See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On May 28th, 2008 at 8:49 pm, timinphoenix said:

   More obvious libs with total BDS are now posting comments. It now being well past noon in most of the country, they appear to have finally gotten up.

   I am disgusted with Bush for a number of reasons, but I still can’t abide someone like the wispy weasel, McClellan making a buck off a pack of lies and appeasement lies to the left.

   Drudge who I also have problems with frequently at least served truth well by running “Scott the Snitch” all day.

   That sums him up rather well.

2. #102
   On May 28th, 2008 at 8:55 pm, beenthere said:

   “One of these days he and I are going to be rocking on chairs in Texas…talking about the good old days and his time as the Press Secretary. And I can assure you I will feel the same way then that I feel now, that I can say to Scott, job well done.”

   In BushLand, everybody does a heck of a job just by showing up and belching. What is funny about this quote is that knowing Bush, the ultimate RINO nice guy, oozing love and forgiveness from every pore, that is exactly what will happen.
   
   Unless he finds out that McClellan has a change of mind and become a staunch, closed-borders Republican . . .

3. #103
   On May 28th, 2008 at 9:06 pm, cf said:

   This guy was a press secretary, for Pete’s sake. He was not a foreign policy analyst or Secretary of Defense. What gives him any special knowledge of foreign policy? Almost like the White House Etiquette Director writing some kind of book about Iraq. The whole thing is ludicrous.

4. #104
   On May 28th, 2008 at 9:10 pm, Rob said:

   They are ALL losers… I just don’t get it. Where are quality, honest, smart people? Do they no longer exist? There is no one in the White House that I trust, nor anyone running that is worth spit.

   The liberals are evil and McAmnesty is totally, totally.. did I mention, totally? untrustworthy.

5. #105
   On May 28th, 2008 at 9:28 pm, freemind25 said:

   BDS??? Wouldn’t that involve derangement? Are you arguing that over 70% of the country is deranged because they view Bush as a failed President. Im not going to list all the ways in which Bush has failed, but I believe you have BDS. You are deranged in thinking that Bush was is good President. History will judge him as one the worst, right up their with Jimmy Carter.

6. #106
   On May 28th, 2008 at 9:30 pm, juliesa said:

   Recently, I’ve been reading some books about the 80′s. Reagan’s staff had big fights, and there was a lot of distrust between his old California cronies and the other staff (State vs Defense. Sound familiar?), plus many thought that Reagan let them go their own way too much, which resulted in scandals and other problems.

   Reagan was a great president, but he was far from perfect. I think that the presidency that’s devoid of staff intrigue and scandal simply will never exist.

7. #107
   On May 28th, 2008 at 9:59 pm, sausage said:

   how poorly served President Bush has been by his closest advisors.

   Oh I don’t know – Bush has poorly served the American people so it kind of levels out.

   The advance of freedom extends to people who worked with Bush, it seems.

   Bonus: No war was necessary!

8. #108
   On May 28th, 2008 at 10:01 pm, changer1701 said:

   This is really beyond the pale. Scott McClellan was a horrible press secretary, and from this I know he is an even worse human being. He has betrayed the trust placed in him by the President and run into the arms of the rabid Left, who are all too eager to embrace anything that feeds their BDS. President Bush has done much to disappoint me, but he doesn’t deserve to be stabbed in the back by someone he obviously felt was a trusted aide, and friend. Now, the libs will embrace McClellan, and the nutroots will nod their collective pea brains in approval (they knew all along, after all)…funny, but writing these smears and attempting to profit by embracing the Left’s caricature of the President and the administration says SO much more about Scott McClellan than it ever will about George W. Bush.

9. #109
   On May 28th, 2008 at 10:01 pm, libocrat said:

   In been there land, Obama is qualified to walk someone’s dog. And Rodham was making PEACE in Northern Ireland.

10. #110
    On May 28th, 2008 at 10:06 pm, libocrat said:

    Notice the liberals have become big fans of the STATEMAN Scott McLellan. I mean they always liked him and his foreign policy!! Right?

    Liberals are so dishonest it’s painful.

11. #111
    On May 28th, 2008 at 10:21 pm, freemind25 said:

    This is really beyond the pale. Scott McClellan was a horrible press secretary, and from this I know he is an even worse human being.

