Beam Us Up, Scotty

Former White House flack Scott McClellan has a new book coming out; the WaPo and Mike Allen of The Politico sneak preview it.

Since the book is a Bush-basher, Scotty needs to be presented by the left as a heroic truth-teller; the Captain notes this won't be so easy:

His status as favored punching bag for the hard Left can best be captured in the Keith Olbermann farewell McClellan received as he exited in April 2006. It will be particularly amusing to watch this fringe try to rehabilitate McClellan now.

Comments

[Judasmac]

Okay, I didn't watch all of the Olbermann video. What a bore! But its point was to say that Scottie evades answers, not that he lies. Perhaps others have made that accusation, I don't know. Even if they do, wouldn't that cut both ways? If the right defended him against the left then, will they defend him now?

[JM Hanes]

"Beam Us Up, Scotty"

I hereby forgive you for "No Child Left With A Fat Behind."

[Sue]

will they defend him now?

I can't speak for the "right" but no, I won't defend him now.

[clarice]

I'm sure he not only cites no documentation but he never saw any either when he worked in the WH which means that the NYT and WaPo which haven't seen fit to review Feith's book, will surely review this clown's.

[centralcal]

Scott was always rather pathetic in his job as press spokesperson. Now, we know he is also pathetic as a person, too.

[centralcal]

How sad that according to various reports around the web today, Tony Snow is ailing again.

Scott can only mourn that he is not as classy and talented a guy.

[Jane]

Ya know, everyone commenting on the book says it doesn't sound like Scott. Rove said it sounded like a lefty blogger. I think that's weird. I wonder about the editing.

I haven't seen anything about Tony Snow, who I love love love.

[Crunchy Frog]

As history as we know it bagan a whopping 5 minutes ago, a fawning lefty press corps will have no trouble painting ol' Scotty as the heroic figure he truly is.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

[MayBee]

If the right defended him against the left then, will they defend him now?

I never defended him. He should never have had that job- he was awful.

[sbw]

Reviewing those involved with journalism over the last decades, Tony Snow is one of the few that has given me hope.

It would me nice if his seeing such comments would buoy his spirits and will to persist.

[clarice]

He (Scott)needs money.
There's no money in publishing a tribute to Bush or the Administration.
His agent and the publisher are surely cherry picking every bad thing about Bush in the book (and about *hssss* Rove and Libby and Cheney) to drive book sales and recoup Scott's advance.

[sylvia]

So here are another one of thse tell-alls on Bush. The thing is, when I read these, I wonder where's the beef? They all paint a same picture of Bush who not interested in details and doesn't admit when he is wrong.

Okay I'm not sure how this is so horrible. Bush already admitted he is not a detail guy but a guy who looks at the big picture. That can be a valuable skill too, if not, we'd elect accountants to be President. Then as to him admitting when he was wrong- everyone and their mother wanted Bush to do a mea culpa on the Iraq war. But (as a guy who looks at the larger picture) if he believed back then, even when the news was very bad from Iraq, that the Iraq war could still be "won", why admit that? As a result, Bush went with the surge and we are closer to winning than ever. So what is the problem here?

As to Karl Rove and co selling the war. that is probably true. But there is nothing illegal on that although perhaps slightly questionable morals. They presented the best case they knew to the people, empahsizing some aspects more than others, but they basically stuck to the facts as we knew them at the time. At the time we knew the information pretty much as well as they as we had the same info from foreign media. So it's like a car saleman selling you a car, it's buyer beware. I believe that most people could see the strenghts and the weaknesses of the argument and we as a people decided to go along with it. So we should blame ourselves as much as Bush.

[centralcal]

Jane: re:Snow there is a link on Drudge to a small report.

Bill O'Reilly claims on his radio show that McClellan had agreed some time ago, prior to the book release, to come on his show to discuss it. Per O'Reilly, he now says he won't, but he is doing Olbermann.

Interesting to see where Scott takes his book tour, and where he doesn't.

[MayBee]

I am against these tell-all books in principle. I hated it when Stephanopolous did it to Clinton.
There's no problem in writing your history, but it is unseemly to stab in the back someone who trusted you, all for a few $$.

[Schornick]

Speaking of using propaganda to sell a war, ever see any of Hollywood's efforts in WW2?

Oh but that was then. Scott does say however that he still likes and admires Bush.

What a crock, the guy is out to make a buck. I thought he sucked at that job. I was not crazy about Ari, but after looking at Scott stand there with that deer in the headlights look I kind of started to miss Ari.

Same old same old.

[bad]

I have a neighbor who is 70 and battling the same cancer as Tony Snow. Freeman has had colon surgery, 2 liver surgeries and faces a lung surgery in about four weeks followed by more chemo in addition to the chemo he has akready undergone. Yet his oncologist says it is curable. Hopefully that applies to Tony as well and he just has a bug.

VOMIT ALERT
Glenn Johnson of the AP has written an article speculating that John Kerry is angling to be Secretary of State. Is it just me or does that seem to be a guaranteed kiss of death for anyone running for president?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Here's the October 10, 2003 press conference exchange that is being misrepresented:

Q Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

Q So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

MR. McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q Can I follow up on that?

Q They were not involved in what?

MR. McCLELLAN: The leaking of classified information.

Q Did you undertake that on your own volition, or were you instructed to go to these --

MR. McCLELLAN: I spoke to those individuals myself.

The misstatement that they were 'not involved' is entirely the fault of McClellan. He probably asked Libby and Rove if they had leaked Plame's name to Novak, and they truthfully denied it.

That was Richard Armitage's doing. It doesn't seem that McClellan is claiming that either Libby or Rove denied even knowing about Plame. Looks like Scottie is the deceiver here.

[clarice]

I do so hope O announces he'd appoint Kerry to that position, bad. It'd be the icing on the cupcake.

[LindaK]

Perhaps BO will do what JFK did when he was running -- preannounce the cabinet to impress voters with the quality of his picks and ability to attract talent. Since Michelle's already running around doing and ersatz Jackie O imitation, that may be the game plan. How about Eliot Spitzer for AG?

BTW has anyone noticed whether Ophrah has been campaigning for BO. I haven't seen or read about any events. Think she decided he was bad for business?

[JM Hanes]

Judasmac:

I don't remember the right defending McClellan against the left, do you? IIRC, he was pretty universally regarded as an empty suit and I know I, personally, spent my time faulting Bush for a lousy appointment.

I'm sure every communication McClellan received or was tasked with delivering had been parsed from the "is" to the "and/or" -- which someone with half decent PR instincts would have understood immediately. It's hardly surprising that the Rove/Libby fandango stuck in his craw; once it became clear just how far out of the White House loop he was, every press conference was like an exercise in personal, public humiliation. Faced with contemplating your own transformation from insider to dependable hack, it would be hard to resist the narrative so eagerly embraced by the press casting you as the loyal defender hung out to dry. He was, indeed, a loyal defender, he was just hopelessly out of his depth -- a reality which is much harder to recognize, especially when nobody stands to benefit from that realization.

[vnjagvet]

The idea of writing hit jobs on people with whom you have worked is time-honored and still dispicable.

Even if the title was "George Washington as I Knew Him", you can bet if it sold more than five copies to the author's family it was not complimentary to the father of our country. Yeah, then as now if it sold, it dished and vice-versa.

Scotty is no intellectual giant, which was all too apparent when he was at the podium, and probably needs to cash in while the cashing is good. Another instance of the deep truths behind Thomas More's line to Richard Rich in A Man For All Seasons:

Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?

Will Olbermann's adulation and the money be worth it in the long run. Only Scott can say.

[Martin]

Actually here was this leftist's view of Scotty posted on this very site in a thread almost three years ago:

"Yes McClellan's the worst-but for a good reason-he still has traces of humanity.

I mean the poor guy actually asked (and believed) Rove's lie about whether he was involved. I really don't think mcClellan was so cynical to believe Rove would lie-to him. Endearing, actually.

Fleischer-though more effective-was far scarier in his almost robotic ability to talk at length and say nothing true. Of course, Ari may get indicted, so was it really effective in the end?

Posted by: Martin | July 18, 2005 at 10:16 PM

here's a link to that thread:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/07/moving_the_goal.html

[Martin]

Patrick R. Sullivan-you're still defending Rove!!! How old school of you. Bravo

Not even old Maguire can get it up anymore for defending such banal and bald faced deceit.

[Martin]

JM Hanes-

"he was just hopelessly out of his depth -- a reality which is much harder to recognize, especially when nobody stands to benefit from that realization."

If by "he" you mean Bush, I agree that explains the 25% of you freaks that still approve of the job Bush is doing.

[bad]

Martin

Hillary is citing Rove's analysis of the Democratic race as a reason for her to continue as a presidential candidate. Obviously she has faith in him or she wouldn't be quoting him so openly. How can you argue with the smartest woman in the world?

[SteveMG]

Well, let's wait until we get some details - if any - of what McClellan alleges. I'm curious that Allen cites the "political propaganda" charge (whatever that means) but doesn't provide any specific instances.

It seems to me that if McClellan had specifics, that Allen would have highlighted them in hi story. Perhaps they're there but in the rush of getting something out, Allen missed them.

If McClellan, knucklehead that he is, has substance and can document lies or misinformation, then the people who disseminated those should be held accountable.

On the surface, this sounds like the (or an) editor (I believe it was Peter Osnos? Link) manipulated McClellan a bit.

We'll see if Mr. Osnos's name comes up again.

[SteveMG]

this sounds like the (or an) editor (I believe it was Peter Osnos? Link) manipulated McClellan a bit.

Correction: Mr. Osnos was the publisher of the book; not the/an editor.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Patrick R. Sullivan-you're still defending Rove!!! How old school of you. Bravo

I see you're still being willfully obtuse, Martin. Or, is English not your native tongue?

[Schornick]

I read somewhere that Scott himself said the editor "tweaked" the book.

And Martin, I am sick to death of hearing about Valerie Plame that worthless loud mouth husband of hers. Too bad Robert Novak did not keep his mouth shut and save us all this bs.

[Jane]

In Martin's sophisticated liberal parlance - I still "get it up for Rove". I think he is absolutely magnificent. Then, now, and probably forever.

[Martin]

Sullivan-let's assume your theory that McClellan totally mangled what Rove told him. Why did Rove never clarify it?

[bad]

Me too, Jane!!! I've always been hot for Cheney, as well.

[Schornick]

Why should Rove clarify anything with Scott? After all the talks were supposed to be all secret and stuff.

It just goes on and on and on.

[centralcal]

Ha, bad! Imagine the fear (of unmitigated boredom) that would strike the hearts of leaders and their surrogates around the world if JFK were Secretary of State.

I can hear them crying out now, "No! No! Anyone but that gasbag! Have you no mercy?"

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Martin, as usual, you're in way over your head.

[PeterUK]

"Sullivan-let's assume your theory that McClellan totally mangled what Rove told him. Why did Rove never clarify it?"

Because,Patrick Fitzgerald, the Witchfinder General was on the rampage.

[Martin]

Sullivan, just go back to TM's archives starting in July 2005 and count all the dumb things you've said.

Since that summer, where arethey now: Libby is a convicted felon with a commuted sentence, Rove has left the White House, and Bush is the most unpopular President in the history of polling.

And I got it wrong?

[vnjagvet]

Let's give it up for Martin. Still not convincing after all these years.

...Rove has left the White House, and Bush is the most unpopular President in the history of polling.

This proves what in the context of this thread?

That McClellan is of good character and his hit-job memoir proves that? Um, no.

That Rove lied to McClellan? Um, no.

That Rove is a crook? Um, no. Remember Martin wanted him indicted.

That Bush was wrong to attack Iraq in 2003? Um, no.

Just what was your point Martin?

[bad]

Scott McClellan says the press corp should have asked tougher questions in the run-up to the war. What a joke!! If you are a special Ed student do you really want advanced placement work?

[PeterUK]

"Rove has left the White House,"

Well. since Bush isn't standing for election again,seems obvious.

[SteveMG]

McClellan:
I still like and admire George W. Bush. I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people.

He argues that the White House was caught up in the Washington political game and confused - deliberately or not - that game with the war efforts.

More here: Link

[bad]

Thousands of people have left the White House. Are they all contemptable too?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

And I got it wrong?

Yes, but you're way too stupid to see it.

If Rove or Libby actually did anything wrong in the Plame incident, why weren't they charged with a crime?

[MayBee]

The good news is, David Gregory used a horrible picture of Plame when he reported the story on the Today show this morning.
My son laughed and said, "Whoever that lady is, they really hate her."

[Ranger]

The good news is, David Gregory used a horrible picture of Plame when he reported the story on the Today show this morning.
My son laughed and said, "Whoever that lady is, they really hate her."

Posted by: MayBee | May 28, 2008 at 05:45 PM

That's because Joe and Val have been trying to help Hil beat he who must not be middle named. Funny how who you back changes how your presented by the press. Back when Joe and Val were part of a political hit project to get JFingK installed, they were top members of the best and brightest. Now that they are backing Hil they are presented as worn out hacks.

[Enlightened]

Well, I'll be darned. Looks like Jason Leopold is still working with his "source", albeit as a ghostwriter. Really - what a better source re Rove's secret meetings and secret indictment. Attaboy Scotty Leopold.

[MikeS]

I understand that many people have been bamboozled into believing that it was a mistake to attack Iraq, because our troops didn't find the expected 'stockpiles' of WMDs. What we did find was that Iraq retained the capacity and the intention to restart production of WMDs at the first opportunity.

The capacity to produce WMDs is orders of magnitude more dangerous that a finite inventory of viable weapons. Particularly in the context of the probability that a country might provide some of those weapons to terrorist organizations. A finite inventory that can't be replaced is much more precious, and therefor less likely to be sold or given away.

On the matter of Valerie Plame; I do appreciate this lady's service to the country, but her employment status was made public as a result of her own carelessness and her husband's egomania. No one at the White House, the State Department, and few people at the CIA had any reason to believe that her employment status was classified.

As for McClellan's book I don't expect to ever read it.

[Ann]

WARNING!!! Do not turn on MSDNC. They are licking their chops.

On another note, considering how bad Scotty was at answering press questions at the White House, it will be interesting to see how he does with the wolves tomorrow.

[Danube of Thought]

Martin is clearly upset. Short months ago he was salivating over the upcoming presidency of the Messiah. Now he sees the wheels coming off before his very eyes. Feel it all slipping away, Martin?

I personally could care less about what McClellan does or does not say about Rove, Bush or anyone else. I wish Karl continued success with his brilliant and lucrative career as an analyst, and I wish Mr. Bush a happy and relaxed retirement.

[Sweetie]

Is propaganda kind of like when in the mid-90s I saw all these talking heads telling me that welfare reform would create mass starvation? Or that the Bush tax cuts would cripple the economy?

Only a fascist, or a leftie, would say only one side of an argument gets to argue.

As to the media, I think one has to be willfully stupid to think that the press can somehow get better intelligence inside of a closed state than the intelligence agencies of the west. I know Olby is a double knot spy and all but COME ON!

[Gmax]

Remember who McClellan mom is. When it came time to run for Governor, loyalty was not anywhere on the her list. She therefore ran as an Independent against the Republican ( and got whacked ). But if the apple does not fall far from the tree, son did not learn anything about loyalty as Mom cant even spell it. Hope his book ends up in the remainder bin with Al Franken's offerings.

[cathyf]

...her employment status was made public as a result of her own carelessness and her husband's egomania.

Well, to be pedantic, (and where but JOM can we be more pedantic about all things Plame?) her employment status was made public on Feb 19, 2002, by the CIA, as an official act. It was only widely disseminated 15 months later as a result of her own carelessness, her husband's egomania, her husband's college buddy highlighting the info to his boss, and the buddy's boss needing some unclassified info to push back against the CIA disinformation.

[clarice]

GMax, sorry--that's not real life. In real life the book is already on the best seller's list.

[Topsecretk9]

Posted by: MayBee | May 28, 2008 at 05:45 PM

They work with what they have. Have you seen Joe and Val lately? (Hill Ad) They both look awful.

[centralcal]

I see that Geraldo Rivera is now a poster at Puffington Host and it struck me that maybe McClellan can get a job there too.

[Foo Bar]

I'm sure he not only cites no documentation but he never saw any either when he worked in the WH which means that the NYT and WaPo which haven't seen fit to review Feith's book, will surely review this clown's.

