Blogged by Brad from the road…
The testimony was interrupted by House floor votes shortly after it began, but not before opening statements from Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), ranking member Lamar Smith (R-TX), and Scott McClellan himself (text here), as well as a single round of questions from Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Howard Coble (R-NC).
Not surprisingly, the Dems were respectful to the former WH Press Secretary, and even Coble was restrained and decent-ish in his first set of questions on behalf of the Republicans, following Smith’s predictable attempts to try and smear McClellan and his publisher (as little more than operatives of the evil evil master overlord of all things not-Republican: George Soros).
Smith’s opening statement — characterized as “character assassination” which “has no place in this committee,” as Nadler described it — likely portends what’s to come from the bulk of the Republicans should the hearings ever get re-started this morning.
In the meantime, McClellan, to his credit, again has refused to back off of his claims even one iota. As legendary “Pentagon Papers” whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg wrote to us recently, following McClellan’s recent Fox “News” appearance, in which he stood up to bully boy Bill O’Reilly, “he sounded to me as though he had ACQUIRED, even if belatedly, the instincts of a whistleblower (and he’s paying the usual social price for that with respect to all his old colleagues, though compensated by royalties).”
With all of that in mind, Smith’s opening statement (video now posted at left, text posted below), described the hearing as “the Judiciary Committees first book of the month club meeting” before proceeding to plug Ann Coulter’s book. He then accused McClellan of “selling out the president and his friends for a few pieces of silver.” It was something to behold, and demonstrated (yet again) just how far these guys are willing to go to protect the Administration (versus offering oversight, as required by the Constitution) when they need to.
Remember, this hearing has to do with an administration, for the first time in the history of this nation, having revealed the identity of a covert CIA operative…and one who was monitoring WMD traffic in the Middle East, of all things.
The text of Smith’s complete opening statement follows in full…
Hearing on “Revelations by Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan”
Welcome to the Judiciary Committee’s first book of the month club meeting. Today it’s Scott McClellan’s “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”. I propose that next time we consider Ann Coulter’s recent book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).
It’s hard to take Mr. McClellan or this hearing seriously. Despite what Mr. McClellan says regarding Iraq, three different studies – the Senate Intelligence Committee report of 2004, the Robb-Silberman report of 2005, and Britain’s Butler report – conclude that intelligence reports were not altered in the lead up to the Iraq war.
And, despite the book’s innuendo, a three-year independent criminal investigation found that no White House officials “leaked” Valerie Plame’s name to the media in violation of the law.
Also, it should be of no surprise that there was spin in the White House press office. What White House has not had a communications operation that advocates for its policies? Any recent Administration that did not try to promote its priorities should be cited for dereliction of duty.
Many have asked why Mr. McClellan did not object to what he saw while he was at the White House. The reason is clear: There was nothing to object to.
Last Monday, at the Dallas/Ft. Worth airport, I had a conversation with an airline employee who asked me what I was working on. I mentioned this hearing and she, a self-proclaimed Democrat, replied, “Why are you having him? All he did was write a book.” It appears many Americans might have trouble taking this hearing seriously.
Motives are important. We don’t really know Mr. McClellan’s motives-he says he had a revelation, which contradicts everything he said and did for two and a half years.
There are some questions we may never get the answer to:
- What really explains going from a loyal and trusted staff member to a person who makes biting accusations?
- Since Mr. McClellan has included no footnotes in his book, and few direct quotes or written memos are cited, is the book just a typical opinion piece, without evidence to support its assertions?
- Mr. McClellan was asked to leave his job. Did this color his views? Did he just want to strike back at those who showed him to the door?
- What role did money play? So far, he has not revealed what he was paid for the book-or what he stands to gain by promoting it. Clearly Peter Osnos, the Editor-at-Large for Mr. McClellan’s publisher PublicAffairs, would have known that an inflammatory book would sell more copies and make more money for all concerned.
- How much influence did a biased editor have on the finished product? What edits were made to the original manuscript to make it more critical of the Administration? We do know that Mr. Osnos and PublicAffairs have published six books by George Soros. Mr. Soros was the largest donor to Democratic 527 groups during the 2004 presidential election, giving over $23 million. And we know that Mr. Osnos himself has been highly and publicly critical of the Bush Administration. Also, Mr. McClellan’s project editor for the book, Karl Weber, has written venomous statements about the President, for example, calling him “a clearly horrible person”.
