kat8585 Posted May 29, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Author Share Posted May 29, 2008 I think he's just disgruntled, and wants to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted May 29, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted May 29, 2008 It's probably mostly true, he'd be crazy to write things that could be checked out and found to be lies, but......he could have waited until Mr. Bush was out of the White House. And, if he is supposed to be a friend of the President, then it's appalling that he would do this. The term 'weasel' keeps popping into my head. Money is a powerful motivator......... My sentiments exactly It's pretty tactless to do something like this while Bush is still in office. Save the money-making schemes for later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckthesystem Posted May 29, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,706 Topics Per Day: 0.26 Content Count: 3,386 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/12/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/10/1955 Share Posted May 29, 2008 I think we have got a lot of biases here. What ever Scott McClellen was, he is now being honest and telling it like it is, or certainly the way he sees it. If he really was "disgruntled" and a"a liar" I am sure that this would soon be proved by libel suits. This seems like "office politics at its worst". It is a common scenario that most of you must have seen in your own lives. Somebody speaks out about something, and it is a bit too scathing or close to the truth so everybody "gangs up on them", calls them "disgruntled" and "unreliabe" and "sour grapes" and tries to blacken their character. Why do so many of you have to assume that it is Scott McClellen who is in the wrong. There is nobody more catty than civil servants, and when their target is one of their own, they can be really nasty. He must be right about his criticism of the media though. No agenda can survive long without an obsequious, obedient and very biased media. It sounds a bit like our own PM when one of her ex-civil servants (or journalists or anyone else for that matter) says anything even slightly critical of her or her beliefs she comes out "spitting venom". She has labelled two journalists (two that I know of, there could be more) "little creeps" and refused to be interviewed by them. Is it the same with your political system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat8585 Posted May 29, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Author Share Posted May 29, 2008 If he really was "disgruntled" and a"a liar" I am sure that this would soon be proved It's already been challenged, tho not in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted May 29, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted May 29, 2008 Buckthesystem, I'm no fan of Bush, and I'm sure there will be a lot of truth in the book, but writing a book about grievances seemingly out of nowhere and while Bush is still in office just comes across as underhanded. The fact he's writing a book (aka trying to turn a profit) over this just seems like he's trying to cash in on the situation. McClellen might be doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamiam Posted May 29, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 188 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/29/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted May 29, 2008 It's sad for all parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lorax Posted May 29, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Share Posted May 29, 2008 In a shocking turnabout..." a man who was constantly derided and mocked for being a puppet of the Bush administration is now a liberal media darling. Once considered an unreliable and untrustworthy source of information inside the White House by liberals, Scott McClellan now has a front row seat at every leftist media center. Typical liberal hypocristy... Use some common sense. The man was a paid suit by the White House. Not anymore. Now he's at liberty to tell the truth. And--oh my--how neoconservatives can't stand the truth of this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lorax Posted May 29, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Share Posted May 29, 2008 I think we have got a lot of biases here. What ever Scott McClellen was, he is now being honest and telling it like it is, or certainly the way he sees it. If he really was "disgruntled" and a"a liar" I am sure that this would soon be proved by libel suits. This seems like "office politics at its worst". It is a common scenario that most of you must have seen in your own lives. Somebody speaks out about something, and it is a bit too scathing or close to the truth so everybody "gangs up on them", calls them "disgruntled" and "unreliabe" and "sour grapes" and tries to blacken their character. Why do so many of you have to assume that it is Scott McClellen who is in the wrong. There is nobody more catty than civil servants, and when their target is one of their own, they can be really nasty. He must be right about his criticism of the media though. No agenda can survive long without an obsequious, obedient and very biased media. It sounds a bit like our own PM when one of her ex-civil servants (or journalists or anyone else for that matter) says anything even slightly critical of her or her beliefs she comes out "spitting venom". She has labelled two journalists (two that I know of, there could be more) "little creeps" and refused to be interviewed by them. Is it the same with your political system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted May 29, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 827 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 12,101 Content Per Day: 1.50 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 04/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted May 29, 2008 Well - in my book - if what he says is true, and he knew it back then and didn't sound an alarm, or resign over it - then he's just as guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted May 29, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted May 29, 2008 Even if he was discgruntled, it does not necessarily mean that what he is saying is not true. However if it is true, Trav's question is pertinent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts