Chips - The impact of a Scott McClellan tell-all book would have been better served if Mr. McClellan had voiced his protest on a timely basis or had even publicly resigned to gain a broader and more sympathetic audience. It is unlikely, however, even if he did cry out earlier, that events would have turned out different I think we have a weasel-like attitude here not to so much inform the public but to gain as much monetary lucre that is available for writing a “tell-all” when he really didn’t have much to tell. Yes, the Louisiana State response to Katrina was deplorable and the President should have forced the introduction of federal assistance before being asked by a City and State government in disarray. Their inability to cope should have been foreseen by this White House and, unfortunately, was not. But is this really a revelation? There is already a suspicion going about that Mr. McClellan is not the sole author of the book. He didn’t talk as portrayed in the book; ergo, why would he suddenly develop a writing style that is unfamiliar to his colleagues. Strange? Perhaps. But, even if he was guided into publishing a book that contained more outrage (pretended or not) that he planned, it is still, as Monica Crowley stated, in very bad form for a trusted member of the administration. If he had something new to say, that would be a ‘horse of a different color’. The little bit of information I have concerning the book comes from the news articles and stories that are being bandied about. I have not read the book and doubt if I will. I certainly would not buy it.

Monica Crowley is a NeoCon loving commentator. So asking her opinion on McCellan is as predictable as asking Senator Kerry to comment on Senator Kennedy. This is one of the most criminal, evil, ruinous administrations in the history of the US…the problem isn’t someone stepping forward it is that there aren’t enough doing so. The rats are jumping the Titanic and trying to wash the blood off their hands. The book to discuss is Vincent Bugliosi’s “Prosecution of GWB for Murder” which is what he deserves. Here’s Bugliosi’s short bio: “Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at the L.A. County District Attorney’s office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss.” Here’s the premise of his book from Bugliosi: “My motivation is not political… George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq…Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That’s almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000*** innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did. ***{Note: The prestigious Lancet estimates the Iraqi deaths at 1.2 Million out of a population of 27M…..ie the equivalent in the US would be approx 32 Million. The medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion. This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible.} Buglosis continues “The New York Times, in a June 17, 2004, editorial, said that in selling this nation on the war in Iraq, “the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/ 11, … inexcusably selling the false Iraq-Al Qaeda claim to Americans.” “In a November 15, 2005, editorial, the New York Times said that “the president and his top advisers … did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It’s obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein’s weapons and his terrorist connections.” “In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush “intentionally misled” the nation to promote a war in Iraq If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren’t speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous. “Even assuming that Bush is criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in the Iraq war, under federal law he could only be prosecuted for the deaths of the 4,000 American soldiers killed in the war. No American court would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the Iraqi deaths since these victims not only were not Americans, but they were killed in a foreign nation, Iraq. “Bush would be the last person who would quarrel with the proposition that being guilty of mass murder (even one murder, by his lights) calls for the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment. As governor of Texas, Bush had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history: He was a very strong proponent of the death penalty who even laughingly mocked a condemned young woman who begged him to spare her life (“Please don’t kill me,” Bush mimicked her in a magazine interview with journalist Tucker Carlson), and even refused to commute the sentence of death down to life imprisonment for a young man who was mentally retarded (although as president he set aside the entire prison sentence of his friend Lewis “Scooter” Libby), and had a broad smile on his face when he announced in his second presidential debate with Al Gore that his state, Texas, was about to execute three convicted murderers. In Bush’s two terms as Texas governor, he signed death warrants for an incredible 152 out of 153 executions against convicted murderers, the majority of whom only killed one single person. The only death sentence Bush commuted was for one of the many murders that mass murderer Henry Lucas had been convicted of. Bush was informed that Lucas had falsely confessed to this particular murder and was innocent, his conviction being improper. So in 152 out of 152 cases, Bush refused to show mercy even once, finding that not one of the 152 convicted killers should receive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Bush’s perfect 100 percent execution rate is highly uncommon even for the most conservative law-and-order governors.”