I am not going to post the entire article but this book cannot be supported by facts because when you leave your clearance behind, and I am sure he had a decent one, you sign a disclaimer that anything you published has to be cleared for sensitive/secrect and above material. This all came from the writing of a book called the PUzzle Palace. It is an inside look at NSA. Now even if I change my resume, i have to send it back to NSA for approval.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359600,00.html

I don't understand the point you're making. Are you suggesting that Mr. McClellan's book did not go through the required reviews?

I am saying he cannot support his points without giving away sensitive material, which by the blurb I read it did.

So more importantly then, he is fully able to and has supported his claims?

What are we supposed to be more upset about: the fact the he may have revealed state secrets, or that he may have used actual proofs to substantiate his claims?

I don't recall at the moment whether it was "First In" or "Jawbreaker", but one of those two authors left the redactions in place. By that I mean that they didn't edit out the material redacted by the CIA, they just left it as blacked out blocks of text.
It was interesting..

Oh, I thought this thread was about "The Audacity of Hope"...carry on

I am saying he cant fully prove what he is trying to say without giving away national secrets duh

I understood you the first time you explained what you meant.

just a whiner getting even for being replaced; he worked here in Texas where Bush has an approval rating in the 70's and was a compromiser, er, ........he worked across the aisle and was above partisanship - so they go to Washington and try the same thing and were quite successful at it

.....which is why conservatives are in such a funk

That was for Just Jay Barbie, he asked me to explained myself if you are able to read what he posted.

Right, but you said that the blurb said he did, so then, the question is what are we supposed to be more upset with: the fact he revealed said secrets, or that he was able to back up his claims?

Can't you read a basic question, duh!

I think you're leaping to conclusions, ones perhaps driven by your own political idealogy. We don't know the level of clearance McClellan possessed, and we don't know the level of meetings in which he was allowed to attend. Furthermore, information that may have been classified at the time may have been declassified since. The press secretary is merely a mouthpiece for the administration, and it is well-known that McClellan lacked the normal credentials to hold the job. My guess is that he's more bitter over being left out there hanging on the Valerie Plame case and feels like Cheney, Rove and others treated him like a patsy. That doesn't make him wrong, however.

This book alone will not sink McCain's chances in November. Obama still has a lot of work to do in winning over "hard-working white Americans."

The parts that he is basing the iraq war on. I would have to say i am pretty sure to work in the white house period you would need a top secret, for the position he held add an sci to it. for those of you (barbie and grmastrb) get it. Those would just be the minimum clearances held by most.

they interviewed Mr. Rove on BBC news yesterday, and he said that this bozo was "writing about what took place in meetings that he wasn't invited too, which can only be fabrication since he wasn't present." I think that sums up much of it.

I would think that a top secret would be required, too, but we don't know that with certainty. Army public affairs specialists, for example, only have to have, at minimum, a secret clearance (although I'm sure certain assignments might require a TS). It could be that he was excluded from meetings for which he didn't have the appropriate clearance and was told what to tell the media. That gets at what Happy was saying, I think.

And Mr. Rove is always honorable and truthful.

P.S. Just jerking your chain, Happy.

I wouldn't believe one thing Mr. Rove (or anyone else in the White House) said......if he told me the time, I'd check my watch.

I apologize, Kandi. I was confused by the part of the post that said "[Re: AML-Barbarian]" as opposed to, for example, "[Re: Just Jay]".

oh i am bad at just typing in the quick reply box, i do it all the time.

It is entirely possible that a Press Secy or public affairs position would not be privy to top level/secret info.

Their role is to convey the adiministration's position, but they do not need to determine the veracity of that position. Therefore, attending policy meetings and reviewing top secret documentation would not be required (I know most at the WH) have a high clearance level by default, but I seriously doubt he had access to the intelligence data, either raw or analyzed).

He was because Carl Rove told him top secret infor. I am trying to find a link that will list the lowest clearance to even work at the white house. So far all I have found is Top Secret.

Is that in the book?

If Karl Rove did disclose top secret information to individuals not possessing a top secret clearance, then Karl Rove is the one with the problem, not Scott McClellan.

I don'tknow if it is in the book but it is in a report I did on security clearances. It is from an investigation.

If Scott McCllen is passing on info that is knowingly classified information then it is against the law. I did look that up