CSpan Q&A: Kathleen Parker - How Dare Scott McClellan Tell The Truth Now?
By Nicole Belle Sunday Jul 06, 2008 12:00pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
On Sunday's Q&A, host Brian Lamb sat down with National Review columnist Kathleen Parker to discuss her take on the comings and goings in Washington DC. My buddy Heather noted this odd little bit of unsound morality and logic. Parker wrote a scathing piece on McClellan's book What Happened for the NRO, coming thisclose to likening him to a serial killer (No, I'm not kidding, read it yourself). See, for Parker, McClellan has reached the apex of immorality, because he listened to the Bush administration's plans, apparently put up no fight (of course, this is according to the White House, whose veracity should have dubious credibility) and then said nothing until he left the White House and wrote a book.
Don't get me wrong, if I had been in Scott McClellan's position, you could be damn sure I would be speaking up loudly and longly while in the White House. And I'd probably be out of a job and smeared within an inch of my life by the Karl Rove machine (see how they treated Paul O'Neill as an example). But for Parker, the fact that he left the White House and then spoke up makes him more deplorable than those he spoke up against.
Parker: ... I've met Scott and he is, comes across as just the sweetest, nicest fellow. I took great umbrage at this primarily because, whether the... you know, if... if he were... if he sat in those meetings where evidence was being trumped up and people are actually dying and never so much as cleared his throat or raised an eyebrow--which is what I'm told by everyone in the White House--then I think that he is guilty of something much greater than whatever he presents to the public in this book. You don't sit there and listen to what you now consider lies and know... you walk out the door. An honorable man walks out the door. And you can go and call a press conference if you are the Press Secretary of the President of the United States. You can call a press conference. You can walk out and get a book contract that day, but you don't sit through it for years and years and then say 'well, I think I'll go get a book contract and you know present basically my notes that I've taken all these years knowing that these people were doing wrong.' So I simply don't trust a person like that.
But you'll trust the ones that did the lying and put the Americans in harm's way and continue to do so? They are actually LESS offensive to your mind than someone whose conscience was so burdened that he left the job and spoke out against what happened?
Methinks someone needs their moral compass re-calibrated.
Transcripts below the fold: (thanks to Heather)
Lamb: In this particular column, this is not that long ago, May 30th, 2008 "Sometimes the answers to our most perplexing questions can be found on the playground. Take Scott McClellan. Is he dishonest? Dishonorable? Disloyal? Is he telling the truth that the Bush administration conducted an organized propaganda campaign in order to lead the country to war?" What is your analysis of Mr. McClellan?
Parker: Oh wow that's, you know I've met Scott and he is, comes across as just the sweetest, nicest fellow. I took great umbrage at this primarily because, whether the... you know, if... if he were... if he sat in those meetings where evidence was being trumped up and people are actually dying and never so much as cleared his throat or raised an eyebrow--which is what I'm told by everyone in the White House-- then I think that he is guilty of something much greater than whatever he presents to the public in this book. You don't sit there and listen to what you now consider lies and know... you walk out the door. An honorable man walks out the door. And you can go and call a press conference if you are the Press Secretary of the President of the United States. You can call a press conference. You can walk out and get a book contract that day, but you don't sit through it for years and years and then say 'well, I think I'll go get a book contract and you know, present basically my notes that I've taken all these years knowing that these people were doing wrong.' So I simply don't trust a person like that.
Lamb: Well let me take you to the other side for the purpose of getting you to expand on that. Let's say that he started working for George Bush, which he did, as you know, back when he was Governor and running for President and that he was not particularly high in the organization. He goes to Washington; he's in the press office and they need a Press Secretary and they say-- this is the cynical view of it-- send old Scott out there 'cause he'll just do exactly what we tell him to do.
Parker: Right.
Lamb: So he goes out there, and in this case, it would be somebody like Karl Rove, lies to him. And he says I'm...and he's steaming about this. You talk about the rage involved. He sits there and says 'Someday, I'm going to get back at these people.'
Parker: Well that's fine but you don't do that while people, if people are going to be killed by your inaction.
Lamb: How are people killed by his inaction?
Parker: Because if he knows that something is wrong, then you have a duty to say so. (crosstalk) I mean we all respond, we all react and depend on the quality of the information and we make our decisions accordingly, so if you know that the administration is lying, and as a consequence of those lies, people are being killed in Iraq and American lives are being sacrificed, then you have a duty to say something, immediately. Not, not, not later, not to build your case of revenge. We can all understand that human emotion but I think the, the stakes are raised too high here for that kind of, that kind of biding one's time.
Lamb: What was your reaction to the media coverage of the book? In general. Did it get as much as it deserved or should it have gotten less?
Parker: Oh I think it got plenty of attention and I... I suspect that Scott has, is going to have a long career around his book. I think he did very well, didn't he?
Login or Register to post comments.
Kathleen Parker is a wingnut. I've attempted to read her columns many times but she nauseates me.
