I am not saying that anyone in politics, especially in Washington D.C. are above "misleading" lets say. I also include Mcclelland in that group. Hello, he has a book coming out and wants to promote it . I am leary of anyone in any line of work (Hollywood, sports, etc..) that goes on a tour of talk shows or in this case news networks spilling their guts.

It's funny how the tables can be turned in almost any situation. Flip both sides and you have people praising Dick Morris' honesty for comments he makes about Bill and Hillary while people who used to support him call him out as a disgruntled former employee and a hater. I never buy these books but will check it out from the library. I enjoy reading from both sides of the aisle, both positive and negative as the contrast in views of the same situation can be a fascinating read.

Dick Morris is not the equivalent of McClellan. Morris was a paid political consultant who helped save Clinton's presidency. Morris was never really on the "team" the way that McClellan was. Without Bush, nobody would have ever heard of McClellan. Morris' success was never tied to Bill Clinton's coattails in quite the same way (although he may be the best flipside example).

 

Anybody who watches Dick Morris for any length of time can sense the genuine hatred that he feels for Hillary Clinton. OTOH, I would not be too shocked if Morris agreed to work again for Bill or another Clinton family member other than Hillary.

 

McClellan reminds me of David Brock, a gay conservative American Spectator author who cashed in on his success as a right wing author by claiming that he lied about the Clintons in his earlier writing before becoming another left wing mouthpiece for George Soros as the founder of Media Matters.

 

McClellan is just another Soros recruit.Both McClellan and Morris have acted very unprofessionally. In cases like McClellan and Brock, the question must always be asked, "Was he lying then or is he lying now?" Most of the time, the answer can best be answered, "Yes."

The funny thing on Fox News the other day was two different anchors openly speculating that McClellan's book wasn't necessarily his writing, but that of a "heavy-handed editor" ... the length the Fox boys and girls will go to help out their friends on the right.

 

Actually, I saw the same thing on CNN two nights ago.

The thing about this situation is that I don't think it's adding anything we didn't already know. Everyone should be well aware that the American sentiments post 911 were exploited (under the cloud of the war on terror), in order to remove a belligerent head of state.

 

He isn't telling us anything we don't already know.

 

Agreed. He didn't tell us much we didn't already know, but for the doubters McClellan's inside account is just one more piece of independent corroborating evidence. Paul O'Neill made similar observations in his 2004 book, The Price of Loyalty. George Tenet did in his 2007 book, At the Center of the Storm. Bob Woodward also did in his 2004 book, Plan of Attack.

I agree with Bob Dole, but my opinion of elected officials (like Dole) who leave office and then rake in a fortune working for foreign governments as lobbyists is no better than my opinion of snakes like McClellan. This is a case of the wrong messenger delivering the right message.

 

Bob Dole unloads on McClellan

 

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

I agree. The problem with McClellan is that he didn't use his position as the guy holding the bullhorn to let us know how badly we were being misled.

I tend to question people who wait until their book is published to come clean. I smell profit motive.

Didn't McClellan's daddy do the same thing?

Didn't McClellan's daddy do the same thing?

He had to. He was barred from practicing law. However, I don't think he's too far off in suggesting LBJ's involvement. But that's a whole 'nuther thread.

Actually, I saw the same thing on CNN two nights ago.

 

:thumb: Fox is not the only ones that have questioned this and imo CNN usually goes way out of their way to promote the far left. I will listen to different new networks including Fox and MSNBC. I refuse to turn on CNN. Matt Lauer (Today show) should work for that bunch . The today show was practically crowning McClelland as the second coming over this. Come to think of it, imo the "Today Show" should be aired on CNN.

JMO and like I said in an earlier post, I queston anyone in any area of politics, entertainment, sports or any other area that comes out making claims that the news will jump all over when they are promoting a book, movie, etc.. at the same time.

Something to do with that smells and it ain't like rose's.

The funny thing on Fox News the other day was two different anchors openly speculating that McClellan's book wasn't necessarily his writing, but that of a "heavy-handed editor" ... the length the Fox boys and girls will go to help out their friends on the right.

 

About the same as CNN, NBC,CBS and practically any other news network goes miles out of their way to promote the left, uh? I guess that is different though. :lol:

He had to. He was barred from practicing law. However, I don't think he's too far off in suggesting LBJ's involvement. But that's a whole 'nuther thread.

 

:thumb:

Anybody plan on buying the book?

About the same as CNN, NBC,CBS and practically any other news network goes miles out of their way to promote the left, uh? I guess that is different though. :lol:

 

Those news networks do not promote the left nearly as much as Fox News supports the right...

Those news networks do not promote the left nearly as much as Fox News supports the right...

 

From your vantage point probably not. From my vantage point they do. Its all a matter of where you stand my friend.