    Telling the truth makes him a bad human being? Now I don’t think McClellan is that great either, but its a low blow to call him a bad human. I find fault in that if he felt this way he should have resigned a long time ago. However, I think anyone who serves public has a loyalty to country, not to the men they serve. I’m glad he has come out and exposed the Bush Administrations deceptions and failures, but if he would have done this 7 years ago this country may not be in the mess it is now.

12. #112
    On May 28th, 2008 at 10:58 pm, DarkKnight said:

    On May 28th, 2008 at 4:20 pm, terrig said:
    If you don’t like something, speak up. I know it’s hard sometimes but you gotta do it.

    So Terrig, I’d like to ask you a question. A few days ago, you got into a heated exchange with another commenter on the board. You’re exact comment to the commenter was:

    On May 25th, 2008 at 8:00 pm, terrig said:
    You support the troops because you don’t support them or don’t support what they do, you’re the true patriot just like B. Hussein Obama.

    So “if you don’t like something, speak up” …

    (let’s say the Iraq War for sake of argument)…

    Those who do speak out against the war run the risk of being told from certain individuals that it is impossible to support the troops and not support the War.

    They can be labeled “unpatriotic,” “anti-American,” a bad human being, etc.

    So I’d like to ask you Terrig, what do you say to people who do take a stand and speak out against the War (or its rationale going in, etc.), but love their country and are accused of doing their country a disservice by speaking out?

13. #113
    On May 28th, 2008 at 11:13 pm, Sanddog said:

    A McClellan-Soros connection?

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30118_The_Soros-McClellan_Connection

14. #114
    On May 28th, 2008 at 11:13 pm, DarkKnight said:

    doing their country a disservice by speaking out?

    Sorry, I believe I phrased that last part wrong.

    “…not loving their country or the troops.”

15. #115
    On May 28th, 2008 at 11:41 pm, jbirish said:

    Michelle, that quote by McClellan about Clark is really a hoot! Hope he’s reading this blog.

    GOTCHA!!!!

16. #116
    On May 28th, 2008 at 11:47 pm, vatodio said:

    I had a bad feeling about this turncoat when he was employed at the Whitehouse.

    I never saw him as forceful a press secratory as Tony Snow or the current one, Dana Perino.

    It always appeared that Gregory and Helen and others in the media were embushing him into a corner, and this jerk seemed like he was defending the Administration and their policies half-heartedly.

    Now we know why.

    Sometimes, I wonder if the Bush clan has some genetic defficiency.
    The Bush Sr. appointing Souter to the Supreme court; Bush W hiring this turncoat as Press secratory!

17. #117
    On May 29th, 2008 at 12:22 am, mattymatt10 said:

    On May 28th, 2008 at 10:58 pm, DarkKnight said
    Those who do speak out against the war run the risk of being told from certain individuals that it is impossible to support the troops and not support the War.

    If you don’t support the troops’ mission, what exactly is it about them that you do support?

18. #118
    On May 29th, 2008 at 1:01 am, rommsey said:

    It may have been already addressed but when I first heard of this I knew some element was driving this story, one that is hidden but would not surprise most of us.

    It turns out that the company publishing this is a Soros entity.

    Anyways here is my take on this. I’m not surprised Scott made an about face on the Administration. Why? Well the Administration has been getting on the nerves of a lot of people and I strongly suspect his leaving was a sour note and he has a score to settle. Couple this with the desire to sell a story for a hell of a lot of money and fame and why not? Lies, cheats, and scandals sell. We see this every day of our lives.

    Scott lying actually helps his financial desires here. He can exaggerate to the moon and the moonbats will mop this crap up as if they were never wrong to begin with.

19. #119
    On May 29th, 2008 at 1:30 am, rommsey said:

    For all the nutjobs out there thinking they can support the troops but not the mission I will gladly remind you of the following logic.

    Since the troops have a mission to complete and supporting the troops automatically means supporting them succeeding at their objectives you support the mission. If you want to pick and choose your definition then you do not support the troops despite screaming, bluffing and fooling otherwise.

20. #120
    On May 29th, 2008 at 1:47 am, bird said:

    NavyMom said: Another “Republican” turncoat. Big surprise

    .

