Well duh. Regardless of whether his statements are true or entirely false, nobody has a right to speak out against the President.

///G W BUSH IS A MORON!!!

Yea..sometimes you have to exercise privilege to remind people what it is. How dumb is this? Like a bag of hammers.

Subby BTW the admistration HAS NOT denied any of it, just their usual awful tacktics to those that they hate or turn on them!

It used to be that the office of the presidency commanded enough respect that your hired and appointed help would wait until after your death to throw you under the bus for a buck.

Then it changed and evolved to just waiting until you were out of office and a few thousand dollars.

Now it's whenever and millions.

I don't care if McClellan's claims are true or not. This shiat is just unseemly and reeks of greed. If he had such a problem with Bush back then why didn't he resign on the spot and go public right away?

Instead he waits a couple of years and makes the NYTimes best seller list. He's not changing anything or making the world a better place with what he's saying.

Except maybe his own little corner of the world.

Greedy asshats. All of the gibbering sphincters.

Wanebo: I don't care if McClellan's claims are true or not. This shiat is just unseemly and reeks of greed. If he had such a problem with Bush back then why didn't he resign on the spot and go public right away?

Because sometimes your trust can be so wholly betrayed that it takes a while to get over the shock and be able to speak about it. It might take even longer to figure out where you went wrong in extending that trust.

Wanebo: It used to be that the office of the presidency commanded enough respect that your hired and appointed help would wait until after your death to throw you under the bus for a buck.

Then it changed and evolved to just waiting until you were out of office and a few thousand dollars.

Now it's whenever and millions.

I don't care if McClellan's claims are true or not. This shiat is just unseemly and reeks of greed. If he had such a problem with Bush back then why didn't he resign on the spot and go public right away?

Instead he waits a couple of years and makes the NYTimes best seller list. He's not changing anything or making the world a better place with what he's saying.

Except maybe his own little corner of the world.

Greedy asshats. All of the gibbering sphincters.

Yeah, it's pretty scummy to have waited, but better now than never. And hopefully after or when he testifies congress will call him on it.

...played loose with the truth at times.

So that's what they're calling it now. Wonderful.
*facepalm*

Code_Archeologist: Because sometimes your trust can be so wholly betrayed that it takes a while to get over the shock and be able to speak about it. It might take even longer to figure out where you went wrong in extending that trust.

Even towards the man who (by Scott's admission) made you important and relevevant by installing you to a position that had vast influence on the American and world opinion.

And to pass up the chance to use that relevancy to expose the mechanizations towards war and strife that will adversely affect millions?

I don't buy it. If what he wanted to do was show the light of day to such a gross mishandling of foreign policy and public opinion shaping he would have done something right away.

If what he wanted to do was profit, waiting until the lame duck years was certainly the way to go.

jenniferwillow: And hopefully after or when he testifies congress will call him on it.

Simply another show for politicians and McClellan. Pols get to grandstand and make electoral hay in their home districts while doing nothing towards addressing any real issues or doing any real work that would benefit their constituents. McClellan gets to keep his face on the nightly newscasts and help his book stay on the bestseller list a while longer.

Nothing will change and no good will come from any of it.

And in the meantime we taxpayers will spend a few more million dollars to achieve this nonproductive charade.

Wanebo: He's not changing anything or making the world a better place with what he's saying.

if he testifies before congress and gives the ammo needed to criminally prosecute some members of the administration, i'd say he made the world a better place.

it's not what he's saying, it's who is saying it. yes, i know, he's still a douche bag for the things he did in his past and this doesn't exonerate him for that. but his douche bag past is exactly why his particular testimony on the matter could be so important.

burndtdan: it's not what he's saying, it's who is saying it. yes, i know, he's still a douche bag for the things he did in his past and this doesn't exonerate him for that. but his douche bag past is exactly why his particular testimony on the matter could be so important.

Wanebo: Nothing will change and no good will come from any of it.

And in the meantime we taxpayers will spend a few more million dollars to achieve this nonproductive charade.

Come back in a year and tell me I'm wrong.

Wanebo: Nothing will change and no good will come from any of it.

If nothing else we can hopefully show ourselves and the world that we are a nation driven by the rule of law, not by the rule of partisan politics. Might as well throw it out there and see what happens.

Wanebo: Come back in a year and tell me I'm wrong.

if nothing changes and no good comes of any of it, that can hardly be considered mcclellan's fault at this point. if congress fails to do anything with the evidence he offers them, that would be the fault of congress, and doesn't justify further vilifying mcclellan at all.

he's a villain to be sure. but in this instance, what he is doing is, at least to some degree, the right thing to do. you might have qualms with the timing or the money, but he's still finally telling the truth. what other option does he have? the only other option is to keep not telling the truth, which isn't the right thing to do.

