Replies

"In the last week, several historians have concluded, before Bolton, the last former top White House official to come out with a critical book on the President he served while he was still in the White House was Moley."

HUH?

These "historians" apparently have amnesia about former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's "The Price of Loyalty", an book of Neill's 'memoirs' which was EXTREMELY critical of Bush and released in 2004 when Bush still in the White House (and indeed, hadn't even started his second term yet!)

The liberal MSM made it front page news to bash Bush at the time (O'Neill spent 90% of the book bashing Bush over Iraq, good thing the guy in charge of the domestic U.S. Treasury Dept. was such an "expert insider" on foreign policy discussions), and now apparently has forgotten the book exists so they can create this "no high ranking cabinet official has ever turned against a President they served so quickly" narrative. Maybe we should send them some copies of the book to "remind" them.

But, to be fair, our side gets amnesia about events from a decade earlier too. Rudy Giuliani claiming "no Presidential impeachment has ever been partisan". Yeah, oddles of Democrats happily voted to impeach Slick Willie, right?

Andddddd I just googled it to confirm ANOTHER example.

Former Bush spokesman Scott McClellan's anti-Bush book "What Happened?" was released in June 2008, so Bush was ALSO still the sitting President in the White House at the time, and Obama's election as President was still months away.

Gosh, that seems a LOT more recent than the 1939 date that the "Historians" agree was the most recent time a "top Presidential official" published a book critical of the President they served while he was still in office.

I bet I could find numerous other examples if I researched the topic a bit more and looked at other administrations.

Someone should confront these biased "historians" because they seem to be "missing" quite a few examples. Perhaps because those books don't fit their narrative?