    Is anyone sure he’s a Republican? Perhaps a member of the Log Cabineers, perhaps, if so. Obviously, of whatever his party registration, McClellan’s finally revealed himself to be the smoldering gossiper and underhanded oaf I tended to think he was from the start.

    My problem is why Bush trusted this guy so much, why and how he was able to maintain such extraordinary duplicity in the employment he held. His associations should surely be being examined very closely.

21. #121
    On May 29th, 2008 at 2:53 am, islandman78 said:

    Comes with the territory. Past press secretaries have delivered tell-all books before. I give you Dee Dee Myers, Bill Clinton’s press secretary.

    So does this still suck? Yes. It would have been nice if Scott McClellan had chosen to quit earlier over these moral conflicts before him.

    Press secretaries are paid to deliver the president’s message even if it goes against their own beliefs. Remember when Tony Snow was a foe of illegal immigration? That changed immediately when he became press secretary. It made me cringe.

    I hope Scott McClellan has written this book for the right reasons. I just wonder if he actively knows that he is becoming a tool for the Left. If he is complicit then it borders on treachery.

22. #122
    On May 29th, 2008 at 4:45 am, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    I hope Scott McClellan has written this book for the right reasons. I just wonder if he actively knows that he is becoming a tool for the Left. If he is complicit then it borders on treachery.

    He’s written a book on this. Books are not the best sources, especially ones written by politicians. Ones written after 2004 can be atrociously inaccurate and skewed. He was a White House spokesman and doesn’t have the same access President Bush, so I would bet at the very least he’s groping in the dark, at worst a leftie.

    If I am right, it’s just a quick way to make money.

23. #123
    On May 29th, 2008 at 4:51 am, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    If Bush himself had the least interest in governing, he would have figured out by now that the people surrounding him are “heckuvajob job” incompetents. He was elected to take responsibility. I want him to take it.

    Conservatives have to take responsibility too. They (readers of this blog) put Bush in office. They deserve blame too.

    Call an wah-ambulance. We’ve got BDS on the boards again. Looks like the tumor has taken a new shape this time.

    Imagine that! A LIBERAL lecturing others on responsibility! LGM, with a Democratic lead Congress and a left-wing dictatorial judiciary, Bush is the only one taking responsibility! Someone has to take care of all the liberals, since you put all your trust in government.

24. #124
    On May 29th, 2008 at 5:58 am, jamesgreenidge said:

    The Soberest Result Of A Dem/Lib Getting In Because Of Things As This Vile “Expose”

    Families of our valiant lost and wounded in combat, prepare to face that their work, hopes, compassion and sacrifices over there meant absolutely zero.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

25. #125
    On May 29th, 2008 at 6:06 am, madamevengier said:

    He’s going to make a sh*tload of money.

    However, this may actually backfire. He may make tons of money, but his integrity as a person and his reputation will be ruined. Even if everything he says in the book is true (and I do believe Bush was less than honest) the fact that he ignored all the supposed lies and treachery for three years and is only speaking up NOW makes him look like he is an extremely dishonest and deceitful person…the same things he’s accusing the President of. Pot, kettle indeed. Even the crazy liberals can see that.

26. #126
    On May 29th, 2008 at 7:42 am, Truesoldier said:

    On May 28th, 2008 at 8:39 pm, winemkr said:
    On May 28th, 2008 at 8:22 pm, freemind25 said:

    Its funny seeing everyone on the right continue to stick their fingers in their ears everytime they hear something negative about Bush. After all this evidence of Bush being a complete failure how can you continue to ignore it. You want to know why he wrote this book, because he was used like a pawn. Rove, Libby, and Cheney fed him false info, promised him it was true, and made him out to look like a fool. What kind of friends are that?

    Site your sources, or are you one of the editors of McClellan’s book?

    But, but the Daily KOS says it is true so it ahs to be the case

    /sarcasm

27. #127
    On May 29th, 2008 at 8:02 am, polokfla said:

    A DNA test should be done to determine if Scott McClellan had an ancestor named General George.
    You know, the wimpy, effeminate, vacillating, arrogant turncoat that Lincoln had to put up with.
    I think it’s in the chromazomes.

28. #128
    On May 29th, 2008 at 8:08 am, Irish Rose said:

    An LGF exclusive this morning, one of Charles’ readers uncovered the truth about this book.

    McClellan is a sellout… and his buyer is George Soros.