So, who is the real Scott McClellan? The one who actually wrote in his book that the administration did not employ “deception” and said: “Some critics have suggested that sinister plans were discussed at the [White House Iraq Group] meetings to deliberately mislead the public. Not so.” Or the one who elsewhere in the same book leveled self-serving accusations?
While we may never know the answers, Scott McClellan alone will have to wrestle with whether it was worth selling out the President and his friends for a few pieces of silver.
He will have to confront whether he was manipulated by extremely biased editors with a partisan agenda.
And finally, sooner or later, he will have to answer to his own conscience.
Re: Lamar Smith
We’re watching a cult in action.
Smith, like all conservative/Republican leaders, knows full well that McClellen is telling the truth but their job is to keep their cult following from believing or even listening to it. They must keep them in a false reality to survive, just like a cult.
This is what has occurred over the last 25 years. The right does not debate information, reality. They have demonized any source of information which runs counter to their right wing, authoritarian, theocratic, corporate shilling, anti-science and homophobic ideology. This demonization is a form of information control, a huge mind control technique used by cults.
They no longer have a sense of proportion – they see Olberman as the other side of an O’Reily coin.
People wonder, “What happened to the conservatives? When do Republicans accept their leaders crapping on the constitution? Why do they support their leader even when his lawbreaking and lying us into his plan-free war is so obvious?†That is what has happened to them. Rush, as one example, has conditioned them like a cult for 3 hours a day, five days a week for 18 years. David Koresh did not condition his cult following that much.
Why do you think they so easily pass on these reality-free emails? They actually believe them; they are conditioned to do so.
Look up “Gingrich GOPAC memoâ€, a cult like use of language control, and another huge mind control technique.
“Democrat Party†is not even proper english, yet they ALL in unison use it. Another example of language control used to smear and deceive.
It has its roots with McCarthy:
http://www.bartleby.com/68/27/1727.html
Conservatives live in a false reality. They are literally a national security problem. Our nation, no democratic republic, can survive when half its citizens live in a false reality.
One of the floor votes was to celebrate the complete capitulation of the House to the Bush regimes’ FISA demands… practically unlimited warrantless surveillance and guaranteed telecom immunity… and Obama? I guess the crickets must have drowned his voice out…
Every single yea vote is a traitor that must go!
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml
Brown-assed Waite didn’t vote, she must have gotten hammered he-he.
Zapper, Obama’s position in the update here
Link
Lamar says:
I’m warming up to McClellan who said it would be helpful to have Cheney and the rest of them put under oath at hearings. Maybe Lamar can take THAT hearing concerning treason seriously.
Selling out this bunch of thugs for a piece of dried poop would be a trade to display proudly on your mantle.
I’m pissed. I cannot seem to get the sound on the C-SPAN video archive of this hearing. I want to listen to the whole thing.
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq062008_mclellan.rm
It’s not my player, not my computer, all the rest of them work, just not this one.
Anybody know how to get their attention quickly?
Chilling Effect anyone?
Makes me not want to use phone, or web.
I guess net neutrality will be next.
Then they’ll start rounding us up.
All because of these voting machines.
Video of the whole hearing is available, and functioning, here.
Ancient wrote:
Every single yea vote is a traitor that must go!
Well, I’ve heard that sentiment one “election” cycle after the other and I see where it has gotten us. Nowhere. And especially with these easily-hackable electronic voting machines all over the place now. I’ve heard that sentiment about as often as I’ve heard the “we must do…” stuff. (Yeah, all 30-50 of us). I’m sure they will pay attention to “we” since these Traitors to the US Constitution in congress don’t give a fuk what any of us think and one would think that most people would have figured that out by now. How much more does one need to see to understand that? Sigh. None of this “we must do” or “every Traitor must go” stuff amounts to anything in the end. It’s just wishful-thinking and not realistic.
For example, the wishful-thinking Dem koolaid drinkers were convinced that Lieberman was out and couldn’t possibly “win” against Lamont. One sees how that turned out with the Dem koolaid drinkers sitting there with koolaid all over their faces.
A couple of these Traitors might be somehow voted out, only to be replaced with other Traitors in the end, despite their campaign rhetoric to fool the gullible. Because once they get in there (in congress) they realize in order for themselves to be successful as a senator or representative they must follow the so-called “leadership.” (The pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-Bush “leadership” that is). Otherwise the new congresspeople will end up like a Kucinich, as one example. Minimized.
As for the term “Democrat Party,” who gives a fuk what you call it at this point. The Democratic Party is dead so I don’t think it matters what you call it. Because it should be as clear as day to anyone who has been paying close attention since 2000 that the former Democratic Party is now an equal part of the Bush-Republicrat Crime Syndicate.