If none of his claims are true, and he lies to Congress, wouldn't it be politically smarter to wait until after members of Congress rushed to the news cameras and expressed ill-considered outrage? After all, he'd be caught lying to Congress, and Presidential opponents would be seen as stupid.

You know, if he's lying and all.

Can they invoke executive privilege to prevent voluntary testimony?

Wanebo: It used to be that the office of the presidency commanded enough respect that your hired and appointed help would wait until after your death to throw you under the bus for a buck.

It used to be that the occupant of that office commanded respect. Not recently.

Kyosuke: It used to be that the occupant of that office commanded respect. Not recently.

As much as I dislike this meme, This.

gilgigamesh: Can they invoke executive privilege to prevent voluntary testimony?

"Invoke executive privilege" is a DC bureaucratic euphemism for "stay off of small planes."

Shouldn't he just let him commit "perjury?"

jenniferwillow: If nothing else we can hopefully show ourselves and the world that we are a nation driven by the rule of law, not by the rule of partisan politics.

What, exactly, do you expect congressional hearings on this to be, except an awesome wholehearted gutwrenching sick display of partisan politics?

burndtdan: he's a villain to be sure. but in this instance, what he is doing is, at least to some degree, the right thing to do.

I have my qualms about that. His motivation can certainly be questioned both on the money side and the fact that Bush didn't support Scott's mommy when she was running for TX guvn'r right at about the time he resigned his post. How can we be certain his testimony isn't tainted by those facts?

Kyosuke: It used to be that the occupant of that office commanded respect. Not recently.

If by "recently" you mean over 200 years, I'll go along with that statement.

Wanebo: How can we be certain his testimony isn't tainted by those facts?

if he's only in it for the money, he won't testify. that doesn't earn him any extra money. if he's in it for revenge, his testimony would probably be more damning to bush, and not to people like rove and cheney.

and you're right, they should be skeptical about his testimony, but it seems so far to line up with independent observation. plus, if they put him under oath and then it comes out he lied, he'll be farked anyways, so there's no reason for preventative concern or vitriol. all his testimony can do is start an investigation, and that investigation would tell if he was being honest or not.

gilgigamesh: Can they invoke executive privilege to prevent voluntary testimony?

Apparently this administration can invoke executive privilege to do whatever the hell it feels like.

ExJerseyGirl: gilgigamesh: Can they invoke executive privilege to prevent voluntary testimony?

Apparently this administration can invoke executive privilege to do whatever the hell it feels like.

i heard that one time, cheney took a dump, and while flushing the toilet he claimed executive privilege and the turd refused to go down the toilet.

and that is where steve doocy comes from.

Tabatha Static 2008-06-01 11:45:32 AM
gilgigamesh: Can they invoke executive privilege to prevent voluntary testimony?

"Invoke executive privilege" is a DC bureaucratic euphemism for "stay off of small planes."

-exactly.

better now than never for the little toady to come clean.

he did it right...he gets to live now.

Let McClellan testify to Congress under oath.

If he testifies truthfully, Bush Administration members may have to testify under oath to refute his statements.

If he doesn't testify truthfully, McClellan is discredited and goes to jail (without Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card by Presidential pardon).

jenniferwillow: Wanebo: Nothing will change and no good will come from any of it.

If nothing else we can hopefully show ourselves and the world that we are a nation driven by the rule of law, not by the rule of partisan politics. Might as well throw it out there and see what happens.

BWAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wanebo: If he had such a problem with Bush back then why didn't he resign on the spot and go public right away?

Considering how well that went for all the other whistle blowers I think you can understand his need to wait.

gilgigamesh: Can they invoke executive privilege to prevent voluntary testimony?

I think they might try and do just that. But remember - nothing this guy says is true! It's just that the white house doesn't want anyone listening to him because...um.....Look! there goes ELVIS!

Yo King!

*runs for door*

"In other news, the Bush administration has invoked executive privilege to prevent anyone from thinking about Scott McClellan... shiat... well, I suppose I should go turn myself in now."

I really don't get the adminstration's reaction to this guy. On one hand they're saying his book and his comments are meaningless and outright lies. But on the other hand they want to invoke executive privilege to prevent the guy from testifying under oath to Congress?

Um....if he's an unimportant lying scumbag, then why would the white house need to prevent him from testifying under oath...?

Does. Not. Compute.

jenniferwillow: If nothing else we can hopefully show ourselves and the world that we are a nation driven by the rule of law, not by the rule of partisan politics. Might as well throw it out there and see what happens.

