[Masthead] Fair ~ 43°F  
High: 68°F ~ Low: 43°F
Tuesday, Apr. 21, 2015

Spinning the news for Bush

Posted Thursday, May 29, 2008, at 1:21 PM

Former Bush defender/spokesperson (in other words, White House press secretary) Scott McClellan alleges in his new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception", that the president fed the public propaganda instead of facts when defending his decision to attack Iraq.

So what's new?

You might want to check out the transcripts of the daily White House media briefings, www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/, in which the press secretary tells often-verbally combative reporters the latest presidential spin. These meetings are so one-sided it's ridiculous. No wonder McClellan found employment elsewhere.

I'd suggest "Culture of Deception" is a great description of the hot air blowing from Washington. Frankly, I believe little of it from Congress up to the president. We're being told what they want us to believe instead of just giving us facts and letting us decide for ourselves.

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Amen. And ironically enough, the extreme right wing folks that denounce this book are the ones who continue to give it airplay and the limelight...

I suppose that is the reason for it being No. 1 on Amazon.com

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 6:13 PM

I am having trouble with what McClellen alleges in his book. In a interview he says that the President did not intentally try to deceive the American public but what he writes in the book is the opposite. Also if this was such a "painful experience" for him, why did he continue his duties for 2 years and 9 months and never open his mouth. I am definately not a Bush lover but there is something about this that smells

-- Posted by cookie on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 8:10 PM

He was being deceived the entire time, but he never let his conscience or his "feeling" allow him to ask the correct questions. What alot of people do not understand about Karl Rove is his complete and utter creative spin he makes other believe. The guy is an absolute genius at manipulating people, hell look at the ENTIRE Bush administration. The entire 7 years has been damage control and its always about saving face. Basically they been running a campaign even though he is already in office.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 8:21 AM

McClellan only wrote about what most thinking, intelligent people already knew about the Bush regime. He asserts that the reasoning behind going to war in Iraq was built on lies and deception, but most people in this country already knew that.

I think we'll see more people in the Bush Administration come to grips with reality and expose this administration's dark side...and it has a very big dark side.

-- Posted by volfanatic on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 9:45 AM

my, my, my, how people's thoughts have changed since 9/11. just goes to show how people change with the wind and don't understand the war we're in. there was never any deceit. the administration was trying to defend this country follow the attacks. i guess people forget that as time goes by. was there mistakes made? sure. absolutely. as with any war. were they trying to do the right thing for this country? absolutely no doubt about it. it's funny how people spin this into lies and deceit when none ever existed. may we all remember 9/11 and the people who did this to us.

-- Posted by DoubleJ on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 10:28 AM

LOL.. Ridiculous. Not a single person from Iraq was involved in 9/11, so my, my, my what deception you have been diluted by. Nobody here has changed with the wind Double J, we just have come to realize that we were lied to on more than one occasion about this war. Really, if we had any business being there, or if everything this administration has done was so clear cut and without deceit, then why have SOOOOO many high ranking officials been dismissed from their position or chosen to resign. You can only live with a lie for so long before your conscious grabs hold of you and presses for the truth.

If we REALLY want to investigate 9/11 then we should try capturing the real criminals, Bush and company. (How else would they have EVER gotten away with so much destruction?) It's ironic how people like you think we would otherwise lose rights if we didn't invade countries who have never and could never invade or attack us. Yet, the very people who propagate this war, have stripped the Constitution of its meaning and discarded many fundamental rights we all thought were being "defended".

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 8:28 PM

darrick is your first name ROSIE?

-- Posted by jim8377 on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 12:33 PM

Nope. Is your last name Hitler?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 12:37 PM

I'm stunned! Politicians lie?!? Tell me it ain't so, Darrick.

As for McClellan, I couldn't really care less about his book. If what he had to say about the Bush administration is so damning and something that the American people need to know about, why did he wait for two years to tell anyone? And why did he do so in a book, rather than calling the newspaper, or even going on the nightly news and telling everyone? The same reason anyone in Washington does anything. To make a buck.

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 2:52 PM

And the same reason administrations lie in bed with huge corporations who go on to strip consumers of their choices and wage wars in the name of "defending our rights"... All to make a buck. So which is worse, making a buck telling some truths from your very own perspective, or making billions to the tune of death, destruction and defacing our currency?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 3:50 PM

no doubt your buying all that media garbage and staying in tune with all those hate-filled websites. is it fun being a liberal left-winger, darrick? you voting for obama? you think he'd make a great president? not much common sense at all in your wacky statements.

