2 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt's 'what you said' because it's exactly what you posted. Here, one more time for the world: "yeah, he is wrong and probably a liar. but if he donates his proceeds, he's just wrong." They are your exact words.
how is that and how is that what i said?
You think he's "probably a liar" and yet "...if he donates all his proceeds, i'll take it all back."
What is a lie, according to you zeeblebot? How does 'donating' money make lies go away?
Originally posted by zeeblebot
who thinks mcclellan is not doing it for the money?
I think he's doing it for the money. I think he's doing it because he's got a juicy story to tell and it's going to earn him a small fortune.
But what is your point?
Has he sat down and written a bunch of lies to get this money?
Maybe he has. You tell me. Just a couple of concrete examples.
Originally posted by FMFif there's no money motive, why would he lie?
It's 'what you said' because it's exactly what you posted. Here, one more time for the world: "yeah, he is wrong and probably a liar. but if he donates his proceeds, he's just wrong." They are your exact words.
You think he's "probably a liar" and yet "...if he donates all his proceeds, i'll take it all back."
What is a lie, according to you zeeblebot? How ...[text shortened]... this money?
Maybe he has. You tell me. Just a couple of concrete examples.
Originally posted by zeeblebotHas it crossed your mind that he's not lying?
if there's no money motive, why would he lie?
Would you ever be able to accept that Bush and his coterie may, in fact, be liars through and through?
(Spare me the Clinton lies or any other finger pointing at democrats - I'm interested in whether you're able to contemplate a lying Bush administration)
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotLook. I get it: you believe he's lying. I'm asking: what's one of his lies, for example?
if there's no money motive, why would he lie?
edit: and I'd still like you to clarify the other thing, because you appeared to say something that I am pretty sure you didn't mean. You said you think he's "probably a liar" and yet that "...if he donates all his proceeds, i'll take it all back." This is to say that if he donates his money you will drop the accusation that he is lying? My question then is this: How does 'donating' money turn lies into 'not lies'? This can't be what you are saying. What is it exactly that you will "take back" if McClellan donates all his proceeds to some worth cause or other?
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf he had quit, what would he have achieved? If he had written a book a few years ago while the whole country was swallowed up by patriotic Bush fueled fervor, would anyone have bothered to listen?
if there's no money motive, why would he lie?
No he would hardly even have made it above the radar on the news cycle.
I would think that he did it for a far greater motive than money.
Revenge!
The fact that money will flow from this exercise seems one of lifes little unintended consequences, but what we see I think is a classic case of the true believer who reaches the goal of high public office only to find the place populated by men with feet of clay. The disappointment of having all your lofty dreams of ennobled purpose so irrevocably shattered, probably dictated a course of action where as they say "revenge is best served cold."
Make no mistake about it, by writing this book he will have lost all his connections and all of his friends and by the sound of things he is being denounced by both sides of the house. I dont doubt that he would have been intelligent enough to work out the establishment response to his actions.
Given that he will lose much of the network's that brought him to the White House and beyond, you would have to ask will the money be worth it?
You could say a few hundred million buys a lot of compensation, but where would he spend it? its not like he hankers after the layering and trappings of wealth and power. He has seen that up close and personal. and at a level that would make a billion dollars seem insignificant, so money could hardly be considered a primary motive.
The only motive that truly fits and must seem very sweet at the moment, is revenge.
I take the guy at his word, i.e., he was naive and caught up in the Washington atmosphere, working for powerful men whom he had great respect for. Of course he was going to tow the party line while he worked for the President of the United States. I'm sure his family and friends back home were proud of him. A principled person could get involved up to his ears in hoodwinking the American people and not realize it with that type of high level motivation, granted his superiors kept him in the dark.
Give McClellan the credit he deserves for putting the puzzle pieces together after his departure and eventually telling the truth.
2 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebot...saying 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. 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. [...] When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me. [...] You should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job. [...] You're a hot ticket now, but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?
[On] Thursday, former Republican Sen. Bob Dole, of Kansas, sent an e-mail to Mr. McClellan ...
Bob Dole seems to insist on 'honour', 'manliness' and 'personal loyalty' in all this. But I wonder how it would have been had Scott McClellan done exactly what Bob Dole says he should have done, and quit straight away when he had misgivings and then written his dissenting book.
Maybe something like this? ...
Start of virtual Dole "There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit immediately if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for months, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique. [...] When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me. [...] You should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job earlier. [...] You're a hot ticket now, but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate? end of virtual Dole.
Plausible, yes? So much for 'honour' and 'hindsighted-advice' to the "snitch". Rancid hot air and pompous damage limitation, methinks. Scott McClellan has shone some belated light upon one of the most dishonourable U.S. administrations in living memory, and all the grotty creatures of darkness don't like it one little bit. Shame on you Pavlovian Americans who join in the smearing of the one and only figure who retains some smidgeon of (better-late-than-never) honour in this shabby affair!