Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq

Actually there is a much simpler explanation....controversy sells. A book that attacks Bush will make him an easy million! A book that rubber stamped wouldn't have broke the best seller's list. It doesn't get simpler than that.

Here is an excerpt from HIS book I find particularly revealing:

----------------------------
Writing it wasn't easy. Some of the best advice I received as I began came from a senior editor at a publishing house that expressed interest in my book. He said the hardest challenge for me would be to keep questioning my own beliefs and perceptions throughout the writing process. His advice was prescient. I've found myself continually questioning my own thinking, my assumptions, my interpretations of events. Many of the conclusions I've reached are quite different from those I would have embraced at the start of the process. The quest for truth has been a struggle for me, but a rewarding one. I don't claim a monopoly on truth. But after wrestling with my experiences over the past several months, I've come much closer to my truth than ever before.

-----------------------
I appreciate Scott taking the time to tell me "his" truth. But given his unwillingness to take a stand that his truth is THE truth, I'll leave it alone.

Whether in fact he was lying then or lying now, you've already conceded he is a liar yourself. Nothing more needs to be said.

I myself am far more concerned with the intimidation the Clintons used against Kathleen Willey, including stalking her, and killing her cat. Pretty scary when you look into the fate of an intern who has been videotaped breaking into a side hall off of the Oval office. Go look into what happened to a young lady named Mary Caterin Mahoney on the week before the Monica Lewinsky story broke.

It may make you think a little more about possible alternative meanings to HILLARY's reference to the RFK Assasination.

---- Marty McGowan <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:31 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > It just goes to show what a partisan nation we've become...I believe in
> > Scott McLellan as much as you believe Kathleen Willey.
>
> =========
> except Scott McClellan once spoke for the (acting) President of the
> United States. one might ask then if you _ever_ believed him. that's what
> wrankles you. the prosecutor, armed with your reasoning would eat you up:
> are you lying now or were you lying then. an intellectually honest person
> would agree with the later statements.
>
> your parallels are as weak as your argument: totally insubstantial.
> "grasping at straws", i believe it's called.
>
> * McClellan has discovered his conscience. Is there a simpler
> explanation? the question stands. answer it or tuck your tail.
> *
> +=+-- Marty
>
> p.s. i have little patience for you "excusers", right down there with
> the "appeasers"
>
> p.p.s let me give you credit for "what a partisan nation we've become".
> and who can we thank for that:
> Bob Barr, Hank Hyde, Ken Starr, ... Newty, and the parade of
> pecadillos who your party put in leadership roles,
> don't blame a democrat for advancing partisanship when your boys have
> held the reins for >12 yrs..
>
> "never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the
> republican", -- Marty McGowan (c) 1976 - 2008
>
>
> > ---- marty <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > marty saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
> > > should see it.
> > >
> > > ** Message **
> > > it's ok ed. you can come out now too.
> > >
> > > perino's "this is not the scott we knew". of course not! this scott has
> > discovered his conscience. is there a simpler explanation?
> > >
> > > ** Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq **
> > > Ex-White House spokesman Scott McClellan says President Bush was not
> > forthright on the Iraq war.
> > > < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7423099.stm >
> > >