-- Posted by DoubleJ on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 6:21 PM

Media Garbage? Like the same Liberal media that helped George Bush sell the war? LOL. I listen to Supertalk radio on 99.7FM, the MOST conservative radio station I have ever heard in my life. Mind you, my blood boils listening to their rhetoric and the same disingenuous candor we have heard for the last 8 years... But still, I get my thoughts from a variety of places and then use my brain to decide common sense.

You gotta love how when you have no defense of your B/S you throw out terms like "liberal" and "wacky", because your party of staying the course and the do-nothings are on their way out. Typical response from someone with no facts... You didn't dispute the truth that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, you didn't dispute the truth that so many Bush cabinet members were forced to resign or willingly jumped ship, and you certainly have not proven to me what rights you would have lost if we didn't illegally invade a country that was no threat to us. Now, when you can bring more than conservative slang and begin some inclusion of facts to the table, I'll debate you. Until then, have fun watching the last ever-so-amazing years of stupidity go down the drain.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 6:38 PM

do you think taking down a psycho, hate-filled murdering dictator in iraq was a bad thing? everyone, including the clintons, thought he had wmd's and we did the right thing taking him out after our freedom was absolutely challenged. you disagree? hindsight is always 20-20 and its easy to disagree now. did you back then? since then, the terrorists all swarmed iraq and we're killing them in mass now, which is a good thing. i'd rather fight them over there than over here, wouldn't you? just because the war is in iraq, it doesn't mean we're not fighting and killing a ton of terrorists that want to kill us. don't buy into all the media spin. war is awful and it destroys families, but these soldiers are dying for a huge cause and that is the freedom we enjoy. it is not for nothing. don't ever forget that.

-- Posted by DoubleJ on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 6:59 PM


Hussein DID have wmd. He used them on the Kurds. They seem to overlook this FACT everytime because it doesn't fit the liberal talking points.

Also, don't put much credence in what Darrick may have thought initially since he was still in high school.

-- Posted by cfder on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 7:13 PM

LOL.. Taking down a psycho dictator whom we shook hands with in the 1980s AND sold the alleged WMD's you two geniuses espouse, just before I was born...

It's called Blowback, an official CIA term, which means those whom your appoint to positions of power and stockpile thier infantry with weapons, may someday use them irresponsibly or even on you.. The Clinton's may have wanted him disposed of, but this war didn't happen while a Clinton was in office, and neither did 9/11.... But see, I don't need "talking points" b/c trust me, the Bush administration does nothing but talk.

In reference to me being in high school when Saddam used "wmds" on the Kurds, sure. It just proves though that wisdom does not come packaged in a box and just because you have years on your body, doesn't mean your mind has progressed.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 7:50 PM

And lastly, do NOT tell me soldiers are dying in Iraq for freedoms we enjoy. This war goes AGAINST the U.S. Constitutions and oversteps the president's war powers. The sole purpose of the United States military is to protect and uphold the Constitution... Isn't it ironic though, that this administration never knew that.

I'd be all for this war, if the leader's who wanted it so bad would gladly leave the air conditioned rooms and turn their talk into something of substance.... It's easy to wage a war, in which you will NEVER have to tote a gun.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 7:54 PM

Why, oh why, must you people encourage him? It's like encouraging a little kid that is doing something stupid. One day he is going to grow up and do something that will end up on YouTube and he'll think that's stardom. Meanwhile everyone around the world will just be laughing at him.

Darrick, I do not believe we have EVER had a sitting President fight in a war.

Also, if this were TRULY an "illegal" war as you stated, wouldn't Congress (CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS SINCE JAN '07) have done something by now?

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 9:42 PM

very good point thom. honestly, his words speak for themselves. that liberal agenda and mindset never ceases to amaze me.

-- Posted by DoubleJ on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 10:59 PM

Thom, should I point it out to you again like I did on the other blogs, that the House of Reps must have a 2/3 majority to override a veto or undo a President's policy... Apparently you need a lesson in arithmetic, because there are 435 members of the House. It would take at least 290 votes to overturn a policy that was signed into law. Now, being as the Democrats only have in the range of 230 members, how on earth could they have "done something by now."... Selective amnesia many call would call it.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:04 PM

Darrick, it takes precisely ONE congressman to initiate something. Thus far THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED. A President CANNOT veto actions Congress takes that are directly against him. Nice try though...Congress can't do anything against the President because he could veto it. Be as sarcastic as you want, but it's all blah-blah-blah from you. Same old crap over and over.