Even Clinton’s labor secretary, Robert Reich, said the Democratic Party was dead way back in 2001:
The Democratic Party is Dead
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0311-01.htm
How much more evidence does one need to see that?…assuming you want to see it, that is. That seems to be the problem with many people. They don’t want to see it and they still want to believe in this corrupt one-party system. And they want to believe that their beloved Dems—just because these scum of the earth Bush-enabling Traitors have a “D” behind their name—are somehow still what they’ve been programmed to think the Dems are.
I heard a caller last night tell a talk show host the truth about the dead Democratic Party. The talk show host responded by saying, “I hate to agree with you” and the talk show host sounded resigned to it all.
If I had been the caller I would have asked: Why would you hate to agree with the truth and the reality?
Because if you agreed with the caller you would have to realize that your party is dead and you don’t have a party any longer, and you’ve been grasping on to this dead party ever since 2000 and railing against it out of one side of your mouth (on one night) and then out of the other side of your mouth (on another night) claiming that the so-called two parties are not the same or resisting the idea! The talk show host did say that his friends say to him, “you’ve been around for a long time. You can’t possibly be that naive to not see this.”
He doesn’t want to see it, like many others. It’s called Denial. Denial is a very comfortable place for many people these days. And one’s Denial helps continue the status quo.
P.S. And Mr “Hope/Change” Obama is FOR the FISA bill. Anyone surprised? When just a month ago he said he was against it. LISTEN UP CLOSELY. That’s “change” all right isn’t it?! How many people have bought into that meaningless “change” bull shit/propaganda from this man?
Cynthia McKinney/Gonzales/Nader are the only real candidates for change.
By the way, Bush/Cheney were very happy and cheerful today while they were heard saying “didn’t we get much more than we ever dreamed we would?” They were happy and amazed at how well they did because of the Republicrats.
This nation can withstand a third party. Let Obama debate someone real:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/18/ralph_nader_on_barack_obama_it
I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough of the two faces of the coin!
You somehow got in there before my next post Erma. Total agreement.
This crooked neocon smith had all the Gopee Rovian talking points down pat. Looks like the rethugs are going to defend treason, torture, war crimes, murder and illegal spying.
November is going to be a friggin landslide, not a repub will be left in office come November 4th!
And it also looks like the Democrats intend to help them.
COMMENT #12 FreedomOfInformationAct wrote:
“This crooked neocon smith had all the Gopee Rovian talking points down pat. Looks like the rethugs [Ed. AND Dems…you conveniently left them out] are going to defend treason, torture, war crimes, murder and illegal spying. November is going to be a friggin landslide, not a repub will be left in office come November 4th!”
Oh really? I spoke of Denial earlier which seems to be your condition. Despite all the information on this blog about e-voting and the problems with it, I take it that you’ve never heard of Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S and Hart Intercivic easily hackable e-voting machines. Do you not remember the presidential “elections” of 2000 and 2004? Why would you think 2008 would be any different?
And even if a politician who calls him/herself a “Republican” were not left in office come November 4th, nothing would change.
Did you happen to be one of the people who were jumping up and down with premature celebration and wishful-thinking false hope the night of the 2006 “election” after the Dems became the majority in power in congress? Also, did you happen to be one of the people who said that this Pelosi was not serious when she said “impeachment is off the table” well before the 2006 “election?”
Fun at dkos…
… where the motto is “Elect more Democrats who will cave even better!”…
… although the dkosian leadership has officially only said “Tough luck, good fight, give Dems more money”… those who are protesting Obama’s proactive capitulation are nonetheless being labeled… and get this… as “purity trolls”
And apparently a congress
crittercrapper has said that the “left” were thought to have learned their lesson “after Nader” and that such people were honestly expected by the Dem cavership to sit down, shut up, and shell out bucks for the Dems no matter what.I think I detect a critical miscalculation or three…
I move that we should hereinafter refer to everyone in the legislative branch as “congresscrappers”!
And, quoth the estimable MiniFafblog:
[Well, excepting Dennis Kucinich… even though he has guilt by association, he’s manfully been bucking that association to do the right thing… so I’ll still refer to him as a Congressman.]
It’s true that many Democratic politicians are actually rightwing slugs. Yet, it’s still strange how every thread at BradBlog having to do with Republican corruption gets hijacked into an attack on the Democratic Party.