I don't know, I can see how going along with the admin when it was convenient (you can't defend him with ignorance cause people outside the admin knew they were full of it) then going against the admin when it is convenient is a step worse than just going along when it was convenient.
I base this harshness on the fact that any of these 'tell-all' books that come out don't MEAN a thing unless they offer actionable evidence. Otherwise its just business.
If it's true it must have a liberal bias. No nuances allowed in GoPervia.
see http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/
such complete nonsense
this appears to be the GOP strategy to deal with mclellan, and parker is doing a great job continuing her role as subtle GOP water carrier
Crooks & Loonies?
She doesn't trust the mouthpiece, but trusts the criminals he fronted for.
They could have video of Bush and Cheney eating babies and it would be OK.
I'm telling you we need a BIG MARCH!!! Make a couple citizen's arrests.
Return the rule of law.
I think the comings and goings in Washington ended when Bubba left office.
I miss the horn dawg.
Some protest signs from the fourth:
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.com/2008/07/from-july-4th.html
Be the Media.
It's called a paycheck Miss! Millions of people stay in shitty ass jobs for a paycheck. Parker is clueless!
Gag me with a spoon..... Is this woman kidding??? What about Colin Powell, for starters? What about medal-toting George Tenet? All of these people KNEW that Saddam Hussein had no WMD and KNEW that thousands of American military personnel, not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, would be dying.
Hello?
This is just from another page in the KKKarl Rove book of distraction and propaganda.
I don't know Scott McClellan, but he always seemed a little timid as the press secretary, and I'm sure he was not included in all of Cheney's little strategy sessions, so he likely came to his conclusions about the war et al like a lot of Americans - very slowly as information came out.
I applaud him for at least having the chutzpah to speak out publically - even if he will benefit financially - as he has made many more Americans question what we knew and when we should have known it. And that's a good thing .
I guess she kind of makes a good point? he could have left knowing he was lying but he didn't.
but at the end of the day, her point only points out that Scott is shallow and lacks integrity, for not standing up sooner..... she still doesn't make a compelling argument that he's wrong.
***
if an embezzler witnesses a murder because he was in the office late hacking bank servers and stealing data/money, then waits 3 years to pipe up because he's scared of getting busted for theft..... and the opposing attorney argues that the embezzler lacks integrity....
...that still doesn't mean a murder didn't happen. Ms. Parker does nothing to address Mr. McClellan's assertions. she merely addresses his character. big deal...
she's got a nice set of sticks though. ;)
I've seen Miss Parkers columns, and wondered how she arrived in the present time from 1951. Her general standpoint seems to be," We should just shuttup and obey our leaders; things would be nice as pie if we would just let that nice Joe McCarthy take care of things!"
Right wingers, like Kathleen Parker, have the audacity to impugn Scott McClellan's honor, when they've stood enabling the Bush administration to commit all sorts of atrocities in our name. What's their excuse?? When are they going to come clean?? The information in Scott's book is no great revelation. He only further validated what was already obvious and so many others had been saying. As far as Scott's concerned, I say, better late than never. I imagine it would have been quite difficult for him to walk out or call a press conference while he was so close to it. I'm sure he has a lot of ambivalent feelings, even denial. After all, these people were his friends. His loyalty to Bush goes back to Texas. I also think he was being lied to, and possibly didn't want to believe it. There was obviously an unraveling process for him, and I'm sure he needed some distance to reflect. Ultimately, his patriotism and honor to his country prevailed, which is more than we can say for all the right wing talking heads. Hell, I'm still in a state of shock and disbelief at what this administration has gotten away with. And even now, it certainly appears there will be no accountability or consequences, thanks to people like Ms. Parker.
There's a grain of truth in what she says. McClellan waited until it was too late to do anything that could have prevented the mess we're in, but not too late for personally benefitting from the revelations. There's something cowardly and small about this behavior. Tenet did the same thing.
The last thing the Righties want is to have McClellan's name brought up again. I'm sure Parker got a few notes saying STFU!This was a HUGE fiasco for them and their defense is obviously no defense. Hopefully, Scottie will release a follow up book or go on a "2nd Edition" tour in October. Wouldn't that be grand.
I smell the boy lover Rove all over this laughable and desperate piece of Republic crap.
maybe there is more to this story than mcClellen has lead on........but at this point i believe this is a guy who was loyal to a fault. i personally he gave us some interesting gems about the bush administration.
If she's so outraged, why isn't she leading the way for impeachment?
She's just trying to cover her ass so in years later she can say she would've been against it had she known the truth.
Who's to say that Scott was quiet because his family was threatened? Wouldn't any one of you keep silent and "don't rock the boat" if inuendos were made about your loved ones?
I'd trust Scott. He's not the type to lie when the truth would fit better.
Seems to me the most obvious followup should have been, "in other words, Kathleen, Scott should have stood up right then and there, run out to the press and shouted 'BUSH IS LYING TO YOU! THEY'RE MAKING UP REASONS TO GO INTO IRAQ FOR THE OIL! THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND UNTOLD NUMBERS OF IRAQIS ARE DYING FOR THEIR GREED AND CRUELTY! Is that what you're saying, Kathleen?"
