McClellan Says: Buy HITS

Scott McClellan (via Spencer Ackerman):

The White House never wanted to have the way the case was made, the way the intelligence was used to sell the war to the American people looked into by Congress. This was delayed for quite some time and Senator Rockefeller pushed this forward to get to the truth. And, the White House can continue to bury their heads in the sand but the reality is still the same.

Did somebody say Heads in the Sand? I think somebody did! Come see me talk at the Strand in NYC Thursday at 7.

Comments

Be careful accepting his endorsement, Matt, he'll just turn on you later!

Posted by T_Porter | June 10, 2008 6:01 PM

So, do they have air conditioning at the Strand these days? Serious question.

Posted by xkjkbxq | June 10, 2008 6:48 PM

O dear o dear Matt, Obie doesn't agree with you --

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era. I think this perspective misreads the American people.

Posted by M | June 10, 2008 6:58 PM

Umm, yeah - the endorsement of an out of the loop, bitter, and ineffective PR flack is great news, Matt. I think you can fit everything he knows about foreign affairs in a thimble.

Posted by James Robertson | June 10, 2008 7:14 PM

McClellan may not know everything, but he does know the truth about the Bush administration and the way they mislead the American public into the war in Iraq.

And John McSame was the main cheerleader for the Bush deception.

Posted by cm | June 10, 2008 7:28 PM

"I think you can fit everything he knows about foreign affairs in a thimble."

Which is why he'd probably endorse Matt's book.

Hey, if Matt's going to yet another HITS PR thingy, somebody here who goes to it ask him my two questions on Iran and report back here on how he dodged the questions.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 10, 2008 8:12 PM

RSH, what *are* the questions you are constantly referring to?

Posted by Greg | June 10, 2008 9:58 PM

I think the Strand at 12th and B'Way has AC. Fulton? Don't think so.

Matt, presumably you're at the main one ? (12th and B'Way?)

Posted by Frank | June 10, 2008 10:34 PM

Is that quotation going on the back of the paper back edition?

Posted by Joe Lieberdum | June 11, 2008 6:33 AM

Greg: My questions are as follows:

1) Do you believe that Iran has a program sanctioned at the highest levels of the Iranian government to develop and deploy nuclear weapons? Not a nuclear energy program, but a program to develop and deploy actual nuclear weapons?

2) IF Iran is PROVEN to have such a program, do you believe that a military attack by the US, whether sanctioned or not by the UN, whether or not diplomacy or sanctions are tried first or not, is a feasible and appropriate way to deal with the existence of the Iranian program?

You'd think Matt, as a "wannabe pundit" on foreign policy, would be interested in being on record as to this issue.

You'd think...

For the record, my answers are "No" and "No".

I would accept "Yes", "No", and "I don't know" as answers and he can elaborate as he pleases.

But he doesn't have the balls to answer those questions because it will either get him in trouble with AIPAC (if he says "No"), or he will be revealed to still be a "liberal hawk" - as he was on Iraq - if he says "yes".

After all, WHY was he a hawk on Iraq initially? Obviously because he believes that if another nation has a nuclear weapons program, then it's valid to attack it militarily.

And he still believes that, because he hints at it every time he takes about "nuclear proliferation" and throws Iran's out in regard to that - even though, as I've pointed out repeatedly here, there is ZERO evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program, before 2003 or since.

Just the other day, he talked about "verifiable nuclear disarmament" in connection with Iran. You can't "disarm" what you don't have! It's vague, disingenuous crap like that which irritates the hell out of me.

And everybody here lets him slide on this. Everybody.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 11, 2008 6:52 AM

I hate you, Hack. If anyone asks either of those questions I'm going to hurl myself into oncoming traffic.

The Broadway Strand has A/C. The Annex has only fans, I think.

Posted by bend | June 11, 2008 10:13 AM

Be my guest.

Don't damage the car too much.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 11, 2008 4:58 PM