Am I alone in hating this word? Why does it even exist? There are plenty of adequate words that already exist in the English language that can be used instead:

Opposition

Resistance

Antagonism

Disagreement

Hostility

Disparity of opinion

and so forth...

The reich-wing blowhards are saying that McClellan should have objected while he was still the press secretary. They conveniently forget Bush's practice of getting rid of anyone who disagrees with him.

lying

cya'ing

I like Rove's version of Subliminal Man:

Scott wasn't in any of those meetings, (that I recall).

I didn't break the law at all (that I recall).

I didn't do anything evil (that I recall).

Well, sure. They'd rather he objected then, so they could label him a liberal discontent and BURY him, instead of toeing the line and issuing an embarassing tell all years later. It takes a little more work to BURY the guy after the fact.

Although in the long run, they've proved that "tell alls" don't matter, no matter how revealing they might be. This nation of sheep doesn't read and doesn't care. Likewise for the sheep in the media. See, e.g., Paul O'Neill's "The Price of Loyalty."

Queens of Denial.

but he isn't as slimy as say, Colin Powell or Ari Fleischer, or any of the others that resigned or were forced out and have refused to say one thing about the administration. Silence is the same as complicity, and while McClellan may seem "sleazy" at least he is trying (for whatever reason) to talk about what actually happened on his watch. "was he lying then or now?" is the question. What motive does he have for lying now? None whatsoever. If he didn't say anything, surely he'd get some plum job in a thinktank or for one of Bush's cronies' corporate boards.

No, the villians here are the ones that remain silent. As much as I loved Colin Powell, and thought Ari was a cool guy (so did you, admit it), now I just think of them as cowards.

So, was Karl Rove speaking in his capacity as Fox News Analyst, or was he speaking on his role as a former leading member of the Administration?

Oops, sorry, I forgot there's no such distinction at Fox.

Smear the messenger, not the message.

McClellan should be forced to donate the proceeds of this book to Fisher House. You don't get Brownie points for telling the truth after you've aided in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings.

And anyway, who needs further proof that BushCo lied their asses off to help get Halliburton and Friends their payday in Iraq? The only people who don't know that are never going to know it no matter how many books are printed.

Burn in hell, McClellan.

The former CIA director rightfully took a lot of heat for his transparent attempt at reputation buffing after the war had gone bad. The new book by McClellan sounds like more of the same.

I guess the "tell-all" book deal is marginally less slimy than taking a job as a political analyst on Fox news but he could have done the country a lot more good by quitting and doing a talk-show tour to tell the country what was going on inside the administration in real-time.

I also suspect that Karl Rove is correct in saying that Scott McClellan was more of an after-the-fact mouthpiece than an insider at policy meetings.

Anytime Sean Hannity asks Turd Blossom "questions", a sucking sound comes out of my television, whether I'm actually watching FOX News or not. Usually not.

The suck is loud, moist, and angry.

When the two are side by side on the same screen, the suck becomes loud, louder than anything the Spice Channel produces.

Sean Hannity is such a dirty little whore. He probably scolds his own reflection. He hates himself so much. Turd Blossom gets him erect and there's nothing he can do about it.

----

Wow, that's the weirdest post I've ever written. I must be bored. Time to go back to work.

And why do you hate America so much?

Bush lied us into war?

Bush didn't bother his widdle head too much about the aftermath of Katrina?

These things could only be news in the strange land of the talking heads in the news media.

at least part of the time .... His minions may be busy out of sight .. but, the Big Kahuna is at his desk stuck with the commitments of his new career.

I think/hope it's better than having him out there freely doing more god-knows-what

The push-back so far from both Fox and the White House seems to be the 10 of Diamonds defence - "This doesn't sound like Scott...". Or perhaps they will go with the "Body Snatchers'" scenerio, perhaps even alien abduction.

I think we can gather from the sustained sense of panic that the books is pretty much the truth, and should be a source for Congressional Committee amusement for some time to come.

The interesting part of this from what I've read, the book appears to paint Bush as the hapless bystander who was mislead by his incompetent and at times legally challanged staff. On the one hand I would like to believe that McClellan wrote this because like a victim of abuse, he couldn't really see what was going on when he was in the thick of things, and it took some distance for him to be able to see what was going on. On the other hand, I think he is being quite the friend to Bush by trying to lay the blame for everything that happened on anyone but Bush. Won't that be Bush's legal defense in the unlikely event that he is ever called to answer for his crimes? It appears to me that Bush wants to go down in history as a well-meaning visionary who was kept from greatness by his unethical advisors.

I read the Times article on the book. McClellan's claiming that he had no knowledge he was perpatrating lies, and more preposterously that Bush actually believed what he was communicating to the public about Iraq and Valerie Plame. So McClellan deserves the criticism about being in over his head.

All the same, is any of this NEWS? According to Koppelman's acticle the right isn't even bothering to challenge the truth of the claims. Only a flacid personal smear campaign. Which McClellan probably deserves.

I will miss watching him squirm during the press briefings...