Is Scott McClellan lying about George W. Bush?

McClellan was part of a White House that has been hellbent on deception and distrust of the American people from the onset; bringing in old Nixonian henchmen such as Cheney and Rumsfeld. Thus, the "culture of corruption and deception" permeated on of our greatest instutions and MCCellan was part of that. In order to clear his religious conscious he has written this book that probably gives credance to much of my suspicions about the way information was disseminated to the public about the Adminsitration and its modus operandi. I have never believed any of the information coming from the White House in the past 7 years and sought information elsewhere that was more reliable. Furthermore, good servants of the government and those who believed in the "real" Republican mantra and protecting both the economic well-being of the country as well as its security, also left the Whtie House and wrote books that reflect a similar tone as McClellan's book. Though I do not fault McClellan for not voicing his concerns "earlier" or disclosing his criticisms or disagreements, as I do not think the White House, nor our obtuse president and his protectorates, would have permitted for such dissention, I find it parculiar that his book is released at this time. My suspicion is he is hoping that the more "honorable" McCain will take him on in some capacity if he wins the White House in November. Perhaps he is looking for a job at one of the think tanks and that by coming clean, he may have valuable insights that will give him a comfrotable position. Regardless, at least half of the proceeds from his book should go to Iraq and Afgahnistan veterans groups as McClellan was instrumental in the misinformation and dissemination of false, misleading, and ultimately the lies he and the Whtie House perpetuated to get the USA into an unnecessary war. He bears that responsibility and his has are bloodied from whatever he presented as the mouthpiece of the White House. If he found the operations of the White House morally repugnant, he should have left earlier, but he did not. To blame the "liberal press" for not investgating better and working harder.... the White House essentially blocked most attempts reporters made to get to the trusth. Frank Rich does a marverlous job in his book recounting how not only the press was complacent at times, but how hard it was to get reliable information--and when it did, editors, buried it on pages 15, 25 or 35 of their papers. No doubt based on pressure from the White House and a need to appear jingoistic about the USA. Finger pointing does not make our country a better place--action does.