Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » wake.up.america » Archives Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
wake.up.america's Journal - Archives
Posted by wake.up.america in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Nov 09th 2007, 11:11 AM
If you are really committed to a cause you don't have time to worry about the twins of Bush and with whom they are dating. That's not important. I really don't give a fig, if Rudy once wore a dress. I do care if Milt has sons who don't volunteer for Iraq. I could care less, if Hillary has great legs. I am concerned that she voted to support Bush's intrusion into Iraq. I could care less, if Rush weighs 350. I would rather find ways to help to the kids in Iraq.

In fact, I would like to see Keith O stay away from personal insults of Ann Colter and concentrate on such things as the number of people who will freeze to death this winter on the streets of America.

Let's get back to discussing how something can be changed for the better instead of being witty.

Hats off the Nancy Greggs who does what I wish could do - no sensationalism, just the facts and with passion.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by wake.up.america in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Thu Oct 18th 2007, 02:15 PM
What's your take?
Saw some clips and was gasping for air.
I was laughing like crazy. Not saying I am that bright or funny, but I can relate to everything he say.
Read entry | Discuss (27 comments)
Posted by wake.up.america in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Aug 20th 2007, 01:32 PM
Post your thoughts on Karl and what hes done to this country and the world. We want to hear what you think!

(This should make for interesting reading.)

http://karlrove.com/
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by wake.up.america in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Mar 07th 2007, 09:04 AM
Larry King 6 March, 2007

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: Joining us now from Washington, Scott McClellan, old friend, former White House press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. In Raleigh, North Carolina, David Gergen served as White House advisor to Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, editor at large U.S. News and professor of public service at Harvard's JFK school of government. Scott, what are you doing, by the way?

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, FMR WHITE HOUSE SPOKESPERSON: I have been out on the speaking circuit and kind of enjoying my post White House life. I'm looking at starting some new ventures as well but doing some communications work on the side as well too.

KING: What's your reaction to the verdict today, Scott?

MCCLELLAN: Like many of my colleagues at the White House, I'm obviously saddened for Scooter Libby and his family, but at the same time I think that this does change the equation a little bit with the American public. Once you have someone that was a member of the president's senior staff as well as the top guy to the vice president of the United States involved in criminal wrongdoing, then this changes the equation with the American people to some extent. For a long time, don't think this has been much of a story for the American people. It been more of an inside the beltway story. But now they are kind of looking at it saying, what's going on here?

KING: David, what's your read?

DAVID GERGEN, FMR WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: I think that Scott is right about that. This is an administration that has been mostly free of scandal over the last six years and now they have the taint that they cannot erase. A major figure, very close to the vice president, a very powerful vice president, who was indicted and found guilty on felony charges, of lying. Those are very serious charges. He could easily go to jail while George W. Bush is president. I think it's weakened the vice president. It has damaged this White House and I think it's damaged the Republican prospects for 2008 in retaking, in taking the White House and keeping it.

KING: While the CIA leak was going on, Scott McClellan fielded lots of questions. Here's one at a briefing in October 2003. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliott Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wonder if you can tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

MCCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this and that's where it stands.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Scott, were you lied to? MCCLELLAN: Well, Larry, I said what I believed to be true at the time. It was also what the president believed to be true at the time based on assurances that we were both given. Knowing what I know today, I would have never said that back then. As you heard me say in that clip, I said that those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. I did speak directly with them and I was careful about the way I phrased it at the time, even though I believed what they had told me to be the truth.

KING: David, was in a sense Scott McClellan betrayed or is that too harsh a word?

GERGEN: He was betrayed, absolutely. Unfortunately, Scott, were under the same fate that other press secretaries were in. What the public doesn't understand very well is that the press secretaries of the White House, is dual hatted. He reports to the press but in effect, he plays or she plays inside the White House the role of reporter. And you're often going around asking people for what happened so that you can go out and faithfully recount that to the reporters. If you're lied to inside, you have -- you're set up. And I must tell you, Scott is not the first to whom it's happened but it was terribly unfair to him to put him in that position.

KING: When was the last time you talked to Scooter Libby, Scott?

MCCLELLAN: The last time I saw him was the morning of his indictment. He was in the senior staff meeting. He sits directly or used to sit directly across from me in the senior staff meeting. At the time he had just come back from a skiing trip and he'd had an accident and hurt his leg and so he was on crutches. And I remember the senior staff was going on, someone was talking at the time. We all knew that something was brewing out there, that Fitzgerald was getting ready to announce an indictment and there was a lot of speculation going on. That morning, an aide walked into the senior staff meeting, an aide of Scooter Libby's and came in and handed him a note and then we all kind of turned and watched as Scooter Libby got up and left the room. There was kind of a lot of tension in that room at the moment. Everybody I think knew what was about to happen when he walked out of that room.

KING: Yeah. David Gergen, do you think there's more to come?

GERGEN: I'm not sure, Larry. I -- it's not clear to me that Mr. Fitzgerald is going to pursue this any further. What I do think is clear is that there's a lot more to know. And there had to be a reason why the defense attorney did not put Scooter Libby and the vice president on the stand, particularly after he said some days earlier that we would be hearing from them. That decision was -- I think in addition to the Tim Russert appearance, that decision was the turning point in the case. They must have had a strong reason. Perhaps Ted Wells never even knew why Scooter Libby didn't want to go on the stand. But clearly, there's somebody behind this case. Why would Scooter Libby lie as the jury determined? Why would he not take the stand? Why would the vice president not take the stand? There's clearly something they do not wish to discuss. And I don't know what that is. MCCLELLAN: And I think, Larry, it will be interesting to see if the White House can sustain not talking about this through the appeals process. They sustained it for this long, but I think they would be better served as a communications advisor now. I would be advising the White House to get out there and find some way to talk about this in enough detail to answer some of questions that David brings up that are still hanging out there.

GERGEN: That's really interesting, Larry, that he would have come to that position. That's a very brave decision to take because I'm sure there are former colleagues of his who would like not to go down that path.

MCCLELLAN: Of course, the lawyer's always the first to say it's a legal matter. We're not going to talk about it. But that's not always the best advice from a communications standpoint, as David knows.

GERGEN: I agree.
Read entry | Discuss (6 comments)
Posted by wake.up.america in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Wed Dec 06th 2006, 02:03 PM
correctly used in the following context?

President Bush on Wednesday said, "Mr. President, welcome. I'm glad to welcome you back to the White House. I appreciate the very important discussions we had. Our discussions started with the bilateral relationship between the United States and Costa Rica. It is an important relationship. It's an important relationship when it comes to trade, it's an important relationship when it comes to interchanges between our governments and our peoples."
Read entry | Discuss (8 comments)
Posted by wake.up.america in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Wed Jul 19th 2006, 12:00 PM
Who controls US finances?
Need I say more?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/18/dobbs.jul...

Lou Dobbs takes on US Middle East Policy
Read entry | Discuss (8 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.