He gladly enjoyed the perquisites of power and is now cashing in by betraying the confidence of his former bosses and colleagues. He’s possessed of all the moral fiber of a jailhouse snitch.

Yeah, silly me for presuming you were still apologizing for Bush.

I'm somewhat less than outraged by that given the political environment and what I think was a sincere belief that they were pursuing the greater good. But, yes, it's highly problematic.

This level of parsing and triangulation would do a Clinton proud...

But the problem with your posting, James, is that you don't at all care that Bush's group dragged the country to war on false pretenses - your outrage is limited to the guy who snitched.

Depending on one's perspective, that's either old news or still not known. As a general rule, I tend to discount the statements of admitted liars who stand to profit from more lies.

My longstanding view on this (going back to perhaps mid-2003) has been that Bush and company propagandized the war, overhyping evidence that supported their position and downplaying countervailing evidence. I'm somewhat less than outraged by that given the political environment and what I think was a sincere belief that they were pursuing the greater good. But, yes, it's highly problematic.

Get off my lawn.

But the problem with your posting, James, is that you don't at all care that Bush's group dragged the country to war on false pretenses - your outrage is limited to the guy who snitched.

And frankly, I find books like Dean's Blind Ambition useful whether they are true or not -- reading stories of how things went wrong are useful for those who follow in their footsteps. Or at least useful for those who read.

Actually, your mention of Dean made me chuckle a bit, since you also said of McCllelan, "If he thought these things were wrong at the time, he had a duty to fight to stop it and, if overruled, resign in protest and inform Congress." That is one way of viewing what Dean did. Can I gently ask whether there is any winning you over for someone with something harsh to say about a Republican President?

Either a man has integrity or he doesn’t.

Hmm, this black and white dichotomy sounds so familiar . . . I can't quite place it. I think from some guy standing behind a podium with an eagle seal and in front of a blue curtain with an oval sign . . . dang, I can't remember. ;-)

Or all of the sudden do you have second thoughts about capitalism?

I don't question McClellan's right to keep his profits, merely his integrity.

your posts are usually more real-world fair and grounded than this one.

Thanks, I guess. The point of this post is about profiting from an enterprise and then cashing in on betrayal. I don't find that honorable even if the original enterprise was a dishonorable one.

While Watergate was repugnant, I have enormous respect for Chuck Colson and grudging respect for Gordon Liddy while I hold John Dean in contempt.

Colson refused to plead guilty to something he didn't do but fessed up to a crime the prosecutors didn't even know about, served the max sentence, and then devoted his life to ministering to prisoners. Liddy refused to talk, period, and served by far the longest sentence. Dean, meanwhile, ratted on his former co-conspirators to save his own ass.

My contention is that 1) the thrust of what McClellan says rings true

yep

but that 2) McClellan was either lying then or now

Duh. I haven't read the book or been inside the Bush White House, but I have a hunch on "then". Show me a White House press secretary from the last 40 years that hasn't lied on the job. If his book were the fiction, wouldn't the din be on questioning his facts, and not his "integrity"?

and 3) he's a rat cashing in.

Everyone cashes in. The people who don't talk are quiet because they think there is more money or prestige in that (ie, the next job), or because there is no dirt to tell. Or all of the sudden do you have second thoughts about capitalism?

Obviously it would have better (for us, not him) if he spoke out before, but it seems doubtful that doing so would have stopped the war -- rank and file Americans had swallowed the kool-aid already.

he's a rat cashing in

He's still a Bush man. Its his nature...

Shame, James (I expect this kind of hackery out of Bithead).

You should probably make an actual argument here.

My contention is that 1) the thrust of what McClellan says rings true but that 2) McClellan was either lying then or now and 3) he's a rat cashing in.

Your response on those points?