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:23 PM

I think Bush should read a few of these quotes...

George Washington: "...we should on all Occasions avoid a general Action, or put anything to the Risque, unless compelled by a necessity, into which we ought never to be drawn."

John Adams: "Before I end my letter, I pray Heaven to bestow the best of Blessings on this House and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise Men ever rule under this roof."

Thom and DoubleJ, have you offered any substance to this debate or is childlike tactics more your style?

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:26 PM


Are you naive enough to believe that not ONE single Congressmen has "initiated" the immediate withdrawal of our troops.. Have you ever heard of John Murtha, or better yet, your chosen candidate Ron Paul? Now is where you insert foot in mouth. Believe me, there are hundreds of Congressmen who have voted over and over again to leave Iraq but guess what, there aren't enough.. . And even if there were the President would rather veto it. Because his theory is, we're there based on lies, we stayed based on lies, we may as well end it based on lies...

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:31 PM

This is a letter from 2007 sent to the White House telling the President NO to military funds, because they want troop redeployment.

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.

We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.


Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA); Rep. Barbara Lee (CA); Rep. Maxine Waters (CA); Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA); Rep. Rush Holt (NJ); Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY); Rep. Diane Watson (CA); Rep. Ed Pastor (AZ); Rep. Barney Frank (MA); Rep. Danny Davis (IL); Rep. John Conyers (MI); Rep. John Hall (NY); Rep. Bob Filner (CA); Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY); Rep. Bobby Rush (IL); Rep. Charles Rangel (NY); Rep. Ed Towns (NY); Rep. Paul Hodes (NH); Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO); Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR); Rep. Albert Wynn (MD); Rep. Bill Delahunt (MA); Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC); Rep. G. K. Butterfield (NC); Rep. Hilda Solis (CA); Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY); Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY); Rep. Michael Honda (CA); Rep. Steve Cohen (TN); Rep. Phil Hare (IL); Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (CA); Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL); Rep. James McGovern (MA); Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH); Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL); Rep. Julia Carson (IN); Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA); Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ); Rep. John Olver (MA); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA); Rep. Ed Markey (MA); Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA); Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ); Rep. Rubin Hinojosa (TX); Rep. Pete Stark (CA); Rep. Bobby Scott (VA); Rep. Jim Moran (VA); Rep. Betty McCollum (MN); Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN); Rep. Diana DeGette (CO); Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA); Rep. Artur Davis (AL); Rep. Hank Johnson (GA); Rep. Donald Payne (NJ); Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO); Rep. John Lewis (GA); Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY); Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI); Rep. Gwen Moore (WI); Rep. Keith Ellison (MN); Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI); Rep. Donna Christensen (USVI); Rep. David Scott (GA); Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL); Lois Capps (CA); Steve Rothman (NJ); Elijah Cummings (MD); and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

So, you said it takes ONE, well this is a list of SEVENTY-ONE. The most notable, Ron Paul....

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:35 PM

nascarfanatic - Did you even bother to read the previous posts? I said nothing about Congressmen trying to get us out of Iraq. Good God, please try to obtain a modicum of skill in reading comprehension before you try to come to someone else's defense.

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:37 PM

Darrick - Blah...same goes for you. I wasn't even referring to Iraq, I was referring to Congress taking action AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. Are you sure you've been to school?

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:39 PM

Everyone else - I apologize. I said I wasn't going to bother anymore.

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:40 PM

Darrick - Blah...same goes for you. I wasn't even referring to Iraq, I was referring to Congress taking action AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. Are you sure you've been to school?

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:39 PM

Wow... Someone upset because yet again the facts outweigh the spin?

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:43 PM

nascarfanatic - Did you even bother to read the previous posts? I said nothing about Congressmen trying to get us out of Iraq. Good God, please try to obtain a modicum of skill in reading comprehension before you try to come to someone else's defense.

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:37 PM

Uh, well this is one form of Congress taking action "against the president" right... And speaking of reading comprehension, it's probably best that you stay on topic, instead of suddenly changing the debate from Bush and Co.'s horrible handling of the war THEY created to wanting a simple majority of Democrats who remain stagnate due to the veto to be able to do anything... So, they've moved on to other issues like funding college for veterans, etc, which (not surprisingly) the president will also veto.

I find it completely insane that you would go so far as to write in Ron Paul, THE MOST OUTSPOKEN CRITIC OF THIS WAR SINCE DAY 1,in the November elections, yet have the contradictory audacity to defend the very war he and every other person with a brain knows, should have never been started. Goodnight.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 11:50 PM

jesuslovesevery1 - Nope, I'm not upset, just frustrated because, regardless of the topic, certain people find it necessary to sound off in the most obnoxious manner possible about their distaste for our President. We ALL get it, you don't like our government !