Then Agent99 chimes in with a comment about “congresscrappers.” Only time I have heard anything like that has been with some made up word democrappers.
Rove/Atwater Incorporated continues to get the job done.
Check it out. Every BradBlog thread exposing the Republicans gets turned into this by the usual suspects with Agent99 right there to support them.
Will this post be deleted? You never know with Agent99.
You misspelled “… gets compared and contrasted with Democratic enablement that made the Republican corruption possible.”
Hey! That’s my thunder… don’t let 99 swipe it! 😉
COMMENT #17 Socrates wrote:
It’s true that many Democratic politicians are actually rightwing slugs. Yet, it’s still strange how every thread at BradBlog having to do with Republican corruption gets hijacked into an attack on the Democratic Party.
Well imagine that. I wonder why that is?! Hmmmmmm. Is it really that difficult for one to understand? I think not, if one wants to understand it, that is. To me, it’s a given why this is the case. And I sense it is a given to most people on here. Granted, the Dem koolaid drinkers—who resort to all kinds of weak defenses and excuses to defend these Traitors—are not likely to understand it. Because they are blinded by their constant need to try to excuse and defend these Dems, at least out of one side of their mouth on occasion.
I know what to expect from the Repugs, the scum Traitors that they are. And it was/is a given to me what to expect from the Repugs before 2000 and to the present.
But before 2000 it was not a given—at least to me—that the Dems would become Bush-enablers and Bush ass eaters after 2000 to the present. And it is precisely for this reason that the Dems are attacked, as well they should be. They are supposed to be the opposition party, not the enabling party as they have been since 2000 to this day. That is why they are attacked, or at least that why I attack them.
I suggest someone get some thicker skin and stop drinking the Dems’ koolaid if one has a problem with the Dems being attacked.
I heard some Dem koolaid drinkers call in last night on a talk show and I swear, they sound loonier and loonier. They resort to all kinds of irrational and illogical excuses and lame defenses for these Dems.
Some damn fool e-mailed the talk show host and said “remember the Supreme Court.” Yeah, they are dragging that thing out again as the #1 reason that people must support the Dems.
Well, the talk show host explained on air to this fool that it was the Dems who helped give us Alito and Roberts. WAKE UP! Are you that damn dense? Is your attention span that damn short? Jesus fuking christ. So that Supreme Court argument doesn’t fly any longer, except with the goddamn fool Dem koolaid drinkers.
These people piss me off! They are such suckers and they don’t seem to learn at all from the past.
I’m sorry Zap. I was just so demoralized from yesterday’s apocalyptically Nazi performance that your — elegant — term caught me just right, and I wanted to amplify it.
It’s good when this kind of thing happens. Who would have known that Smith was such an ass wipe without this. Congress…morons on parade.
All these fuckin obstructionist republicans & pelosi must voted out.
COMMENT #22 Bamboo Harvester wrote:
All these fuckin obstructionist republicans & pelosi must voted out.
I believe that was touched on up in Comments #9 and #14.
Bruce
Yeah, watching these hearings is enlightening… really helps one keep a bead on who’s who and how our lives are being decided, but it ain’t for the faint of heart, that’s for sure.
#14 Erma
Erma’s putting in edits of his own but making it look like it was done by someone from BradBlog.
This forum appears to be getting gamed.
Soc
Erma shows up from time to time to brutalize all of us starry-eyed optimists, and, yes, I almost complained about the nearness of his editorializations looking like they were from BB, but they were different enough that most people could tell. But, really, just because you don’t like Erma’s opinions doesn’t mean anyone is being “gamed”.
Wow, ok. So Erma is a guy? That is so wrong. Would you ever pick a male name for a username? I would never think of picking a female one.
Or what about this. A person who calls himself Lou has the same internet address as the “Mike” who trolled me with a few others right here at BradBlog a few months ago. This person has made homophobic and other divisive posts elsewhere. Anyway, who would come up with a new username like that?
I think it’s cool to have different usernames. Sometimes it is nice to have a fresh start. I have picked names such as Paulo_Freire, Broccolli at HuffingtonPost{late2005-06}, and FUIwon’tDoWhatUTellMe {a line from Rage Against the Machine}. That’s how I come up with usernames.
For about two years I have settled in with socrates. A brutal cybersmear attack was put in place against me. Fake socrates were created.
I’m not looking for trouble Agent99. Maybe someday we will trust each other. Just please do not delete or alter anything I post. If I break the rules and need to be banned, as long as it is done by Brad, I will go away.