    Imagine that.

29. #129
    On May 29th, 2008 at 8:18 am, DarkKnight said:

    On May 29th, 2008 at 1:30 am, rommsey said:
    For all the nutjobs out there thinking they can support the troops but not the mission I will gladly remind you of the following logic.

    Since the troops have a mission to complete and supporting the troops automatically means supporting them succeeding at their objectives you support the mission. If you want to pick and choose your definition then you do not support the troops despite screaming, bluffing and fooling otherwise.

    Then, by your logic, anyone who is (now or beforehand) against the Iraq War or wanting to withdraw the the troops from Iraq means that they are “anti-mission” and therefore “anti-troops?”

    Am I understanding that correctly?

    For a point of reference, a poll suggests that 22% want troops withdrawn ASAP, 48% want it done by a timetable, 28% said to stay as long as needed.

    On May 29th, 2008 at 12:22 am, mattymatt10 said:
    If you don’t support the troops’ mission, what exactly is it about them that you do support?

    There are many people who respect and appreciate what our men and women in uniform are doing serving their country in the all-volunteer armed forces. They pray for the families when they lose a loved one. They want to help those who have been injured and come back home to life forever changed. They support the troops and love their country. But these same individuals may not support the reasons why we are still involved in the Iraq War.

    Where I believe people place the responsibility is with the President, who gives the instructions, and thus determines the goals… finding WMD, removing a ruthless dictator, war against Islamic Fascism, etc.

    Again, the latest poll I saw said that 67% of Americans disapprove of the way that the President is handing the War.

30. #130
    On May 29th, 2008 at 8:50 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    Putting on my tin foil hat, my opinion is that what we might be seeing is the opening shot of an ACTUAL retaliatory strike by the Bush Administration. The book is a total ruse and McClellan is just playing the role of average lib weasel that Bush has had to put up with throughout both of his terms.

    It’s all a set-up and the libs have already taken the bait! Robert Wexler is demanding McClellan testify under oath – EXACTLY what Bush wants! He can take the stand and then deny every single lie in his book, (hey, there’s no law against a book of lies is there?) – the VERY SAME LIES THE LEFT HAS BEEN SPEWING AT BUSH ALL THESE YEARS. What could be better? All the proof that Bush has attempted to offer to refute the left is totally ignored by MSM so now he gets his ‘day in court’ to rub it right in their faces.

    Call me an optimist …

31. #131
    On May 29th, 2008 at 9:37 am, changer1701 said:

    Telling the truth makes him a bad human being? Now I don’t think McClellan is that great either, but its a low blow to call him a bad human. I find fault in that if he felt this way he should have resigned a long time ago. However, I think anyone who serves public has a loyalty to country, not to the men they serve. I’m glad he has come out and exposed the Bush Administrations deceptions and failures, but if he would have done this 7 years ago this country may not be in the mess it is now.

    How do you know he’s telling the truth? According to him he stood at the podium for years and lied, so who is to say that he’s not doing it again? His book fits very neatly into the lib narrative about the Bush administration, so of course it’s all true. Never mind the fact the man didn’t raise any objections to anything WHILE THERE, never mind the fact he waits until he has a Soros-backed book coming out BEFORE saying anything at all. Isn’t that just very convenient? A loyalty to country? Please…since when do libs believe that? McClellan is a moron if he thinks most people buy that “loyalty to truth” argument…where was that loyalty when you were a willing participant in the deception you supposedly saw first-hand, Scott? The libs will lap it up and ignore these questions…what did Obama say? It confirmed everything people already knew? What an arrogant !%$?!!!! Tell you what, Obama…I’d take 4 more years of Bush then I would 4 years of your appeasing, Marxist, terrorist-loving “change we can believe in”.

32. #132
    On May 29th, 2008 at 10:11 am, DBNinKY said:

    On May 28th, 2008 at 7:04 pm, Sanddog said:
    

    I stand by my vote and don’t feel the least bit ashamed of it.What were my alternatives? Gore? Kerry? I’d cast the same votes again in a heartbeat.

    Ditto that, Sand Dog!

33. #133
    On May 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am, corona said:

    The “been poorly served” line is really a cop-out. An executive has to hire competent, trustworthy people. If their actions prove that they weren’t …

34. #134
    On May 29th, 2008 at 10:37 am, changer1701 said:

    The “been poorly served” line is really a cop-out. An executive has to hire competent, trustworthy people.