Her only answers would be either "Yes, exactly," or "Yes, exactly...if it were true...which...uh...it's...not?"
I've got no love for this thunderdolt, but at least she's not making the argument that Scottie is making this up. Of course, there's the hope that she doesn't have to, just pointing out that Scottie's moral compass is broken should do the trick for the wingnuts in order to doubt everything he says.
Please remember, I'm not a progressive, and don't know what I'm talking about.
Pretty run of the mill ad hominem attack, really. I would've expected nothing less from her.
I actually agree with her, in part.
If you've got a pack of rabid pit bulls -- like the entire White House cabal -- you EXPECT them to bite you. But if one of them leaves, after biting and killing for years, and shows itself to be a friendly golden retriever, he's more guilty than the others. Because he had a choice. Because he knew the difference between lies and truth.
Some of the rest of those guys -- Cheney and Rove, for instance -- really and truly have no idea what's true and what's false, no idea of the difference between caring and murder, or patriotism and betrayal.
But McClellan knew. So he's worse than those others. Because he made a conscious choice to run with them. He CHOSE lies and killing over being an honest, patriotic American. And now he's making money off revealing that.
Kathleen stood around to long with her legs apart that resulted in what brains she ever had, falling out!
Sure McClellan is guilty of silence, and being a part of Bushs propaganda machine. But its natural for someone like him an insider, loyal to his longtime boss and friend, not to speak out immediately. Takes time to process and come to terms with wrongdoings of friends and colleagues as well as his own deep involvement and responsibility Why would that make him untrustworthy?
One of the few letters I've ever had published in a newspaper was one responding the a piece by Ms. Parker saying that government should be in the "god" business (the old "freedom OF, not freedom FROM" argument).
Her grasp of facts and logic is tenuous at best....or at worst, she is a goper shill.
The wingnut bushie world doesn't have a clue what an expose is I've read that mess and it's critical of some in the WH but as to his love for bushie this has to be breaking Scott's heart He basically holds the brilliant shrub blameless. Only a lack of intellectual curiosity as a short coming
Scott McClellan's claims are still unrefuted.
She's the one who made that "bloodlines" comment regarding the candidates. I suppose that she thought "bloodlines" was classier than screaming,"OHMYGHAWD there's a big scary negro running for president!" She thought that Harry Reid was way outtaline for saying that the USA is losing in Iraq; I mean stating the truth just isn't PATRIOTIC! I'm tempted to raise the rhetorical "How the hell does this doofus rate a syndicated column?" but it's because she's just another purty white lady shilling for the military-corporate-media complex.
You know - we are all in "systems" that force us to be untruthful to ourselves at times. Family, church, government, schools - all of them must have built within the ability to be self critical. Bush formed a government system that did not have that ability. it takes awhile to adjust to the idea that "you" or "I" might be part of the problem. Scottie took awhile to get there, but seems to have grown into a man by coming out now. Sure - a book is an opportunity - but - he is pretty critical of himself in that book. Anyone who can do that has entered the "moral" world. Neither George Bush nor Karl Rove even has that capacity. Having read Obama's book - I have some hope that our next president will call us all to look at what's wrong and fix it rather than blame everything on some mythical "them". We'll see.
This is standard operating procedure. You will see it in human nature wherever you go.
If you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
It is not exclusive to the wingnuts, we have had no opportunity to see it cut the other way in a long time.
Look, Lyndon Johnson was the last lefty president we have had. He had Vietnam, they lied and the lied.
It is too bad, that is his legacy, he had social programs that did good but he is remembered for Vietnam and the economic consequences that haunted us long after that. Economic consequences that may even pale when Iraq is all said and done.
They were always scared of being seen as soft on the communists. The communists went bust, now it is the terrorists. Just fill in the blank.
The military industrial complex is always chomping at the bit to sell us everything they can. There must be someone to be afraid of or they are out of business. Walk the money around to the necessary districts and the deals get done.
A notable difference between now and Vietnam, it seems to me, is that the profession of journalism was then, in this country as far as I can tell, still in existence.
Now the Corporate media has been added to the complex and there is almost no relief in sight.
The swindle is on. It is going to be very hard to turn the spigot off.
Bushie would love to go after Iran. Oh the war profits, just imagine. We really will be busted if he does.
He and his mafioso couldn't give a rat's ass.
the crime continued:
instead of discussing the charges that mclellan has leveled, the msm is discussing whether or not mclellan is a hero or a villain.
well, who the fuck cares about mclellan? yes, he is complicit, yes he showed lack of judgment, yes he should have resigned if he had any question he was complicit in treason and war crimes.
but, holy mary mother of gahd, this is NOT the issue. again, we have a white house insider coming out with serious allegations concerning impeachable offenses. and the result? the msm and the dem leadership snooze on by.
this is EXACTLY the way the white house, the GOP, and the pelosi's of the world want mclellan's book and charges to be handled: turn this into a story about mclellan's integrity, and avoid the REAL issues.