-- Posted by Thom on Sun, Jun 1, 2008, at 12:34 AM

Actually, Congress could have ended it a long time ago, by not funding it. Congress controls the money, not the President. No money, no war.

-- Posted by Richard on Sun, Jun 1, 2008, at 1:30 AM

Richard we know that. But there aren't ENOUGH Democrat's (or Congressmen) to stop funding, as noted in an earlier post.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Sun, Jun 1, 2008, at 9:45 AM

jesuslovesevery1 - Nope, I'm not upset, just frustrated because, regardless of the topic, certain people find it necessary to sound off in the most obnoxious manner possible about their distaste for our President. We ALL get it, you don't like our government !

-- Posted by Thom on Sun, Jun 1, 2008, at 12:34 AM

Regardless of the topic huh? Well this topic just so happens to be about BUSH. Or did you forget how to read? And I think it is our RIGHT to be upset with this president. In the South we've seen the right wing spin on everything, from the war to illegal immigration, to every single matter of principle. We're tired of diluted media and propaganda from an administration that came to instill morals in Washington, yet has done the exact opposite. You like Ron Paul, WHO HATES THE GOVERNMENT (just like you accuse all of us of doing), well apparently YOU haven't paid very close attention to your OWN candidate of choice, because HE is where we get our inspiration. You are a contradiction in disguise.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Sun, Jun 1, 2008, at 9:49 AM

Actually, I thought this topic was about the media spin that the government (Congress up to the President) puts on things. I don't believe, and I may be mistaken, David was specifically bashing Bush. It's not like someone would have to start a Bush-bashing blog, since every one on here that remotely has anything to do with the economy, gas prices, politics, the government, (insert random topic here), foreign relations, or the war in Iraq always turn into a Bush-bashing topic once you people get hold of them.

As for my support of Ron Paul, I support him because of his support of the Constitution. The war in Iraq is only ONE of his issues, even though you people seem to think that is the ONLY issue that defines a candidate. You state that Ron Paul HATES THE GOVERNMENT. I hate to tell you but that is not the case. Ron Paul just wants the government to be what it is supposed to be and do what it is supposed to do in accordance with the Constitution.

You know, George W. Bush is the President right now. EVERYONE knows that he will be leaving office in January. EVERYONE knows that you guys hate him and everyone that works for him, ever worked for him, or ever sat in the same restaurants that he has eaten in. EVERYONE knows that you people LOVE Clinton and that Slick-Willy was the second coming and that everyone, except for you, seems to have missed that.

I'm not particularly fond of Bush either but, again, he'll be leaving office in January. There is absolutely nothing that any of us can say on these blogs that will change anything that he's done, or will do while he serves out the remainder of his term.

Sitting there for days on end complaining about it on every single blog that comes up on the T-G website really accomplishes a heck of a lot, don't you think?

I've said pretty much all that I'm going to bother saying to any of you regarding politics because every single time anything comes up, you people turn it into the Bush-bash.

When I refer to "you people", I do so because I am assuming one person is not pathetic enough to create that many accounts just to it can seem like more people share their deep-seeded hatred for our government.

Good day.

-- Posted by Thom on Sun, Jun 1, 2008, at 11:43 AM

You know Thom its kind of funny. On Michael Bell's blogs about homosexuality he at least claims to "hate the sin but love the sinner". When it comes to Bush bashing it seems to be hate the politics and the politician. I think the best thing we can do is pray for the president regardless of he is or will be.

-- Posted by devan on Sun, Jun 1, 2008, at 2:54 PM


That's about the smartest thing said on this whole blog. We do need to be praying for the entire leadership of this country, no matter what level it takes place on.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Sun, Jun 1, 2008, at 11:49 PM

That isn't smart...We prayed for our leadership for the last 8 years Sharon and Devan and you see what good that did. Perhaps we should do a little more than PRAY this time around....

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 7:11 AM

I pray and I vote. Praying always makes me feel better. If you think your vote or your activism is worth more than your prayers I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. Besides, we may be seeing what good our prayers did, it just may not be what we wanted to see.

-- Posted by devan on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 7:59 AM

Yes Devan, very true. God answers our prayers 3 ways: yes, no, and not yet. Yes we do need to vote, but we need to be in serious prayer before we vote.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 8:30 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.