Tool

Couldn’t miss the grand disclosure event of Scott McClellan’s book and now his testimony before the National Board of Professional Panderers, even if I wanted to. Here it is, the smoking gun that every red-blooded Democrat congress-critter knew was there. A book, an insider spilling his guts, an attention grabbing appearance before the flashing strobes and blinding TV lights all creating a platform for posturing of the highest order. Read all about it here:

Wha'd He Say??

The question you’ve got to be asking yourself is, “do I feel lucky? Well, do you punk?” Oops, excuse me. Got carried away there. The question you’ve got to ask is, what is driving this guy? What is his motivation? Is it money? Clearly a lot is being made from the book and the testimony is only going to pump the sales. Is it notoriety? Certainly he is going to rank right up there in my mind with Brutus, Quisling, Vichy, Hiss, Arnold and other traitors of note. Is it justice? If it is, then I’ve got to wonder for what mistreatment. Is it for political gain? Can’t see who is going to vote for him. He’s burned his Republican bridges and despite his current short-term usefulness, Democrats will remember him as the guy who lied for Bush even though he served them this week.

So, let’s pull some quotes from the news item, just to see what was really said. I’m not sure I even have to point out the problems. When taken out of the flowing mass media rhetorical flights and seen in their isolated simplicity, they speak for themselves.

On Karl Rove:

“He should have stood by his word,” Mr. McClellan said, adding that Congress should push for testimony from more senior officials but shouldn’t take Mr. Rove at his word even if they get him under oath.” –duh? Why then take testimony?

On being lied to by the President or being told to lie for him:

“Under questionng from Rep. Ric Keller, R-FL, Mr. McClellan conceded that the president had never asked him to shade the truth, use innuendo or employ propaganda, nor ordered anyone else to do so in his presence.”---some smoking gun!

On impeachment:

“Mr. McClellan said he sees no basis for impeachment, but he pulled few punches in arguing that Mr. Bush misled him and the public over important matters…”---so, no lying, no impeachment, simply Mr. McClellan felt misled. Outrageous.

Or on Scooter Libby’s outing of Valerie Plame when told to report that Libby denied it:

“I was reluctant to do it” Mr. McClellan told the committee. “I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, ‘Were you involved in this in any way?” And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not.”—tough call to make there, Scott, but I’d have to take the words at face value.

The only conclusion one can draw is that Mr. McClellan has fallen victim to his own warped culture of innuendo and less-than-half truths. He says nothing and believes emphatically that it is something. And, that nothing/something he says means anything of importance to anyone.

But, the great unwashed are lapping it up. Sheila Jackson-Lee was wetting her panties with joy over it. I kept flashing back on Travis, Bowie, Crockett, Houston and other Texans as she oozed her Texas pride over McClellan, declaring him a worthy Texan compatriot of herself.