Connecting the Dots

[The_Professor]

Connecting the Dots on McClellan
Cal Thomas
Syndicated Columnist


May 30, 2008

There is more on the Scott McClellan tell-all book. First, his colleagues and superiors at the White House say he wasn?t in many of the meetings he describes and so was not a witness to those events or the decision-making process.

Second, the book publisher has ties to George Soros, the left-wing billionaire who supports moveon.org

Third, McClellan appears to have felt he was done wrong after being loyal to Bush starting when he was governor. Revenge could be a motive for this book.

Fourth, why did the book come out in the middle of the presidential campaign? Every Democratic leader and the two Democratic presidential candidates have praised the book. The media, which never believed what McClellan told them when he was press secretary, now embrace every word in his book because it plays into their political agenda.

Fifth, why did McClellan never raise any objections to the president?s Iraq policy while he was there? Why is he doing it now? Two answers: to damage Republican chances in the election and to make money while he can. If the book came out next year, it would have attracted less attention. Any questions?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Obviously, now is the proper time to publish the book, because McClellan will thereby have a better chance of (a) influencing the election, and (b) will sell more books and thereby make more money.

I don't think Soros has anything to do with the contents of the book. I do suspect that the National Review Press might  be rather unlikely to publish it.

Surely McClellan has a right to write whatever he wishes and to publish the book whenever he chooses.

It should be obvious by know to all but the densest of minds that Juniorbush manipulated the evidence to make an invasion of Iraq seem necessary, and surely it was not necessary.

[Rich]

What's really interesting is how the most delusional of minds just can't seem to wrap their obviously addled brains around the fact that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, The British government, The CIA (the list goes on) ... ALL ... believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Nobody at the time believed otherwise.

Of course whether or not we should have gone to war is a perfectly respectable discussion. However, the only people who still believe the evidence was a giant ruse are people who watch MSNBC, conspiracy theorists living in their mother's basement, and the guy babbling to himself in front of the library.

There's one thing missing in McClellan's waste of trees, proof.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What's really interesting is how the most delusional of minds just can't seem to wrap their obviously addled brains around the fact that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, The British government, The CIA (the list goes on) ... ALL ... believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Nobody at the time believed otherwise.

====================
I didn't, and neither did Scott Ritter, who had actually been to Iraq.
The vast array of weaponry that Iraq was supposed to have amass was highly improbable.

I am so sorry that my intellect was so superior to those who believed Cheney and Juniorbush.

The evidence was insufficient to cause Canada or most other nations that participated in the First Gulf War to support the invasion with the lives of their troops and their money.

It is by actions that we know the true opinions. Juniorbush did not get agreement, only lip service

[Rich]

Anyway ... even the most addled among them admit they believed the intelligence. Well, apparently some are more addled than others.

[Xavier_Onassis]

My brain was unaddled due to the excellent bullsh*t detector.