*sigh*
Pete @ 26:
If you believe that W is somewhat dim, then it's not a huge leap to believe that he's carefully managed and only presented with the information deemed necessary by his handlers. In other words, Cheney has his hand of W's ass. I think Scottie has validated this theory somewhat.
moniker @ 27:
word. pretty much what I was saying, in a lot fewer words. destroying the messenger doesn't destroy the message once the message has been delivered.
I remember seeing a press conference w/Scott a bit before he quit, and the look in his eyes showed that it was painful for him to get up there and lie like a dog. So when he resigned, to me it meant he'd had a gut full of the BushCo line.
Kathleen Parker is a dunce and an idiot. She's killing the messenger.
I don't get it, how people can be so unclear on how other people work. Scott worked for Bush for a long time, they get to the White House, there's an insular environment that doesn't foster opposing views. Scott likes Bush, doesn't want to believe things are going wrong, takes a long time to come to grips with it. Finally does, writes a book.
Put aside the arguments of what he should have done, questions about his character, etc. Why is it so hard for people to accept this can happen? Without McClellan being a monster?
Uh, huh. Because then all the right wing hacks like her would have gotten down on their knees and worshipped at the Alter Of Scotty, right?
And Fox News would have changed it's logo to a visage of Scott.
And the White house would have re-named the day he stormed off, 'Scott McClellan Heros Day"
Yeah, all that definitely would have happened if only Scott would have had the balls. Look at the lost opportunity you had at being an Icon to the right-wing, Scott.
Unfortunately, the right-wing crap seems to work McCain still is viable. And we have seen that the right-wing pundits are rewarded very well. Limbaugh just got what $400 million and Hannity got $200 million. They'd throw their own mothers under the wheel of a bus if they had to to protect their incomes. You remember the type from high school, would do anything for attention, generally got beat up on daily basis also. We just simply have too many scared and dim-witted people in this country. The Appalachia region may swing the election. Why would anyone below the poverty line vote Republican?
I love the Bush/Cheney/Rove machine's push on McClellan. Its the old Mob Family "war on snitches".
Its ok do what these scumbags did, but the real villian here is the "snitch".
Have these media people become "made" men and women right under our noses?
Time for some RICO investigations, I think.
Am I understanding her correctly? We should go after Cheney, Rice, Powell, etc for going out and lying to the American public knowing that they were doing so? If so, I agree with her 100%.
Katie is a very creepy person; but even on the terms Crooks and Liars seems trys to take her on; She just doesn't make much sense. McClellen didn't say he knew people were lying at the time; he may well have believed Bush and Rove regaurding Plamegate, for instances. Later he discovered they were not telling the truth, and he quit.
Parker is a sickening liar herself, and stupid as a block of wood.
theWalrus @ 15:
If he lives long enough, Scottie's next book will about the trashing and thrashing he's been taking from the nutjobs he associated with for so long.
(John Dean noted in his Conservatives without Conscience that they attacked him and his wife after his Watergate revelations. They even suggested that Maureen was involved with a prostitution ring -- a complete fabrication that, nevertheless, found a welcome home in the MSM! So there is no depth too foul or ugly that the morally righteous corporate fascist right wing will not plumb to get even with a turncoat.)
(Of course, Scottie's closet is not without it's peculiar skeletons. His father, Barr, was a staunch Kennedy supporter and wrote a book about the assassination:
http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Money-Power-L-B-J-Killed/dp/0963784625/ref=s...
11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215454170&sr=1-11)
Same old right wing routine. Ignore the message and attack the messenger. How can she claim that McClellan's slowness in reporting the lies that got us into a war is worse than the lies themselves? What kind of morons buy this crap?
Another complete BS headline.
At no time does she say anything close to "how dare Scott tell the truth now." What she does say, which I agree with, is "if he knew these things at the time, he was obligated to speak then, not wait and write a book."
So, maybe a little edit would fix the headling: "how dare Scott wait until now to tell the truth."
I am happy to report that McClellan's book has been on the LA Times bestseller list the last couple of weeks, as has Vincent Bugliosi's book arguing that Bush should be indicted for murder.
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.
What's the matter with making a few bucks? Is she a commie? Besides, does she seriously contend that if Scott McClellan had remained a loyal Bushite he wouldn't have done well? Or is the Bush administration so linked to disaster and failure that even its defenders now concede that remaining loyal to Bush leads to ruin?
Did Kathleen Parker happen to mention if she read all Scott's fellow employees the riot act, when she was questioning them on his reaction to all the dirt he and they were informed of? What's wrong with this picture? Not only is Bush's entire administration without conscience or anything resembling ethics, but we know have a close up view of the workings of the minds of the MSM!
