A bit of trivia; Scott’s father, Barr McClellan, wrote a book too after being disallowed from practicing law. Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK (2003) maintains Lyndon B. Johnson was a conspirator in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy at the behest of Clint Murchison and H.L. Hunt with the intent of locking in oil company profits.
[QUOTE=DoctorJ]
You have to understand, he was snorting anything anybody put in front of him back then. Who knew what any of it was? Not him, that’s for damn sure.
[/QUOTE]
I do understand. He’s admitting he was so shit-faced drunk he doesn’t know what he was doing then. (One could have a lot of fun with this. One could accuse him of having murdered someone, or having baked some English muffins, or whatever, and he’d have to admit that it’s possible.)
Anyway. I find it interesting that part of the stock response (and by the way, isn’t it interesting that everyone connected with the administration obviously got the same “dis McClellan” memo) is that McClellan “did it for the money”. This suggests that either a) they neglected to “take care of him” (oops), or b) intentionally cut him off (and this is his revenge).
On preview: I quibble with lieu’s suggestion of a causal relationship between Barr McClellan’s disbarment and his writing of a "conspiracy book’ - the folks who produce that crap need no external prompting. Tho’ I must admit that when I heard about that book recently it made me wonder how far Scott may have fallen from the tree.
[QUOTE=Sampiro]
I hope when Scott McLellan goes on The Daily Show to pimp the book (and I’ve few doubts that he will) that Stewart (who journalist or not is one of the few who does call “Bullshit!” [to both parties and to the media]) will skip the (usually lame anyway) middle segment and give him 2/3 of the show for an interview. I wouldn’t mind if he spread it over two nights even.
[/QUOTE]
According to thedailyshow.com, he’s Monday’s guest.
[QUOTE=lieu]
A bit of trivia; Scott’s father, Barr McClellan, wrote a book too after being disallowed from practicing law. Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK (2003) maintains Lyndon B. Johnson was a conspirator in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy at the behest of Clint Murchison and H.L. Hunt with the intent of locking in oil company profits.
[/QUOTE]
As JFK conspiracy theories go, that one actually sounds plausible. At any rate, it jibes with Hunt’s deathbed confession.
Now Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) wants McClellan to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
As JFK conspiracy theories go, that one actually sounds plausible. At any rate, it jibes with Hunt’s deathbed confession.
[/QUOTE]
Please tell me you mean Hunt’s purported death-bed confession. . . .
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
Please tell me you mean Hunt’s purported death-bed confession. . . .
[/QUOTE]
If you can’t trust Rolling Stone, who can you trust? 
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Yes, but treating it this way discards an important political tool. McCain can be attacked through this book — unless, of course, we do his work for him and discredit it.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure I get your point. Bush’s cohorts are the ones trying to discredit it.
Are you saying that by embracing it, liberals are inviting the inevitable negative associations and backlash?
[QUOTE=sqweels]
I’m not sure I get your point. Bush’s cohorts are the ones trying to discredit it.
Are you saying that by embracing it, liberals are inviting the inevitable negative associations and backlash?
[/QUOTE]
I believe he’s saying too many liberals are skeptical about the book as well.
So how might this book effect House and Senate races? In the same way McClellan calls out the press for not asking tough enough questions; what about members of Congress who didn’t just ‘not ask questions’, but who were just as gung-ho as the Administration in their rhetoric? Beyond Obama v McSame, could this book have an even greater effect on, and lead to even more turnover in Congress this fall?
[QUOTE=tds1273]
So how might this book effect House and Senate races? In the same way McClellan calls out the press for not asking tough enough questions; what about members of Congress who didn’t just ‘not ask questions’, but who were just as gung-ho as the Administration in their rhetoric? Beyond Obama v McSame, could this book have an even greater effect on, and lead to even more turnover in Congress this fall?
[/QUOTE]
I hope even more it has a salutary effect on the media, and particularly on media management, who were deeply complicit.
Too true. I think we are already starting to see the real scum of the press pool float to the surface. Those that are honest in their failure and those who are taking the WH lead and playing the “who me?” card.
From what I’ve seen so far, you have the three-ring clown circus tour of Couric, Gibson, and Williams (in Couric’s defense she was slightly more honest than the others). Matthews was actually pretty good on HB last night; he also didn’t let Ari Fleischer get away with the WH’s talking points that day. I’m sure it is CYA, but at least he is acknowledging the press’ and his failures and what the WH did. MC Rove’s own fly-girl, David Gregory, is a tool of the highest degree.
deleted, double post.
As over the top as he can be at times, I can honestly say I don’t believe Keith Olbermann, even in his limited viewership on cable, has shied away from calling a spade a spade.
Tonight’s interview should be very interesting, although I wish it were with a conservative pundit I respected.
[QUOTE=tds1273]
Too true. I think we are already starting to see the real scum of the press pool float to the surface. Those that are honest in their failure and those who are taking the WH lead and playing the “who me?” card.
From what I’ve seen so far, you have the three-ring clown circus tour of Couric, Gibson, and Williams (in Couric’s defense she was slightly more honest than the others). Matthews was actually pretty good on HB last night; he also didn’t let Ari Fleischer get away with the WH’s talking points that day. I’m sure it is CYA, but at least he is acknowledging the press’ and his failures and what the WH did. MC Rove’s own fly-girl, David Gregory, is a tool of the highest degree.
[/QUOTE]
What effect do you think this will have on the presidential race? Do you think that in an attempt to not seem chicken, the press will be harder on McCain? Or would that have happened anyway, once the general really gets going? Do you think that this will have the effect of the press being harder on the White House regarding Iran?
What has Olbermann said? I’m a big Olbermann fan, but to be honest, I’ve never seen clips of him or started watching him before, about '05. What was he like in the run up? I’m anxious to see his interview with McClellon tonight; even more anxious for The Daily Show next Monday, however.
In Keith’s defense when the General-gate broke a few weeks ago; he was one of the few I saw even acknowledge it. It was fleeting though, I haven’t heard anything since. He did make the implicit statement “how do we know it is not still going on?”. Take as many grains of salt as you see fit with all that.
[QUOTE=tds1273]
What has Olbermann said? I’m a big Olbermann fan, but to be honest, I’ve never seen clips of him or started watching him before, about '05. What was he like in the run up?
[/QUOTE]
Do a search on “Keith Olbermann” “Special Comment” and “Bush.”
For as long as he’s been on Countdown, he hasn’t given the Bush administration (or Bill O’Reilly, hehe) a pass.
I watch Olbermann everyday and know he’s extremely partisan. That’s one reason I’d be interested in seeing what Scott would have to say while in the hot seat being grilled by a conservative pundit I respect.
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Tonight’s interview should be very interesting, although I wish it were with a conservative pundit I respected.
[/QUOTE]
There are conservative pundits you respect? :eek:
[QUOTE=sqweels]
There are conservative pundits you respect? :eek:
[/QUOTE]
My point exactly.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
As JFK conspiracy theories go, that one actually sounds plausible. At any rate, it jibes with Hunt’s deathbed confession.
[/QUOTE]
I think you have your Hunt’s crossed. H. L. Hunt versus E. Howard Hunt. Different people entirely.
Enjoy,
Steven