    Turncoats are viewed as trustworthy, and they usually don’t indicate their traitorous tendencies before the fact.

35. #135
    On May 29th, 2008 at 10:55 am, jamesgreenidge said:

    Gets to me how non-streetwise ultra-pacifists are. Do you think once we flushed the Taliban out that Afghanistan could’ve gone it all alone as some kind of democracy in a region of Islamic wolves? Doing a regime change on one wolf in the neighborhood like Iraq is insurance that Afghanistan at least has a chance to make it without being ganged on later. Yea, that means a “expanded” “new” war, but this is the real world where you better damn sure be brutally pragmatic if you’re going to make it. Anyone who thinks just routing the Taliban and cutting out means the job’s done over there has Disneyland for a home address. This isn’t a tea-cup play-nice Tinkerbelle-please-turn-tyrants-into-choirboy universe. It’s gut-down dog-eat-dog law-of-the-jungle running the world here. It’s the play-book our enemies and terrorists read, and unfortunately too many here aren’t too versed in it!

    Another thing; our people in uniforms are ADULTS. They’re not babies in a schoolyard who have to be rescued from mean old pedophiles lurking in the bushes by their mommies. They volunteered as warriors, live as warriors, and by their oath would die as warriors who put them themselves in harm’s way to save our hides. They don’t need any oh-so compassionate “rescuing” (pulling out) by skittish mommies. Let them get the job done, anti-war MSM be damned

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

36. #136
    On May 29th, 2008 at 11:50 am, rommsey said:

    On May 29th, 2008 at 8:18 am, DarkKnight said:
    Then, by your logic, anyone who is (now or beforehand) against the Iraq War or wanting to withdraw the the troops from Iraq means that they are “anti-mission” and therefore “anti-troops?”

    Am I understanding that correctly?

    For a point of reference, a poll suggests that 22% want troops withdrawn ASAP, 48% want it done by a timetable, 28% said to stay as long as needed.

    Yes you understand it correctly, thank you for not asking me to use simple shapes and colors to establish an understanding for you.

    I don’t pay much attention to polls because the extrapolation methods are far too unreasonable and the questions posed are formulated to foster specific answer types as opposed to sharing an actual opinion.

37. #137
    On May 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, greenfairie said:

    Here’s the bill for your soul, Benedict Arnold. These bums will sell out in a hurry just to be one of the cool kids in Manhattan and Georgetown. Maybe you can hang with that other rat boy, John Dean.

38. #138
    On May 29th, 2008 at 2:20 pm, nuss said:

    McClellan was an embarassingly poor press secretary…incompetent, slow-witted, painful to watch. No way he wrote that book on his own. The fact that Bush hired McClellan is more damning for Bush than anything McClellan is now saying about the Bush administration.

39. #139
    On May 29th, 2008 at 4:55 pm, DarkKnight said:

    On May 29th, 2008 at 11:50 am, rommsey said:

    Yes you understand it correctly, thank you for not asking me to use simple shapes and colors to establish an understanding for you.

    Rommsey, so you indicate that 70% of Americans are anti-military and anti-troops… just because they do not want to stay as long as the President deems necessary in Iraq.

    Rommsey, this means that you are saying that this would include a good number of Republicans.

    I do not know if you would find many who would agree that 70% of Americans are anti-American and/or are against the troops because they want the troops to get out of Iraq now or in a definitive timetable.

40. #140
    On May 30th, 2008 at 1:11 pm, rommsey said:

    On May 29th, 2008 at 4:55 pm, DarkKnight said:

    Rommsey, so you indicate that 70% of Americans are anti-military and anti-troops… just because they do not want to stay as long as the President deems necessary in Iraq.

    Rommsey, this means that you are saying that this would include a good number of Republicans.

    I do not know if you would find many who would agree that 70% of Americans are anti-American and/or are against the troops because they want the troops to get out of Iraq now or in a definitive timetable.

    No I don’t indicate that and I am not the least bit surprised at you reaching such and absurd conclusion.

    Your poll reference is not to be submitted as substantial meaning to back the will 70% of the entire US population. Once you grasp this simple concept you will realize how stupid your reasoning is.