McClellan was not a policy maker. He was an employee, like the White House Chauffeur. His job was to get up on the podium in the daily press conferences and say what Rove and Cheney decided that he should say. He was a mouthpiece, nothing more. Had he protested politcy, he would have been promptly replaced by any number of others who would be more than happy to lie for the administration, such as all of the others who followed him in that job.
That woman has some supremely twisted logic.
Don't blame the killers, nor the victims- blame the witness.
She has condemned herself by her own reasoning.
parker is just one more pundit kunt tell the
truth. this group of brain-dead morons
are all eating from the bush/cheney honey bucket.
It's called "compartmentalizing." It's a Clinton-era word, meaning if you've got one big problem and somebody complains, you can make the complaint a separate issue from the problem itself.
Scott McClellan should have raised objections while still in the White House. True enough. Yet nothing he's said in the book has been challenged on its merits...his motives have simply been questioned. So, make Scott's motives a separate issue from the sins of the Bush administration that he wrote about; those we deal with through the political process, meaning we lie and obfuscate and twist facts and defend Bush no matter what.
See how easy it is to be Karl Rove?
Parker is a paid propagandist and RNC opperative.
I quit reading her column because my
blood pressure coulnd't take it.
She was in a horrible car accident some time back
and sadly she lived.
The woman is full of shit!
Scare tactics - "people may have died" geez, they never give up.
What about people who may have died because the scumbags blew the cover of a CIA agent?
Not for nothing, (and regardless of how she decides who to trust) but I do think she has a point. McClellan could have spoken out when it may have helped save lives. He didn't. Instead, he waited (while people suffered and died) and waited (while a country was destroyed) and waited (while families were torn apart) and then wrote a book on it. I don't take a romantic view of Scott McClellan. Based on what I know about him, I don't think he left the press sec job and wrote the book because his conscience was burdened. I think he left the job thinking he could make more in the private sector and I think he wrote the book when someone waved a huge wad of cash in his face. No giant wad o' $$$$$$$$$$, no purportedly conscience-clearing tell-all book.
Finally, regarding the trust factor, that's kind of ironic in this context. How much did anyone here trust Scottie 2 years ago???
Further evidence that comparing the White House administration to a criminal organization is not so far off the mark: they are expected to practice omerta.
I guess I must be a wingnut then because I apparently agree with this bint.
If you work for our government, and you know that your employers are doing something immoral, unethical or illegal it is your duty as an American citizen to bring them to task. Not wait three or four years and hope for a book deal once you're sure things are already going sour. This is especially true in cases where soldiers and innocent people are -dying- because of the immoral, unethical or illegal actions.
Sorry I don't give Scot any points from me or sitting around on his duff while Bush lied us into war. He also doesn't get any points for the way he's coming out like this. He didn't schedule a press conference to tell what he knew. He didn't contact the ACLU or some other org and spill the beans. No, he wrote a book so he could line his pockets with anti-Bush administration fervor. As far as I'm concerned his book does not absolve him of his actions. When his country needed him to speak up he stayed quiet and a lot of people died because of it. If he wants forgiveness for that he can go to church. He forgot who he really served in that job he held - the American people. This puts him in the same ball park as traitors like Yoo.
However, unlike Wingnutland I'm not going to point to him and say "This is all your fault!" and suddenly and conveniently forget that Scotty was merely a cog in a machine. Everybody else in the Bush administration is equally if not more culpable than McClellan. Scot stepped forward, even if he was a bit late to the party so I'll give him that. But ultimately people like Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell and Emperor Bush need to stand trial for their crimes and all the little second rung apple polishers need their own time in federal prison as well.
Ralph Kramden @ 49:
Yeah and if the white house chauffeur sees the President personally put a bullet in some guy's head, I expect the Chauffer to report to the authorities as well. Doesn't matter if McClellan was a policy maker or not. We as Americans all have a personal responsibility to put the safety and security of our nation ahead of the safety and security of whatever dickhead is currently in charge.
HDon @ 19:
Funny thing is, that's about the only way the neo-cons and other assorted Republican minions are going to save their party and ideology. Leading the impeachment and imprisonment charge would convince the American people that they aren't just the shill that they are.
Oh well... bye bye neo-cons. Can't say it was fun.
I think McClellan's timing was excellent. Richard Clarke walked right from the get-go, promptly wrote an excellent book, and what did it accomplish? Nada. The war drums drowned him out. But our hysteria has cooled, and too many bits and pieces of damning evidence about the Bush Administration have trickled out. McClellan's book packs a punch now, because the general public is not only ready to hear it, but to believe it as well. Not to mention, of course, that revenge is best served cold.
Yeah, well at least he said something you ingrate.
E in MD @ 57:
well said. And just like all the other reporting done on the book does absolutely nothing to refute or authenticate anything said in the book!
To Hell with the messenger, what is the message!!!!!!!!
She's another GOPOS. (Grand Ol' Piece of S***)
E in MD @ 58:
Unless you're Republican, of course.
Kathleen should take her umbrage and shove it up her self-loving wazoo. The poor man's Noron.
