www.nationalview.org and Note From a Madman brought to you by
for your Information Technology needs
owned and operated by Noah "The Madman" Greenberg
This Is What Democracy Looks Like
Today's Note From a Madman
June 1, 2008
More on "The Book"
We knew and we did what we could. All of the things which former White House
Press Secretary, and former Bushie "Loyalist" Scott McClellan is now telling us
is something that most of us knew. The problem wasn't that we knew, it's that so
many of us didn't give a crap.
What excuse that those who knew and still voted to re-elect this band of creeps
is appropriate today? Perhaps we should look back into nazi Germany for the
answers Or am I being too cruel? (or maybe too kind?)
When asked during the 2004 Presidential debate against Democratic stepping-stool
John Kerry what his biggest error to date has been, President Bush fumbled for
words before intimating his appointment of former Secretary of the Treasury Paul
O'Neill. Then a laugh, a quip and a smile ended that particular Q & A.
The joke's on us.
" I was part of this propaganda campaign, absolutely."
-former Press Secretary McClellan to Tim Russert on Meet the Press
The question by those still supporting President Bush - the diminishing group
that it is - is why didn't McClellan come forward and broach his disagreements
with the President while he had the chance. If things are so bad, as so many of
the Bushies still insist they aren't, then why didn't McClellan say something in
an attempt to change things as an insider?
perhaps we could ask those same questions of FORMER Secretary O'Neill or FORMER
anti-terrorism Czar Richard Clark.
Oh, wait - they DID ask those hard questions and their rewards were the loss of
their jobs, the loss of respect from within the Beltway, and a constant barrage
of abuse and ridicule from anyone within the Bush administration.
Certainly, if nothing else, obedience and blind faith were the only qualities
which one had to exhibit in order to stay a part of the Bush White House.
Questioning the man who would be "dictator" would be akin to losing one's head
in Louis' or Henry's Court, without real bloodshed, of course.
Maybe this was the best time for McClellan to release his book. Had he quit the
White House in a huff, in the same manner as O'Neill did, his attackers would
have had the chance to pre-define him as the "malcontent" and "man with an ax to
grind". Perhaps a book now would just have seemed like revenge at his former
boss, the President of the United States.
But by being defined by the Bushies as a "Loyal Bushie", the Administration of
Diminished Responsibility didn't have the time to make their boy McClellan into
the next O'Neill or Clark. As a result, the best they could do was to try and
convince us - the American people - that someone, somewhere was putting words in
his mouth and on the pages of the book he wrote, "What Happened".
And it isn't working.
And it appears that McClellan threw his former boss a curveball:
"The Unvarnished Truth About George W. Bush: His Former Spokesman Talks Candidly
About the President, the Press, Washington Politics, and his White House Days'
by Scott McClellan. There have been a number of books written about President
Bush, including many more recent ones that portray him in a very negative light.
"This book's going to take a much different look at our Nation's 43rd President.
While being supportive of the President, I want to give readers a candid look
into who George W. Bush is, what he believes, why he believes it so strongly,
what drives him.
"It will be an insider's account of his behind-the-scenes persona, including his
decision-making style, his personal discipline, his composure under fire, his
sense of humor.
"And, I will directly address myths that have been associated with him, some
deliberately perpetuated by activist liberals and some created by the media, and
look at the reality behind those myths."
-from McClellan's book proposal, January 2007, as repeated to McClellan by Meet
the Press' Tim Russert
Was there another book out there which McClellan sent to the White House? Was
the White House taken by surprise by this tell-all, incriminating book by a
former insider?
You bet.
"I say in the preface of the book that many of the conclusions I came to at the
end were not ones that I would've embraced at the beginning, and I went through
a process here to make sure I got to the truth. And I believe I have gotten to
the truth."
-McClellan to Russert
But what is the "truth" anyway? There are still some thirty percent of us who
will always believe whatever comes out of President Bush's mouth. There are
some, after all, who still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11,
in spite of all the reports, proof and obvious conclusions that prove otherwise.
Is everyone outside of the thinning Bush inner-circle full of it? Is Colin
Powell full of it? Is George Tenet full of it? Are all of the members of the
9-11 Commission full of it?
Someone is and the stench is coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
"Bush was a leader unable to acknowledge that he got it wrong, unwilling to grow
in office by learning from his mistakes--too stubborn to change and grow."
-McClellan form his book
"It is a true reflection of this president. We got into the Iraq war, we went
into it in a way that, as I say in the book, which was based on a 'permanent
campaign' mentality. It wasn't as open and forthright as it could be, and I
think that really hurt us later.
-McClellan to Russert
What would have happened had McClellan came forth a year ago? So far, in excess
of four thousand American lives have been lost in Iraq with ten times that
number of troops wounded. Perhaps one-hundred times more Iraqi citizens have
been killed or changed forever by this war, and it still persists.
And today we hear President Bush and the GOP members of Congress and the Senate
still standing behind him using the same old "support the troops" motive for
continuing this war and occupation. While Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda are still
a threat; and while the Taliban is gaining strength in Afghanistan, we stay in
Iraq. What happens if the Democrats in Congress vote against another few hundred
billions of dollars for the war in Iraq? Will they be labeled as traitors?
Maybe someone will write a book about that - of course, after thousands more of
our American children are killed in Iraq - you know - when someone gets the guts
to talk about it.
While Russert asked McClellan questions in an attempt to help him sell books, a
videotape of Russert and President bush came on. This was the exchange:
RUSSERT: In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe
the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I think it's--that's an interesting question. Please elaborate
on that a little bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? I mean, it's a war
of necessity. We, we, we--my judgment, we had no choice when we look at the
intelligence I looked at that says the man was a threat.
