How Much Did Bush Know and When Did He Know It?
The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
There was one problem. It was not true.
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice President, the President’s chief of staff, and the President himself.
— An Excerpt from Scott McClellan’s upcoming book
While this excerpt has many suggestive implications, as many like Gerald Campbell have already pointed out, his publisher has tried to put a stop to them. In an interview withBloomberg News , Osnos said that Scott did not intend to suggest G.W. Bush knowingly lied to him:
“He told him something that wasn’t true, but the president didn’t know it wasn’t true,” Osnos said in a telephone interview. “The president told him what he thought to be the case.”
If this is true (it is difficult for us to really know what Bush knew and when he knew it), then a different question should be asked: did Bush keep himself uninformed willingly to save face and his conscience or was his ignorance forced upon him from others?
Comments are closed.
You have to give it to Bonehead the Younger; at best he acted like Pontius Pilate, at worst he committed treason…my people I ask you-must we allow this nightmare to go on till Nov 08? Pitchforks I tell ya, pitchforks.
IMPEACH BUSH!!!
Christopher
Can we quote and put that in our briefing against Bush?
I was just egging on the choir in the combox. =)
Bush-hatred is a curious thing – I figure it’s only a matter of time before arewak’s head explodes in a blind fit of rage. =)
Bush-hatred is just another word for patriotism; Bush-support is another word for treason.
What’s Bush’s approval rating this week, Christopher? “Curious,” isn’t it?
It’s quite possible to offer reasonable criticism of the president, Michael — you will even find such in the pages of the Weekly Standard and First Things.
On the other hand, it’s also possible to come across like, well, arewak.
The only things scandalous here is that this non-story is considered news.
I’m not clear what you mean by “Bush hatred”, Christopher: “offering reasonable criticism” is fine, as long as it is not aloud? What is the distictinction between “Bush hatred” and whatever it is that 75% of the Americans feel about the rascal at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?
If you can’t tell the difference between Henry’s post and arewak’s response, I don’t think I can help you.
Christopher, if you can’t tell that Bush should be impeached, I don’t think I can help you.
Christopher,
arewak’s response seems on target to me.
It’s not “Bush hatred”, it’s merely a profound horror and disgust at what that man has wrought upon this country during the past 7 years. Unjust war. Corruption. Lies. Mediocrity. The institutionalization of torture. Policy written by lobbyists. Demonization of opponents. The use of fear as a political weapon. We have the misfortune of living through one of thr worst regimes in US history, and we will be paying the price for many, many generations– and by price I mean by literally and figuratively (how long will it take the world to trust the US again?). But, clearly some people are still bothered more by an adulterer covering his tracks.
But, clearly some people are still bothered more by an adulterer covering his tracks.
… who also waged unjust war (sometimes in furtherance of covering his adulterous tracks), starved Iraqi children to death via sanctions (and employed a Secretary of State who said this human cost was “worth it”), also allowed policy to be written by lobbyists, also demonized opponents (“vast right-wing conspiracy,” anyone?), also corrupt, and also lied like crazy. Only a blind partisan could blithely posit such a false dichotomy. The mainstream Democrats and Republicans are cut from the same cloth.
U.V. –
…who also waged unjust war (sometimes in furtherance of covering his adulterous tracks)…
Sorry, but what utter nonsense. Putting aside the ridiculous calumny that Clinton went to war to cover his adultery: the wars that Clinton engaged in, whatever their justice (and I would argue that they were, on balance, just), he at least had the competence to win them, and to have broad international support while doing so.
Mr. Talbot:
Three words: Operation Desert Fox. Take off your blinders.