Bush Insider Snitches

Post Reply New Topic

Bush's Press Secretary from 2000-2006 confirms everything you suspected about Bush, the conservative cabal, and more.

Summary: A Culture of Deception.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 79_pf.html
http://www.ajc.com/meetro/content/news/ ... _0527.html

I wonder why the dismayed revelations of the deception of a man who thought he was acting with integrity is characterized as "snitching" when he is revealing something important of the basic nature of a regime to a public that needs to know the attitudes of the people in control. Should there be something like the "omerta" of the Mafia so that deceit and double dealings remain ever hidden?

Yes, the 'snitch' word has interesting tones - and very different, depending on who is responding. True believers have characterized McClellan as a lying snitch, while people who don't like the Bush administration may in fact describe it as a crime family along the lines of the mafia. So maybe that wasn't the best choice of words ... what would be a better term?

It's more along the lines of understanding where the loyalties of a government official should lie. If it is felt that they should lie with an inner group of operators without regard to the honesty of their operation then probably "snitch" is an appropriate term. If a person feels his loyalties lie with the American country as a whole, another less deprecatory term such as "reveal" might be more fitting.

the book should make for a horrifying read. mostly horrifying at the level of indifference from americans about how much they're lied to and their trust is abused by the highest of offices.

Frankly, although all revelation in the matter is welcome and healthy, anyone who is not overwhelmingly aware of the nefarious operations of the Bush administration must be, to use the currently kindly terminology, severely mentally challenged.

bump.

Yes, but his approval rating is still at the 25-30% level.

didn't he get re-elected president with that 25-30% approval rating?

then again....didn't he steal the election?

Which, I assume, indicates something significant.

No, his approval rating was higher in 2004. It took several years of Iraq, hurricane Katrina, and other events to convince most Americans that he really wasn't that competent.

Steal the election? In 2000, the presidency was handed to him by a Supreme Court decision. Not quite the same as 'stealing' although the wisdom of that decision is up for discussion.

no, i was talking about ohio. there was a hearing there with testamony from a diebold person saying that he was contacted to set up the cards like what's described in stealing democracy. he said he couldn't tell if they were used or not but he did make them.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-YXvxYbck[/youtube]

Bush is the worst thing to ever happen to america. It will take years to clean up his mess. I hope his wrong doings are on his conscience forever.

How does bad-mouthing someone with little evidence "confirm" anything, let alone "everything"?
Really, this is such an old trick: Liberals probably offered him millions to write a book slamming Bush,
and he took it. They do this to virtually everyone associated with sitting conservative presidents.

And in his follow-up interviews, McClellan sounded uncertain in almost every sentence he uttered.
I'm not sure he knows what he believes even now.

EDIT: In fact, the book is so vague in its "insider" claims, that I'm not even sure McClellan wrote it.
He was probably paid for the use of his name as author, and that was it.

Consider these observations by Bill O'Reilly:




There's nothing new here! McClellan's book is little more than a series of generalizations that everyone already knew.

Last edited by Ragtime on 29 May 2008, 1:56 pm, edited 8 times in total.