Let me get this straight--
Parker accepts the idea that Scott McClellan saw the Bush Administration build a phony case for war... but her only conclusion is to wag her finger at Scott McClellan for not saying anything at the time.
Isn't McClellan's honor beside the point here? The government sold an invasion with lies. People are dead. Our economy is quickly being wrecked. I could not care less about the subtleties of Scott McClellan's timing, or anything else about the god damned messenger. It's the message that's important.
How can such an enormous twit manage to grow so much hair?
better now than never..........................
anybody dare to follow before everything gets any worse?
Ms. Parker is a pious puss isn't she? These folks coming sliming from under every rock. Yuck!
I caught this interview this weekend and had a good chuckle.
First was when she claimed she wasn't a wingnut even after the host gave all the wingnut sites her column appears on. She claimed she writes for average people even and explained that her son works "on the Hill".... LOL
No, honey you are just regular people
The McClellan hit job was a piece of work - her claim is since he didn't come forward at the start then his claims are suspect..... right....... LOL
Is it just me or did she describe Mark Felt aka Deep Throat?
Distorted, even grotesque, morality defines Kathleen Parker's world view. She is content with war crimes being committed in her name, as long as she can remain blissfully unaware of details. In fact, she's made a life of not thinking about things she doesn't want to think about, like, for example, her own twisted morality. That's probably why she finds the internet so offensive. Truth makes Ms. Parker very uncomfortable about who she is as a person, intellectually and morally. Scott McClellen confronted Ms. Parker with things she'd prefer not to think about, and she hates him for doing that. It's unseemly behavior. Although I don't know, I suspect she's more offended by those who published pictures of Abu Ghraib tortures than she is by those who ordered and/or committed torture. In Ms. Parker's moral view, the pictures are unseemly, forcing her to think about things she doesn't want to think about.
As it was with Jesse Helms so it is with Kathleen Parker, beneath their courtly manner beat the hearts of a dictator and a bigot, usually the two go hand-in-hand.
This is the same psycho-bitch who called for the assassination of John Kerry in one of her columns. She claims a special forces officer said Kerry ought to be put up against the wall and shot. Of course this SF officer never existed, which is why Parker could go back and change the quote to "put up against the wall and slapped".
Here's a link
This is just a warning shot from the criminal Bush Republicans (through Kathleen Parker), a warning shot that anyone who talks about the criminally-insane machinations within the Bush White House, either after they leave or after the criminal Bush administration ends, will face the wrath of all the little lapdog supporters of the worst and most vile administration in American history.
The key is in "...if he sat in those meetings where evidence was being trumped up and people are actually dying and never so much as cleared his throat or raised an eyebrow...."
No one in the Bush administration admits that they "trumped up" things, or that they lie with every other breath, nor would a loyal lapdog like Parker normally admit such nefarious Bush/Cheney doings, unless she was trying to make a case against someone, like McClellan, who finally realized that he'd been lied to, and been told to go out in front of America and lie for the criminal Republicans doing the lying.
Scott McClellan should be applauded for what he's done. Parker should get a Bronx cheer, loud and clear.
HYPOCRITE!
So Kathleen Parker now knows as much about it as Scott McClellan knows. Yet she continues to defend them while people are being killed by her inaction by not calling them to the table for it. HYPOCRITE!
.....maybe there is more to this story than mcClellen has lead on……..but at this point i believe this is a guy who was loyal to a fault. i personally he gave us some interesting gems about the bush administration.....
Oh yes, indeed, there IS more to the story than MacClellan is letting on. Just ask District Court Judge Gladys Kessler about Case #1.04CV02122, Doe vs. CIA and Porter Goss.
Kathleen Parker is a stepford-conservative. It is so easy. You get the memo and your regurgitate it. And the newspapers wonder why people are stopping their subscriptions ... when they feature people like Kathleen Parker as opinion writers.
.....When his country needed him to speak up he stayed quiet and a lot of people died because of it. If he wants forgiveness for that he can go to church. He forgot who he really served in that job he held - the American people. This puts him in the same ball park as traitors like Yoo.....
Yes, I agree totally. It was MacClellan's responsibility to speak out when the crimes commenced, as opposed to say, someone like myself. Regarding Yoo. He's not a natural born American citizen. He's naturalized and he should be tried for war crimes, stripped of his citizenship and deported.
"Where's Bianca? Are you Bianca? I want to talk to Bianca. I'm sorry Bianca isn't here. If she were here, I would be glad to answer her question. The King of Jordan is also looking for Bianca". George W. Bush, September 22, 2005
I have exhausted my tolerance for your bullshit !
I'm glad you're not my lawyer - I would be in JAIL ! Go Scooter ?
Is Kathleen Parker saying that Scott McClellan is complicit with war crimes that never happened or that only happened in his opinion? Is she saying that his beliefs should have taken him to a press conference without commenting as to whether there is any truth to his beliefs? If that's the case then where to begin?