Here's an indication of the quality of Feith's book. He writes (p187) that the "CIA's assessment of Iraq's support for terrorism was reinforced by postwars discoveries", and then goes on to claim that "among the terrorists whom Saddam harbored in Iraq were .. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi".

The 2006 Senate Intelligence report, produced while Republicans controlled the intelligence committee, concluded (p109) that "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye towards Zarqawi."

It is true that *pre-war* assessments suggested that Saddam's regime may have tolerated Zarqawi's presence, but the postwar findings refuted this assessment. The language in his book clearly suggests that we still have good reason today to believe that Saddam harbored Zarqawi. Even if he has some rationale for not accepting the Senate committee's conclusions, it's totally improper to assert the contrary without even mentioning their findings

[Libby Libby Libby on the Libel]

Wexler is calling McClellan to testify in front of Congress. Scott has just sh*t his pants. This is gonna get good. Hey Fitz, where are you when we need you? This will be an opportunity to catch a true perjurer!

LOL!!! Hey Scott, bend over!!!!

[Topsecretk9]

I don't care that Scott wants to sink low into tacky Arrianna territory, I just think it's pretty pathetic that these egotistical maginals think they've accomplished so much in their 30 or so years that they should write a fricken memoir. It's like a Dee Dee Meyer's memoir. My guess is the editor had to produce some buzz so as to avoid another Plame book bomb. Her book tanked and the publisher lost their ass on it.

[bad]

Crack investigative reporter Katie Couric is on the case. She will get to the bottom of things. In a most jockular fashion...

[PMII]

People believe what people want to believe - why let facts get in the way

[Topsecretk9]

Posted by: Libby Libby Libby on the Libel | May 28, 2008 at 07:08 PM

Maybe the Republicans can get Plame to quit refusing to go back to the committee and explain her 4 versions of her story under oath.

[PeterUK]

George Bush will soon spending more time with his family,so this is the only time that a book by Scott McClellan is salable.
Same thing is happening here,Tony Bliar has gone,Gordon Brown has the skids under him.Anybody who has a story is publishing their memoirs.Politics is big business nowadays.

[Ann]

The model of integrity, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes McClellan is absolutely correct. "Totally"

"This is a person who was talking to the press, supplied with information that he trusted to be truthful," Pelosi told the paper. "So I'm sure he felt zapped. Because what could he say, except what he trusted to be the case?

[SteveMG]

that the "CIA's assessment of Iraq's support for terrorism was reinforced by postwars discoveries", and then goes on to claim that "among the terrorists whom Saddam harbored in Iraq were .. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi".

You're linking two separate sentences.

Statement (A) is true. That is, documents captured after the removal of Saddam did indeed show that the Iraqi government was supporting terrorists. Including groups that were loyal to Bin Laden.

More information here: Pentagon Report

As to statement (B) Why did Saddam reportedly refuse to extradite Zarqawi to Jordan when it was requested?

I say reportedly because I'm agnostic as to whether that was proven false.

More important, does anyone doubt that Saddam was funding and supporting a variety of terrorist groups?

[Ann]

Yes, SteveMG, the entire Democrat Party.

[Danube of Thought]

"...produced while Republicans controlled the intelligence committee..."

That phrase seems intended to suggest that whichever party "controlled" the committee could and would determine its findings. That's inorrect. The report proper appeared under the imprimatur of members of both parties, including Sens. Rockefeller and Levin, among others.

[hit and run]

bad -- I'm (fashionably) late in saying so, but so good to hear from you...

[Barry Dauphin]

Well, a Press Secretary has a lot of responsibility for how a White House communictes itself. Communication is universally seen as a problem for this White House. Scotty reveals himself to be one more piece to that puzzle.

[SteveMG]

In McClellan's defense (partial though it may be), both Libby and Rove appeared to hang him to dry with their statements about their involvement in the Plame matter.

So, he's got a right to be a bit peeved off.

As to the other stuff, I'm lost.

[Jane]

Bad,

I'm right there with you, with Cheney. I love our secret world.

[Sue]

I have absolutely no respect for McClellan. If he believed what he has written about the time he spent in the WH, then why didn't he speak up then? You don't sit around until after your canned before you become the brave truthteller. Well, you do if you want to sell a few books and have the left fawn over you until they don't.

