Pinpointing the motivation of the writer goes a long way to determining truth.
But more importantly, both Tenet and Fleischer’s books DIRECTLY REFUTE McClellan’s. And Tenet was surely in a position to take Bush down.
But this thread is about McClellan's publisher and his motives. I'm saying who gives a crap about that? A publisher can't publish something he agrees with? It's a very weak--extremely weak--line of defense. And just to restate--they're talking bout the publisher's motives, not the author.
But more importantly, both Tenet and Fleischer’s books DIRECTLY REFUTE McClellan’s. And Tenet was surely in a position to take Bush down.
This would be a pertinent point of counter argument. I realize this is a public forum. I and others probably say a lot of silly things. But I'm seeing stuff like Scott's gay or he's fat or whatever. Now it's SOROS! Sure, throw the bogey man in there while you're at it.
If there are other books and players who refute the claims, then somebody better be putting that stuff out there. All I'm hearing is personal attacks at McClellan. People saying he's just in it for the money, doesn't even know what's in the book, or he's stuck with it, etc. But where's any sort of proof or substantiation of any of that? It comes across very poorly, in my view.
I'm one of those who could be convinced one way or another. I haven't read any of those books. I am not going to read this one. I am worldly enough to know a lot of office politics is going on here. Washington DC has got to be the mother of all office politics. Hell, it's the one place where "office politics" is the actual job!
I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon here. But I am going to take my devil's advocate position against lame arguments. What specifically do Tenet and Fleischer refute?