Kids say the darndest things.

Did it occur to submitter or anyone else here that false negative accusations are still negative accusations?

If McClellan's "untrue" claims are heard by 2 million people, and only 10,000 care enough to discover why they may be false, that's about 2 million disapprovals.

True or false, it's in the Administration's interest to block the testimony, understandably if true, but especially if false. Honestly there's no way to construe this as an admission of guilt, unless you're prejudiced against Bush, in which case you think he's done something wrong with or without McClelland, the difference in the latter being you'd lack a talking point.

Weaver95: I really don't get the adminstration's reaction to this guy. On one hand they're saying his book and his comments are meaningless and outright lies. But on the other hand they want to invoke executive privilege to prevent the guy from testifying under oath to Congress?

Um....if he's an unimportant lying scumbag, then why would the white house need to prevent him from testifying under oath...?

Does. Not. Compute.

Good point...It's best not to believe anything these lying scumbags say from the onset!

Weaver95: Um....if he's an unimportant lying scumbag, then why would the white house need to prevent him from testifying under oath...?

Does. Not. Compute.

par for the course for this white house. Deny Deny Deny, then prevent the information from even being heard anyway.

xkillyourfacex: True or false, it's in the Administration's interest to block the testimony, understandably if true, but especially if false. Honestly there's no way to construe this as an admission of guilt, unless you're prejudiced against Bush, in which case you think he's done something wrong with or without McClelland, the difference in the latter being you'd lack a talking point

While your point is very accurate. The problem is that the administration has been inhibiting due process at every turn. If they want to act innocent, they need to stop prohibiting attempts to prove them guilty.

Tabatha Static: gilgigamesh: Can they invoke executive privilege to prevent voluntary testimony?

"Invoke executive privilege" is a DC bureaucratic euphemism for "stay off of small planes."

Your jib. I like the cut of it.

xkillyourfacex: Did it occur to submitter or anyone else here that false negative accusations are still negative accusations?

Even so - the white house has the bully pulpit. If they want to dispute and disprove the guys allegations, they can easily hold a press conference and grab the attention of the entire nation to discredit the book. Or they could just simply ignore the guy and go on with life.

But...if the WH has done nothing wrong, it has nothing to hide!

At least...that's what the people in the WH told us about the patriot act, wiretapping, undisclosed record-searching, detention without the privilege of habeas corpus...

he was so out of the loop it's super secret!!

he wasn't an adviser or council.
he was a mouthpiece.

Scotty says he's giving a portion of his book profits to families of the fallen. ^{(^)}

Hey he might be doing this for a buck. he might be doing it for revenge. he might be doing it to clear his conscience. He might be doing it for all these reasons. none are exclusive of the other.

Hobodeluxe: Hey he might be doing this for a buck. he might be doing it for revenge. he might be doing it to clear his conscience. He might be doing it for all these reasons. none are exclusive of the other.

Of course, after the Iraq debacle, it was conservatives who claimed that "intentions don't matter."

It's interesting that the administration will block McClellans testimony on those grounds while simultaneously claiming that he was 'out of the loop' and is just out to make a fast buck. I mean, if he actually isnt telling the truth, wouldnt they want to let him testify under oath? If they could prove that some of his testimony was demonstrably false (ie. he claims to have attended a meeting the administration can prove he was not at) they could bury him for good.

Hobodeluxe: Hey he might be doing this for a buck. he might be doing it for revenge. he might be doing it to clear his conscience. He might be doing it for all these reasons. none are exclusive of the other.

I'm sure they're all reasons why he wrote the book. It's just in what proportions. Really, I don't care what his motivations were. If what he says can be proven true in front of Congress then good for him.

Executive privilege does not include matters of criminal wrongdoing.

U.S. v Nixon

What does he risk by taking the witness stand in violation of executive privilege?

Republicans can't defend the shrubs behavior, but they defend him none the less in an attempt to save the tattered shreds that remain of their 'R'.

meat0918: What does he risk by taking the witness stand in violation of executive privilege?

I think they call that a 'tragic car accident' these days.

Rovian: Republicans can't defend the shrubs behavior, but they defend him none the less in an attempt to save the tattered shreds that remain of their 'R'.

So you're an Obama fan now?

McClellan is a piece of human garbage. Sorry for the Godwin, but being the first Nazi to confess shouldn't spare you from Nuremberg.

downtownkid: McClellan is a piece of human garbage. Sorry for the Godwin, but being the first Nazi to confess shouldn't spare you from Nuremberg.

Do you want your evidence of intent or not?