I’d like to think part of his motivation was a guilty conscious, but that’s my optimistic side speaking.

Here’s Kelso’s take:

In the book, McClellan blisters the president for taking the country into an unnecessary war, which at this point is kind of like noticing there’s a walrus in the hot tub. Bush’s aides are saying that if McClellan disagreed with the president, he should have spoken up back then.

Why? Like Bush was going to listen to him. He hasn’t listened to anybody else who disagrees with him. Why would he start with his press secretary, who is hired to go on national TV and puke up whatever kooky la la the administration tells him to?

The book says the president ignored the intelligence that said the war would be a disaster and started it anyway because he thought only wartime presidents achieve “a legacy of greatness.”

Greatness? Here’s Bush’s legacy: a national debt of $9.4 trillion; a worldwide lack of trust in the U.S. government; a dollar so weak it’s changed the meaning of the expression, “Your money’s no good around here, mister”; and an economy so lame that in tony Santa Barbara, Calif., they’ve created special overnight parking lots for people who have lost their homes and have to spend the night sleeping in their cars.

In the ‘30s, it was the Hooverville cardboard box home. In Bushville, it’s the back seat of the Volvo. That’s Bush’s legacy. And I’d like to thank Scott McClellan for having the guts to step up and tell it like it is. I just wish he’d discovered his nerve before everybody else already had it figured out. But better last than never.

Or to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he found himself a prestigious, important position in government and job security was more important at the time than principles. Yes, it’s still lame, but everyone else in the White House is still screwing over the country in the name of their principles.

He wasn’t so concerned that he did anything about it at the time.  Instead he waited 2 years a wrote a book.

Scott McClellan should have more personal loyalty to Bush than he has an obligation to inform the American public on the office of President?

There was a time and place when duty to the Führer came first.

The President talked candidly in front of Scott and Scott stabbed him in the back.

Let me see if I can get what you’re saying straight. Scott McClellan should have more personal loyalty to Bush than he has an obligation to inform the American public on the office of President? Exactly when should the public be informed if they’re being led astray by someone in office then? It sounds like you’re saying that folks employed by the government have an obligation of loyalty to individuals rather the offices they’re holding. Loyalty to individuals over the laws of the country and the Constitution maybe too? Exactly how far off base does your government supervisor have to be before you’re allowed to tell the public afterwards that you disagree with him and why?

I guess it’s no surprise that they’re trying to discredit McClellan instead of refuting what he says (beyond saying “It’s not true” of course)  Standard Republican “shoot the messenger” tactic.

None of the stuff he’s saying is new.  The Liberals have been saying this since day one, so why would the Whitehouse be freaking out about this?  Why would they care unless this could hurt them?  On the other hand, why would they care even if it could.  It’s not like they’re going to get another term or anything.

There isn’t much McClellan could say that would surprise me. It’s just more confirming than anything else. Ah, okay. Now we have a republican insider confirming what went on.

To any conservative wanting to leave a comment, ask yourself what Scott’s motivation is. To clear his own name of a possible shit storm coming is the only thing that makes sense to me…

So Troy, a republican telling the truth is equivalent to stabbing the president in the back?  Makes sense in the twisted mind of a modern American shitbird, I guess. 
I’ve never been naive enough to expect much moral fortitude or rational thought from most people, but the last eight years are an all-time low.  How much death and destruction is too much for you?  How many people have to die to glorify a mass-murderer before it’s too much for you? 
Fuck it.  At this point, talking to a Bush supporter
is like talking to an abused wife who won’t leave her husband.  Enjoy your genocide and thievery.

  If every last neo-con and Bush supporter were Raptured off the planet tomorrow, I would actually believe in God.  If the same result happened by way of the gun, I would actually believe in justice.  Ignorant, over-privileged war loving Americans have done more damage to this country than any outside enemy could.

If you don’t want to see how the sausage is made, then don’t go in the kitchen.

But if you’re force-fed the rotten sausage, you bloody well want to know what shit you’re eating. Who gives a damn if the butcher gets backstabbed by an apprentice. Let me weep some crocodile’s tears.

Doesn’t this explanation sound more lunatic than greed for oil? Or was it a case of one wanting the oil and the other lusting for glory?