[Sue]

How would McClellan know anything on the inside during the run-up to the war? He was not press secretary until July 2003.

[bad]

How would McClellan know anything on the inside during the run-up to the war? He was not press secretary until July 2003.

How dare you let logic get in the way of a poor schmuck making a fast buck.

[hit and run]

How dare you let logic get in the way of a poor schmuck making a fast buck.

aka Speaking Truth to Power.

[GnuCarSmell]

I get the sense McClellan blames Bush for his own failings as Press Secretary. It was Bush, after all, who promoted him into a position he could not really handle. Truth is, Scotty was given an opportunity of a lifetime and he blew it all by himself.

This book does not reflect well on his character.

[Neo]

Shirley [Golub] explains, "This coming Thursday, May 29 at 10AM (ET), one of my volunteers will dress up in a chicken costume and go up to the West Steps of Capitol Hill, where they will gather with video cameras on the steps of the House of Representatives. What I am hoping to accomplish with this is to demonstrate just how truly useless it is to send a chicken to Congress."

[hit and run]

What I am hoping to accomplish with this is to demonstrate just how truly useless it is to send a chicken to Congress.

Chick in hock coming home to roost.

[PeterUK]

If there is anything that press secretaries and diplomats know, it is that they are whores for their masters.Their job is to lie.

[bad]

MSNBC just showed a clip of McClellen, while still press secretary, asking why Wesley Clark didn't raise his questions and concerns in a timely fashion instead of waiting so long.

[Elliott]

bad,

It's wonderful to have you back.

[MikeS]

Well, to be pedantic,
I love pedantic. Thank you Cathy for the improved comment.

[SteveMG]

And McClellan agrees to go on Olbermann?

The man is a chowderhead.

No, McClellan. The other man is a nutball.

[bad]

Thank you!! It's great to be back. Please forgive the chemo brain. Sometimes it makes me nearly incoherant enough to be a dem candidate.

[Ann]

Bad,

There is also this from Malkin:

Reader Kevin B. e-mails what McClellan said in his press briefing on March 22, 2004 when asked about Richard Clarke’s book blasting the Bush Administration for 9/11 and CIA intelligence failures:

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he (Richard Clarke) had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.

[Sue]

What the hell is he going to say to the man who ridiculed him? That should be interesting.

[bad]

Ann

That sounds exactly like the clip played on MSNBC. He was skewerd by the lefties and Pat Buchanan who represents, what, outerspace? At least he'll always Pelosi.

[Sue]

Ooops...I was referring to McClellan appearing on Olbermann's show.

[hit and run]

But don't you see? Rove forced McClellan to say that about Clark and Clarke.

Why didn't McClellan say that he was being forced to say things he didn't believe then?

Because Rove told him he couldn't say that he was being forced to say things he didn't believe.

Why couldn't McClellan say that Rove told him he couldn't say that he was being forced to say things he didn't believe?

Because Rove told McClellan that he couldn't say that he (Rove) was telling him he couldn't say that he (Rove) was forcing him to say things he didn't believe.

We could go on all night.

But no matter what -- it's Rove's fault.

Why couldn't McClellan quit?

Duh. Rove.

[Foo Bar]

You're linking two separate sentences.

I mentioned what you refer to as "Statement A" to establish that the context in which Zarqawi is brought up on that page of Feith's book is clearly what was known now rather than what was suspected before the war. I can't link to the page, but here is the section in its entirety (aside from the descriptions of the terrorists listed):

Unlike its assessment of Iraq's WMD, this CIA assessment of Iraq's support for terrorism was reinforced by postwar discoveries (discussed below). He also promoted terrorism indirectly, with cash rewards for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Among the terrorists who Saddam harbored in Iraq were:

• Abu Nidal
• Abu Abbas
• Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

More important, does anyone doubt that Saddam was funding and supporting a variety of terrorist groups?

I don't dispute that he supported terrorism. That doesn't excuse in the slightest Feith's failure to mention the Senate Intelligence committee's conclusion that directly contradicts the claim he made regarding Zarqawi. This is a significant point. Zarqawi was, according to Bush, the best evidence of a Saddam/al Qaeda link.

