Their ratings will go UP, I predict. Messiah-TV, watched by millions. There are only so many people willing to listen to disingenuous messages of hate day after day, but there are plenty more willing to hear just how wonderful Obama is. They will listen to that all day long.

Good point. If McClellan lied about it, that would make him sleazy as well.

If Bush or his administration did engage in “shenanigans”, we’ll have to confirm them from other sources, after first defining what they might be.

Agreed.

If Sarah Palin went back in time and killed her parents so she was never born, Keith Olbermann would still rant about and slander her night after night.

Interesting, Ashpenaz. I guess we’ll never know for sure though. I hardly ever watch Keith Olbermann. Is he still talking about Palin? If so, time to move on.

“Y liburals R dum”

Great title. I could put together a collection of your comments on here. The bonus would be those posts where people ask you questions, request examples or any other challenges which you ignore. I suppose you follow Comrade Obama’s lead in the notion that you don’t have to answer the questions of the Prols.

The problem with that title is that it’s too simplistic. The fact that liberals are dumb (and dangerous) goes without saying and is a natural conclusion by any critical thinking person.

The charges made by McClellan against Bush were pretty damning, IMO. Now, if McClellan made these up, yeah, he’s a jerk, and I understand the vitriol

The mere fact that McClellan is little more than a stain on the liberal left’s cum rag tells me that the charges made weren’t very “damning” at all.

In Scott McClellan’s purported tell-all memoir of his trials as President Bush’s press secretary, he virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage’s role leaking to me Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA employee. That fits the partisan Democratic version of the Plame affair…

In claiming he was misled about the Plame affair, McClellan mentions Armitage only twice. Armitage being the leaker undermines the Democratic theory…

…[McClellan's book] does not identify Armitage as the leaker until Page 306 of the 323-page book — and then only in passing. Armitage, who was antiwar and anti-Cheney, does not fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into. When, after two years, Armitage publicly admitted that he was my source, the life went out of Wilson’s campaign… [but] McClellan dwells on [it] as if the real leaker were still unknown.

That’s what I’m talking about. The Wilson-Plame affair was a shenanigan on the part of Bush’s opponents. In his book, McClellan spews bullsh*t * (ignoring known developments that exonerate Bush, Cheney and Rove) in order to align himself with Democrats. Why? Because Bush did ultimately fire McClellan, and singing a new tune (going with Bush opponents) was the only way he could sell his book proposal.

I recall that McClellan’s left-leaning editor (or publisher?) changed the first draft significantly to make it more marketable.

And McClellan went along. Discussed at length in the HotAir reference I gave.

So you’re saying that a liar isn’t sleazy?

Well… Not *only* sleazy.

if Bush or his people thought McClellan was incompetent, he could have been pushed to resign at least a year sooner, and it wouldn’t have looked bad for anyone concerned.

When has Bush ever fired anyone incompetent, that he considered loyal (at the time)? It’s well known as one of the failings of his administration. Yes, McClellan should have been fired much sooner for lack of effectiveness. His daily “defensive crouch” was legendary, and the reason they ultimately did fire and replace him with Tony Snow.

But, you say that by Trent Duffy’s account, McClellan isn’t sleazy, but is a liar. So you’re saying that a liar isn’t sleazy?

From what I read at the time his book came out–and right now, I really don’t have time to review that all, I recall that McClellan’s left-leaning editor (or publisher?) changed the first draft significantly to make it more marketable. I mean, had he told a story which reflected his actual service, it would have been quite dull and garnered almost no attention in the media.

But, a book critical of the Administration would get major headlines. McClellan basically sold his soul to prolong his time in the spotlight.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/12/02/new-republic-finally-admitsscott-beauchamp-stories-are-false/

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/05/24/democrats-lied-voters-were-fried/

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/08/06/scott-thomas-beauchamp-the-decline-of-the-new-republic/

any sleaziness by McClellan does not excuse any shenanigans (if any) by Bush and his administration

Agreed; it simply makes McClellan’s testimony on the subject suspect to the point of worthlessness. If Bush or his administration did engage in “shenanigans”, we’ll have to confirm them from other sources, after first defining what they might be. So far as I know, Bush’s opponents engaged in shenanigans, in the sense that McClellan would mean, far more than Bush’s administration. There’s this whole business that wasted the nation’s time:

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/07/14/joe-wilson-like-paul-cameron-a-hero-to-his-ideological-allies-a-laughingstock-to-everyone-else/

If so, start deciding what you want.

And we’ll have more GayPatriot events there as it went very well, very, very well.

Great!

Reminder: McClellan didn’t actually witness any shenanigans. According to Trent Duffy, McClellan’s own deputy, McClellan is pretty much a total liar.

ILC, so either Duffy or McClellan (or both) are liars.

GPW’s point, I think, is this: IF McClellan witnessed what he claims to have witnessed, then ABSOLUTELY McClellan should have resigned on his own. No “maybes” about it, Pat. If McClellan is telling the truth, then he is sleazy and dishonorable for not resigning sooner. But, again, by other accounts (McClellan’s own deputy), McClellan isn’t a sleazy or dishonorable: he is a liar, outright.

I get the point. Both you and Dan thinks that either McClellan is one or more of the following: sleazy, dishonorable, liar. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. But, obviously, any sleaziness by McClellan does not excuse any shenanigans (if any) by Bush and his administration.

Perhaps I’m extremely cynical. But if a press secretary resigned every time they witnessed shenanigans by the president or administration, each president would have to have at least 25 press secretaries for each term.

McClellan specifically started in July 2003 and served until replaced by Tony Snow on April 26, 2006.

Exactly. My point being was that if Bush or his people thought McClellan was incompetent, he could have been pushed to resign at least a year sooner, and it wouldn’t have looked bad for anyone concerned.

It seemed that he was in the post about as long as others.

Wiki shows the following:

2001–2003 Ari Fleischer
2003–2006 Scott McClellan
2006–2007 Tony Snow
2007–Present Dana Perino

McClellan specifically started in July 2003 and served until replaced by Tony Snow on April 26, 2006. Before that, of course, he was Ari Fleischer’s deputy, including for most or all of the 2000 campaign cycle. In other words, McClellan served Bush for *at least seven years* in either a Press Secretary or alternate (deputy) Press Secretary role. At least seven. Unless Perino has a similar record (which I don’t know if she does), that would make him the longest-serving.

And before that, McClellan Unless Perino has been been with the White House since at

And maybe he should have resigned at the first moment of shenanigans that he witnessed.

Reminder: McClellan didn’t actually witness any shenanigans. According to Trent Duffy, McClellan’s own deputy, McClellan is pretty much a total liar.

GPW’s point, I think, is this: IF McClellan witnessed what he claims to have witnessed, then ABSOLUTELY McClellan should have resigned on his own. No “maybes” about it, Pat. If McClellan is telling the truth, then he is sleazy and dishonorable for not resigning sooner. But, again, by other accounts (McClellan’s own deputy), McClellan isn’t a sleazy or dishonorable: he is a liar, outright.