Dear ABC News,

   I just watched Martha Raddatz's interview with Scott McClellan. I was surprised to see how upset she looked and sounded. Aren't reporters supposed to remain objective? She must have a lot of respect for President Bush; however, I give a lot of credit to Scott for telling the truth even though it was very difficult for him to do. At the time he was employed at the White House he couldn't come forward and speak his mind. Now he is free to do so, and I think the public deserves to know the truth about subjects as important as why we went to war. Martha's verbal and nonverbal communication showed too much emotion. It was very unprofessional and I was uncomfortable watching it. If she can't interview a controversial subject without showing bias, maybe someone else should have interviewed him. Thank you.

I give a lot of credit to Scott for telling the truth even though it was very difficult for him to do.

 

How do you know he is telling the truth?  Every past and former press secretary of Bush says McClellan isn't telling the truth.

 

McClellan was fired from his position.   He has been unemployed since.  How hard is it to imagine that he skewed some of what he saw to make a book more likely to sell.  It isn't to difficult to see how dollar signs could rule the day for McClellan. 

 

I think his book should be taken as one side of a story.  Not as gospel.  I have no problem with the press interviewing him.  I do have a problem with the press giving him unchallenged say.

I agree with what PattiGerhardt40 said about Martha's interview. I was yelling that the television set. I'm not using my real name, but I once testified in the The Rayburn House Office Building (it was under a different President -- I'll leave it at that). Some hailed us as heroes while others claimed that it was "sour grapes." Raddatz's comments revealed her bias. My question to Raddatz and the rest of what I've sadly come to call the "Corporate Media," is, "Where were _you_ guys?!!!? The media (radio, television, and print) have all softballed hundreds of questions.  The National News (all of the Big 3, not to mention Fox, which is a veritable caricature of news) are transitioning us toward a diet of "Infotainment." "You guys" were complicit in the selling of the Iraq occupation. You have yourselves to blame. The Bush administration has shredded the Constitution and the truth while the media have all looked the other way. And, Martha: Please... Any spokesperson for any administration is not telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Perhaps McClellan is not perfect, but what I've known since long before the Iraq Invasion is only corroborated by his claims. Martha: I cannot believe that you are trying to place the blame on the messanger (though I'm not surprised). Your performance was revealing. My friends and I pine for the days of true investigative reporting. If we had the caliber of investigative reporting today that we had during the Watergate days, we wouldn't be in this mess (not to mention that the current administration would be facing a similar fate to President Nixon).

I think Martha Raddatz does give off that Democrat philosophy...yet she's one great News Reporter...she's really the best that can be...when she nailed McClennan I think her point was about being at a point of time...regardless that McClennan was looking at himself(maybe too much)Martha really did serve up some reality in the SPIN-zone...Martha Raddatz was correct I thoiught--even that he was just a Republican profiteer(as if)that all part of some game..where-by Martha was hip.../...McClennan got "smushed"..actually righted...but still a man on his personal mission to make BUCKS...Martha Raddatz made a good point about place&time.