Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (387062)	5/28/2008 9:38:27 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572779

McClellan's book was published by Geo Soros' publisher. Wonder what price the prince of the darkness paid for his latest political hatchet job. I'm sure you said this at least a bit tongue-in-cheek. But I wouldn't rule it out. The Big Money Left is viewing this as the year to take over. They've lost the last two elections, Bush is politically weak, the war is unpopular, and this is their chance to get control. The liberal media is drooling to put Obama in office. It is do or die time for the Left. So, you've got this guy McClellan, who claims he spent two years as a professional liar for the administration, and it leaves you with one question: "If he'll lie for a government salary, what do you think he'd say for a nice, fat book deal?" The Left lives on lies. There is no reason to doubt there is an association between McClellan and the Extreme Left.

To: longnshort who wrote (387062)	5/28/2008 10:34:20 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572779

Longnshort, I'll bet if you simply examine the contents of the book, you'll find that McClellan isn't saying anything that hasn't been said before. What's going to sell the book is the fact that it's a (former) Bush loyalist, so let the ad hominem attacks begin! In the meantime, I take back what I said about McClellan being perfectly able to find other ways to make money. The consensus seems to be that McClellan wasn't a remarkable press secretary. That plus the fact that Bush's approval ratings are so low means that he can't really put that on his resume. Yet even so, I still think the going rate for betrayal seems to be low these days. It's obviously personal for McClellan. The only question now is what McClellan ISN'T saying, because what IS being said isn't as remarkable as WHO is saying it. Tenchusatsu