The report proper appeared under the imprimatur of members of both parties

Yes, of course. I mentioned Republican control in case someone was tempted to claim that the report's conclusions were the result of Democratic bias.

[MikeS]

I think Scott's new friends may not be sincere.

[Sue]

Today Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) called for former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath regarding the devastating revelations made in his new book on the Bush Administration’s deliberate efforts to mislead the American people into the Iraq War.

I. Am. Laughing. So. Hard.

[Soylent Red]

Hey folks, it may interest you to know that I, in fact, know the retired 0-6 who wrote the plan for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. No kidding.

According to him, he saw no indication of a political motive whatsoever in any of the war planning for the invasion, or in the subsequent occupation SNAFU. And this comes from the guy who was briefing the guys who briefed the SecDef.

Oh there were screwups alright. But what Peter Principle McClellan asserts about politics driving decisions, if true, did not percolate down further than one level of command.

And what good are political motives if you don't use them to force your minions into sullen obedience? That's Rove 101.

[Ann]

"Pat Buchanan who represents, what, outerspace?
At least he'll always Pelosi."

LOL

Now, I understand why everyone at JOM loves ya, bad.

Glad to meet you! (Is that weird to say? I have read so many endearing JOM comments about you, I feel like I know you.)

[narciso]

One recalls how Fox basically eviscerated Richard Clarke's testament to his own greatness; Paul O'Neil, went the extra step and took every piece of paper he ever came in contact with. But in a world where arguments painting Churchill worse than Hitler; and Vincent Bugliosi's selling a book where he seriously contemplates putting the President on trial for the murder of American soldiers in Iraq; What
the @#$R@#%#$ is wrong with these people; it's weak near beer. One recalls that Michael Deaver stabbed Reagan in the back, yet eventually came back to the fold. Don
Regan did the same to Nancy; mostly on the astrology bit no one heard from him again.
Their were of course, the various Iran Contra related memoirs; where everyone realized they were so wise to avoid it yet their notes; made them all liars (I'm talking about you, Caspar and George)Now we weren't at war, against an inplacable enemy
then. Now if this crew were smart; you'd think they would have found some way to put
all these participants on the record; so their lies come out smelling not so nice.

You know, if it wasn't for the fact that I would have to live in the world of a narcissistic egotist protege of terrorist, black separatist preacher, Syrian bag man, et al; I would think this country deserves Obama. It has forgetten what real economic pain (inflation and unemployment in the 20+
% range, discredit and defeat in our institutions. They certainly don't deserve someone like McCain; for all his faults he gave up nearly seven years of his life; probably his first family, for a country that disdains his and others sacrifice. Well, correction, it lauds those who try to kill and maim those sacrifice; whether they be a wannabe brahmin like Kerry, a G.M. union legacy like Michael Moore, et al. In the real world, you and I know, that we can't afford to take that chance; the risks are just too great.

[SteveMG]

That doesn't excuse in the slightest Feith's failure to mention the Senate Intelligence committee's conclusion that directly contradicts the claim he made regarding Zarqawi.

I can't defend a book I don't have. If your facts are correct and complete, your point is sound.

As noted above, the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam was quite exuberant in supporting a wide range of terror groups. For a myriad of reasons including, I suppose, being able to keep a watch on them and prevent them from turning on him.

It would come as no surprise to me - pace the Senate IC report - that he would allow Zarqawi to operate from within Iraq since, again, he supported a number of other groups that were loyal to Bin Laden (not to mention his assistance to Zawahiri).

[JM Hanes]

bad!

What a treat to see you posting! I just turned on MSNBC, thinking it would be a hoot to liveblog Olberman if McClellan showed up -- but then I couldn't bring myself to turn on the sound. It's actually rather entertaining to watch him that way.

[clarice]

Since Feith's book focuses on the information the WH had at the time it decided to go to war with Iraq, I can't see why what the Senate intelligence committee later found had to be mentioned.

[Sue]

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/05/28/john-dean-2008/#more-4274>Don Surber hits the nail on the head.

But you have an insider book written by a guy who’s main point is he wasn’t inside the loop.

[bad]

McClellan could end up owing more in legal fees than the book brings in. The word on the street has it at number 1 on Amazon.