mcclellan was the United States President's spokesperson to the press;
"irrelevant to governing" -- like an informed public is not part of a responsible government?!
willey was what?
btw the _logical_ conclusion of your argument is bush can't pick a spokesperson. is dana perino worth listening to by that argument?
and this is your biggest joke to date: "more informed"!!! i guess he only got his information from the washington times, certainly _not_ the president, after all "informed", by whom? he was out there makin' stuff up, because he was "un-informed", and it took bush how long, three years, to figure out his press spokesman was uninformed. what it _does_ show is how little bush cared about the press. "Scotty's doin' a great job" -- W.
and to quote the great ronbo, "there you go again .. " what's the trinity church got to do with scott mcclellan and his service to the public? looks like another one of your red herrings, Ed.
just how far are you from Rush,Ann,Han. on _this_ one?!!!
keep your ideas; leave the "truthiness" to us liberals. :-)
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 12:57 PM, <ewronka > wrote:
Both McLEllan and Wiley had jobs that were irrelevant to governing.
Willey made an allegation regarding Bill CLinton and then---according to her---was subjected to threats from the Clinton handlers.
I believe her.
McLellan was a press secretary---a rother poor one at that. I think that Bush could have found a better press secretary by picking someone who was more informed. He has recently tried selling a book in which he criticizes the President.
Do I give his words any creedence? No.
But that is just my humble opinon. I put as much value in McLellan's criticism of Bush as I do in the criticism of Obama for his affiliation of the Trinity Church.
Both are completely irrelevant. I'm sorry if that leads you to believe I am a unreasonable biased advocate. I can't help but believe what I believe.