Not that it proves anything (and I'm sure it will be blown off) but Karl Rove has specifically refuted elements of the book that pertain to him.
But is an Obama Spiritual Advisor, was on his commitee Catholics for Obama, and has known him for 20 years also!
It's not like Scott McClellan has anyone who might offer corroboration: Paul O'Neil Paul Bremer Larry Lindsay Richard Clarke I'm sure there may be more...
Again if he didn't say anything racist it doesn't really matter that he supports Obama. But you are incorrect that he is a Spiritual advisor to Obama.
Indeed. oh, and language not so SFW... <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rN2VqFPNS8w&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rN2VqFPNS8w&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
And is there anything wrong with him wanting to make a buck? Whether he wrote it for money or not can his accusations be countered?
Sure...McClellan never heard the President say those things on the phone because they were never said. Oooooo...now we've got a good old fashioned he said/she said. That would be because these are statements that behoove them politically. If somebody wrote that John McCain saves orphans from burning buildings and that they saw Obama ripping the heads off of puppies, the doubt would return.
Funny I seem to recall being called a traitor for expressing opinions that McClellan seems to have confirmed. Not sure how that helps me politically.
I'm surprised to find that Bats has not yet mustered the courage to defend his night of indulgence - both intellectual and imbibed. Bats go poof? Should I load up the luxurious, fuel-inefficient SUV and lead a search party?
Oh, George. You're the king of the poofsters; you ought to at least know what it means. Did I disappear on a challenge or refuse to answer a question? No, of course not. I never do. That's your bag. My late night post was not my most artful but, as it is with McLellan's book, nobody's actually disputing the meat of it, opting instead to take a swipe at my character. I'm still here, but when it comes to your troll games I'm still not biting. Gotta go work now until late in the night. I don't always get weekends off in my job, but I also never have to be up early in the morning to report to a boss. It's a fair trade. I stand by the merits of my post. The book surprised even me by validating every concern I and others have had about the administration. And you look a bit of a fool (again) trying to marginalize about 70% of the country who feel similarly.
Hopefully Batman went back to sleep to sweat the alcohol out, and he will wake up later in a better mood..
Then allow me to spell it out for you, although I believe that you already know. You hate the Republicans. Bush is a Republican. This book is coming out in an election year. You are applauding the publishing of the book filled with unsubstantiated, unverifiable bad things about Bush because you believe it will help the Democrats. Therefore, from a political ideology perspective, it helps you. Oh...yeah...that and it makes your hate of a party of those who disagree with you easier for you if you mentally can paint them all as really bad guys.
All of what you said may be true, but if the bad things in the book are the truth then he is perfectly justified to take that position. I don't get your point. Why not discuss the merits of the book rather than his motives for reading it?
Oh Refman I don't hate republicans. My whole family is republican. But can you not see that being called a traitor because of differing views might make one suspicious of what republicans do? Oh and bush is hardly a republican. Ask any republican.
I put about much stock in the credibility of Scott's book as I do in the Clinton tell all books. Seeing as most of them are written by disgruntled employees who have almost always been FIRED, the books, while entertaining, can't really hold water.
