.5/5 stars.
A very good read.
It brings these people back down to earth in a very entertaining way.
Everyone from Truman through Clinton.

[Hellfighter]

LOL
as I was typing
could of / would of / should of
I thought it didn't look/sound right but drew a complete blank on how it should have looked.

,,,,.

Thanks mucho for the review .... well written; I'm wondering if you have a 'writing' profession in real life.

I didn't expect anything new from the book as you've pointed out. Just confirmations of mostly what I assumed and assessed already.

I say 'honest' because he spoke from the heart - he didn't try to cover his bases by making excuses for the admin. He points out the real crooks who schemed up all the messes. Although he's being labelled as a Benedict Arnold, all of his foes have nothing to say about him being a schemer nor malicious before he wrote the book -if he'd wrote a book bashing the dems how many repubs would say he wrote the book purely to cash-in?

Would of/could of thing - you should see my horrid-unedited posts before I make 20 edits to each one before the final version!
Anyway I always like to[ or feel compelled] make a big thing out of that 'could of/could have error' everywhere I see it since its becoming a 'popular' accepted way of saying it.