I'm afraid I have confused you. What I meant was I hold a guy like McClellan, who owed everything to Bush, to a higher standard of loyalty than I would a Clinton holdover. Clarke and Tennant were not so much partisan as just trying to blame others for their own screwups. That is pretty much the summary of most Washington books. "If only the fools had listened to me." No doubt any loyalty to Bush they felt was erased when they got the boot. McClellan was different. First off, he wasn't involved in policy. He was just the guy who read press releases and repeated the party line answering questions. So he can't really make a policy argument that anyone is interested in reading. After all, we wasn't in the room. So to get a book deal, he has to go straight to motives and intent and engage in ad hominem attacks on people he pretended to be friends with. Rove and Liddy are accused of felonious conduct with not a shred of evidence. A swaggering Bush is intoxicated by dreams of his legacy. Clearly this is the picture his publishers wanted out there and they got it. If McClellan had presented a picture of conscientious people desperately trying to do the right thing in difficult situations, ie the kind of books we get about democrat administrations, he'd never have been published. Whatever. This is a two day story.
Let's not insult each other - just disagree, respectfully. What was common knowledge, eg, when Tony snow took over, and White House insiders are confirming now, was that McClellan was just the mouthpiece of the Administration, he was not in the know, not really. The reason, Mary Matalin says, is that he's not that clever, never contributed much in terms of ideas and plans. Compare that with brilliant staffers like Rove and you can see why they eventually got rid of him. Still, the timing and tenor of his book, and his apparent incentive (money), make me doubt his every word. I've suffered through similar treatment from someone I fired years ago - he badmouthed me all over the place to try and save his reputation even with lies. McClellan seems to be another regular traitor for hire, that's all.
I wouldn't compare Bush to Hitler for his politics, madness, stupidity, eloquence, following or strategy ... But I do think that the stigma that the US will enjoy for the next generation or two will be similar and detrimental - as after the rule of Hitler. When the war was started by Bush, I was in complete shock I guess I would call it. I could not believe that the US could do something like that. Maybe it is my generation's "Vietnam" in some ways ... War is never going to be popular with everynoe - and the US has started and been meddling/participating in more wars (in my estimation) than any other country over the last century. Most of the world population was in opposition to the US' actions - and the reasons for attacking were proven to be false and groundless, but US leaders and public opinion were adamant. Thankfully, McClellan has helped historians get a more complete picture of what was going on - as well as revealed how the US population was duped ... while the world "cried wolf!" So, just like the german population at large - the US population followed what the rest of the world saw as an extremist leader into terrible actions that violated international law and treaties. It came as we stood in disbelief - and I think this atmosphere is similar to what large parts of the world were feeling when Germany started expanding their borders and attacking other countries. That is how I can compare parts of the history to Hitler's era - it certainly makes sense for me, and undeniably has some parallels. This error and the crumbling of american symbolism (and internal nationalistic proudness) will probably continue for at least 20 years before we see newcomers start vocalizing more historic and detached views. At least - that is my €.02 .
I think it's quite telling when such a person as you describe has a pang of conscience and feels it necessary to clear the air. But there is no winning with you, is there? Either they are Clintonites or thankless bastards. It couldn't possibly be about doing and saying the right thing, could it? Perhaps a "higher standard of loyalty" to truth and country? That's because Fox already has that base covered.
Wrong ...McClellan was and is quite connected in Texas and has been so long before Bush the elder and thus Bush the dumber carpetbagged their in way into West Texas. Karen Hughes picked SM for the comm job at the Texas Gubernatorial press office. His family are HUGE land holders in Texas and his Granddad is the Dean of the University of Texas School of law. And the mom's failed Gubernatorial campaign where the Bushies abandoned her has probably left a bad taste in mouth of the entire clan. Bush talks a lot of Texan bullshit...my guess is that he'll be shunned more times than he's lauded when he returns there. Much like LBJ he'll probably live a short painful life while in reflection of what he's done.
That's just a bunch of unsupported statements that you are using to explain your own opinion. Here's mine: after being attacked on 9/11 and threatened with total destruction, using the best information available to the UN, Congress, et al, the US took out two terrible dictatorships and freed two suffering nations in a very volatile but extremely crucial part of the globe; for that we should be congratulated and applauded by our friends and feared by our enemies, that's all. War is terrible and I'm against it - we should avoid them at all cost whenever possible. BUT, these two wars are no worse that WWII or others in our history books. In fact, the end results (stabler Middle East, two new democracies, millions of people free from their oppressors) are worth all the support and respect we can give them.