Mr. McClellan is complicit to an extent with the Bush regime's criminal activities, but that he was willing to come forward at least after the fact and blow the whistle puts him morally above the many co-conspirators who are still "just following orders". Is Ms. Parker arguing primly for honor among thieves and against whistleblowers? Does she take issue with monetizing life experience and free speech? Is she saying that the wrong-doing that Mr. McClellan writes about never actually happened or that it doesn't matter if it did? If so, how corrupted is this woman's ethics?
I'd love to ask her these question.
Since when did so many journalist get the right to punditize and pontificate ? Kristol, Rove, Krugmann, etc - so much intellectual honesty, I prefer to have SpongeBob (gay ?) read the news from now on. That's why I prefer the wry sense of humor of Allistair Yates on the BBC; no bull, just the news. Can we have this here please ? I also like the CBC and the Fifth Estate - remember Ann Coulter (journali... I can't bear to say it !) saying that Canada was in Vietnam ? If someone doesn't admit to gravity being a law (aka - it's fact until tests show otherwise), then how can you reason or even begin an argument with this primates, as they are just thumping their chests, in a feeble and conceited attempt to get you to buy their products or the products that are advertised during the show. ARGHHHHHH !
Seems to me the most obvious followup should have been, "in other words, Kathleen, Scott should have stood up right then and there, run out to the press and shouted 'BUSH IS LYING TO YOU! THEY'RE MAKING UP REASONS TO GO INTO IRAQ FOR THE OIL! THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND UNTOLD NUMBERS OF IRAQIS ARE DYING FOR THEIR GREED AND CRUELTY! Is that what you're saying, Kathleen?"
I agree 100% and was wondering where Peter Lamb went at this point...it seems as though he doesn't have a clue how to do an interview with someone so off base as this piece of shithead Parker as this was an ideal time to box her into a corner.....when are we going to get someone in the press that knows how to do an interview with ANY OF THESE IDIOTS ???
mrpopo - here here ! Thank God for Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman, for otherwise, I fear that we would devolve into 1984 infamy for having a braindead electorate, a scheming 5th estate and a governing body that is slowly chiseling away our souls and our livelihoods to their cohort of devils.
McClellen IS culpable.
Yes Kathleen,Scott's the guilty one. It's not Bush or Cheney,or any of the other members of this crime filled administration. Or the
reporters like yourself who helped with the propaganda (and still are). Yes,it's all Scott McClellans fault. How delusional...
The DC Madam spoke up, and where is she now?
It's hard to diss "the mob" (gangsters) when you're in the midst of it.
Better late than never.
parker has a 20-20 holier than thou argument against McClellan, with a jealous snippy, end comment to boot.
Parker tries to shill two key pieces of BS here. One, that the Bush administration acts in good faith and welcomes principled dissent. Two, that McClellan is somehow more culpable than Bush, Cheney, Rove and the gang.
I've never considered Scottie a hero of any sort. He wrote a book to make money. He is an admitted liar, and has no credibility.
If he wrote the book to ease his conscious, good for him. But, I ain't buying it.
with media ownership as concentrated as it is, i'm not surprised that a lightweight like parker is carried in so many newspapers. i am surprised that brian lamb would bother interviewing her on cspan.
what a skank! she's about as useless a human being as Bush and cheney are. she can shove her judgment, for it clearly is worth nothing. i doubt she's ever objected to one thing that Bush and cheney have done or wrought. failure of a journalist.
There are several levels to humanity just as there are several levels to what motivates a Scott McClellan, a Tim Russert or even a Chris Hitchens at the worst points in their lives.
I'm always thankful for when someone on the wrong path ultimately chooses the correct one at long last.
Hank Fox @ 23:
The flaw in that argument lies with the fact that the Administration would fire anyone who stood up to them.
That exerts a kind of natural-selection force on the staff they keep: The ones who speak up die a death, the True Believers propser, and the simpering toadies who know better but don't say anything (e.g., McClellan) survive on the scraps.
To expect folks like McClellan to take a stand and end their career because they don't like what's going on just adds to the rot: odds are that they'll be replaced by a True Believer, and one more of the country's institutions will fall to the neocons.
... which, in retrospect, is precisely what happened when Tony Snow took over anyway. I don't think we'll be seeing any retrospective books from him. And Dana Perino doesn't seem like she's clever enough to know how to write, so she's probably a lost cause too.
McClellan no doubt faced the same dilemma that everyone faces when they're stuck in a corrupt system: "Do I attempt to use persuasion and influence to enact reform, do I do nothing, or do I throw rocks from the outside?" McClellan appears to have chosen the second alternative during his tenure and the final alternative in 2008. Considering the utter impossibility of the first alternative in the Bush/Rove/Cheney administration, what else would anyone have him do?