Bush was so taken aback by the forthright question that he couldn't even process
his normal bull-crap in response. It took some fumferring and fumbling to get
him back on track. Elaborate? How much more direct does one have to be?
In short, this book is about a President run amok and an administration poised
to take the people out of our government. McClellan's book is too late, but
maybe not too little.
And I find it oddly strange how "The Maverick" says nothing at all about the
book. Is John McCain so in step with the Bush policies and so in step with all
they are attempting to continue that he can't even comment on the goings-on?
His silence is telling, and so, apparently, is Scott McClellan's book.
-Noah Greenberg
Underlying Prejudice
"We were second class citizens before, now we're nothing."
"Goddamn the democrats!"
"They're throwing the election away, for what? An inadequate black man!"
"And they don't think we won't turn and vote for John McCain".
"John McCain will be the next President of the United States!"
Just a couple of quotes from Harriet Christian, delegate to the DNC Rules and
Bylaws Committee meeting in Florida that just voted to dump Hillary.
Harold Ickes was pretty pissed off too!
You'd better hope Hillary decides to leave gracefully or this could turn into
some interesting fireworks.
-Bob Driscol
"And today in 2008 we're doing it again. You may make the argument that Barack
Obama, who now appears to be a shoo-in for the nomination, can beat John McCain.
But do we really need to bring up gay marriage. as they are doing in California,
right before the November election again? Couldn't this distraction have waited
until after the November election to make its place known one more time?"
Victoria Brownworth responds: For the 30+ million lesbians and gay men in
America, same-sex (not "gay") marriage is a matter of civil rights, not a
"distraction."
The efforts in California and New York have been the result of year's-long legal
battles. They weren't timed specifically to upset heterosexual Democrats.
(Perish the thought!)
John Kerry lost in 2004 because he ran one of the worst campaigns in American
history. His out-of-touch arrogance was distasteful to Democrats and Republicans
alike, just as Barack Obama's is beginning to be to at least half of Democrats.
Most Democrats held their noses and voted for Kerry, but entirely without
enthusiasm.
Kerry misjudged Americans in general and Democrats in specific and that is why
he lost.
If you want to know what the Democrats will do to lose THIS time, look no
further than the convoluted process that has cheated Hillary Clinton out of
millions of votes and hundreds of delegates. Why does Obama only have to get
10,000 votes per delegate while Clinton has to get 11,000? Why does Obama get to
complain about the super delegates while filing lawsuits to stop a re-vote in
Michigan and Florida.
By every match up Clinton beats McCain and Obama does not. Obama is now
campaigning again in states he lost resoundingly to Clinton in the primaries.
There's no question that the Democrats are best at snatching defeat from the
jaws of victory. But don't blame it on lesbians and gay men seeking
much-deserved equal rights. Put the blame where it belongs: on the DNC, Howard
Dean and a party that has absolutely no understanding of how to win and which
candidate to support. Ever.
Victoria Brownworth responds to Noah Greenberg: First, Hillary Clinton is still
running for the nomination. I hate to have to keep reminding people of the fact
that Barack Obama is not the nominee, but he's not. There are more than 300
super delegates yet to decide how they will vote and three more primaries plus a
rules committee meeting to determine the disposition of Florida and Michigan. If
Florida and Michigan are not decided upon on May 31st, then Hillary Clinton will
no doubt stay in the race until the convention in August. What's more, the
"Draft Hillary" movement may be being promoted by the Right Wing pundits, but it
is also being promoted by many of the HALF of the Democratic Party who voted for
Clinton and have no desire to vote for Obama.
This presents a problem for the Democrats as polls now indicate that a full 70
percent of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama if he is the
nominee. That number decreases somewhat if Clinton is on the ticket as well, but
not significantly.
In the rush to judgment in the most media driven election in my lifetime, the
very same people who are now saying Clinton should run as an independent--the
right wing pundits--are the very same people who promoted Barack Obama to get
Hillary out of the race.
Which should make everyone wonder. The big problem is, the new heir apparent to
the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" mantle, Obama, is anything but a uniter. If he
wants to be the nominee AND win in November, he's got a lot of uniting to do. He
could start by not dissing Clinton and her supporters every chance he gets.
He can start with voters like me--informed, dedicated, well-educated, passionate
supporters of Hillary Clinton. Because if Obama is the nominee, I will be
switching affiliation to the Green Party and campaigning for Cynthia McKinney
for president. And I am far from alone. So perhaps instead of worrying what the
pundits over at Fox are saying, we should be worrying about what Democratic
voters are saying.
Just a suggestion, of course. Democrats like to lose, so perhaps they really
don't care to listen to reason. After all, they didn't listen in 2000 or 2004,
why start now?
And it was a small, but vocal faction of us jack asses who insisted upon making
gay marriage an issue before we got the wrong guy out of the job.
Victoria
Brownworth corrects Noah Greenberg's grievous historical error:
Greenberg seems to actually forget that gay [sic] marriage was put on the ballot
by the REPUBLICANS, not the DEMOCRATS. It was REPUBLICANS who put STATEWIDE
LEGISLATION BANNING GAY MARRIAGE on the ballot in twelve states.
It's one thing to be a bigot, it's another altogether to blame an entire
minority for the loss of an election when it was actually the bigots who did the
damage.
Another reason to stop being one, actually. You should consider it.
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com
-Noah Greenberg