Newt @ 95:
McClellan no doubt faced the same dilemma that everyone faces when they're stuck in a corrupt system: "Do I attempt to use persuasion and influence to enact reform, do I do nothing, or do I throw rocks from the outside?" McClellan appears to have chosen the second alternative during his tenure and the final alternative in 2008. Considering the utter impossibility of the first alternative in the Bush/Rove/Cheney administration, what else would anyone have him do?
Exactly. And the fact that he has the balls to speak out about it at all now makes him both factually AND historically accurate -- and brave.
Newt said the first part part up there ^, sorry.
parker makes a good point.
so, why hasn't she walked out the door yet?
oh i see, "do as i say don't do as i do".
hypocrit.
I think it is time to recall the "Swift Boats for Truth" organization that was used effectively of John Kerry. Scot McClellen was no vietnam war hero. He was never in vietnam and never saved anones life in 'Nam.
Actually, the GOP and corporate media has been exposing themselves over Scotty. Really desperately, don't you think.
Even Crotchety Novack that was tainted in the Plame outing came out in attacking good ole Scotty.
Yeah, Novack and his involvement with the Plame outing Scotty speaks out on. Interestingly sensitive aren't they?
Probably not the site to make this comment on, but, I think she was pretty damn reasonable. I think she was more reasonable than the average left-winger or right-winger pundit. I hate xenophobic right wingers, but, the stalwart left wingers are just as bad. Just because you claim to be progressive or inclusive doesn't make it so.
Kathleen Parker is a horrid, bloodthirsty woman. It's a shame that she was even posted here to promote her poison.
In the far future, tapes such as this woman's words will not only be laughable; but, all these Bush enablers, participators..., will be know only as traitors.
I have to agree with her. Yes, Scott should have told everyone what he knew much sooner than he did. He has blood on his hands as a result. That would have been the HONORABLE thing for him to have done.
However -- that doesn't mean that his coming out after the fact is dishonorable. It's not enough to wipe his hands clean of that blood -- and I suspect ole Scotty knows that deep inside.
Let him try to drink his demons away -- like the vast majority of Rethugs do.
'longly' is not a word.
Kathleen is just following orders! The pResident had a meeting with her and Jonah Goldberg on June 30th. Each wrote a column shortly aftewards, without either mentioning who else was there. Probably because they were the only two names that reichwing Americans would recognize. Any other rightie writer of note refused to attend or was not invited because they wrote Bush off long ago.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6147
Parker is one of those Kristol-like "pundits" who is always wrong on every subject. It's amazing. Her columns turn up in our local paper and I have to laugh and shake my head all the way through each one. It's like she lives on a different planet.
Sure, Ms. Parker, Scott McClellan is the ONLY person in the Bush administration who knew they were lying us into war. So McClellan is the villain for not speaking up while he was still press secretary yet everyone else in the Bush administration is a saint. Because none of them knew they were lying us into war. That makes perfect sense.
I also found Ms. Parker's last comment that "he is doing very well, isn't he?" to be very snide and crass. It shows how nasty Kathleen Parker really is.
.....“Where’s Bianca? Are you Bianca? I want to talk to Bianca. I’m sorry Bianca isn’t here. If she were here, I would be glad to answer her question. The King of Jordan is also looking for Bianca”. George W. Bush, September 22, 2005.....
Hmmm. September 22, 2005. Right about the time Bush's (and if I may use Joe Biden's favorite word) INCOMPETENT State Department announced it would no longer amend passports. Gee, I wonder what brought them to THAT conclusion, LOL? And by the way K, it's not bullshit to me!
She irritates me beyond belief. Chris Matthews has her on his Sunday show often and I make sure I have the "mute" button on stand-by. She claims that if you know someone is lying, and lives are at stake, then you have a duty, a responsibility to speak out. If that is true, and she actually thinks that...then how do you account for the fact that the mainstream media, Parker included, sat idly by and told/wrote the American people all of the administration's talking points that they KNEW were not true leading up to the war in Iraq? If Scott McClellan said one thing right in his book, it was how the press rolled over and were guilty of complete and utter complacency and they enabled this administration to run wild without any questions. You noticed how a lot of them got their tail feathers ruffled at the suggestion that they didn't do their jobs (Hello...Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, David Gregory!! and many others) or ask enough probing questions.
Parker was correct on one point...we (the public) rely on factual information and then we can make our decisions accordingly. The press fed us complete bunk for 7 1/2 years and now they have ZERO credibility. There is not ONE single mainstream media person that I trust to tell the complete truth. Not one.
It is infuriating.
This Kate is talking complete nonsense imo, sure an honest person should speak out, but we all know what would have happened if Scott would have come out within a couple of months - Bush & the hit squad would have assassinated his character without blinking an eye. No book deal or nothing after a few weeks as the spokesperson. They would have annihilated him much like they are doing now when he has gathered the courage to speak out.
It isn´t easy to be honest and truthful in the US when everyone you rely on for you and your family´s living depends on you doing your job for a corrupt and evil president. You´re torn between duty and conscience and it´s natural that a fight like that takes a while. Especially if you have not been the one that rocks the boat.
Login or Register to post comments.