Scott McClellan bashes Bush in memoir

[moe09]

Weird, I always thought that Bush Press Secretaries had no soul.

www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1809857,00.html

[Coast2CoastHoya]

They only check it at the door, moe. They get it back and figure out how to use it again once they leave (sometimes it takes a while).

[EasyEd]

Scott had a different tune earlier:
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/as-scottie-sowe.html

[jerseyhoya34]

May 28, 2008 18:15:45 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Scott had a different tune earlier:
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/as-scottie-sowe.html

So did President Bush. He was for Scott before he was against him. In this blog, McClellan was acting as a spokesman for the administration, not himself. The two, as McClellan has apparently pointed out in his memoirs, can be distinguished.

I think this book is potentially significant. Instead of attacking the factual assertions made therein, the response from the WH has largely been directed personally against McClellan. It has been the kind of "campaign-like" operation that McClellan has apparently criticized. I don't believe the White House has disputed that at least some propaganda was involved in selling the war, among the other points/characterizations that the former Press Secretary has made in his memoirs.

If this were some mid-level member of the Administration or an obviously marginalized figure, that would be one thing. But, this is one of the loyal individuals who followed Bush from his days in Texas and served at length in the Administration. He has considerable first-hand knowledge of events given his former position. And I would dare say that he is fiercely loyal to the President if he went about his job in spite of these feelings against the war, etc., when it would have been much easier to fall on his sword.

Unfortunately for the Administration, it will soon be subject to the pens of historians, and my guess is that they won't be too kind to it. And, there's little that its hacks will be able to do about it.

[Elvado]

McClellan was fiercely loyal; so too according to the New Testament was Judas.

I was not in the meetings and thus do not know whether McClellan's accusations are all true, partly true or untrue.

I am, however, skeptical of his motives and the motives of his publisher. What type of book advance would he have drawn if there were no scandalous allegations/anecdotes?

Finally, he was complicit in these unsavory acts for avery long time. Perhaps he was trying feverishly to change the culture from within.

[theexorcist]

Really, if your boss wants you to do something you find repugnant, resign.

Or try to, like Elvado says, modify things from the inside.

But don't serve and abet a cause you don't believe in, then resign and then wait five months, CONVENIENTLY UNTIL YOUR BOOK'S ABOUT TO COME OUT, to suddenly spill the beans.

[Jack]

Keep firing at that messenger guys.

[EasyEd]

I don't know whether what he says is true or not and, if it is true, it should come out. But I question the timing coming before an election and before Bush leaves office. I'm sure there was a $ motive for the timing. For an accurate representation of what occurred in the Bush administration, we would be served better if it were after he leaves office and other insiders had an opportunity to also chime in to confirm, deny or alter what Scott has said.

[Deleted]

May 29, 2008 15:12:39 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I don't know whether what he says is true or not and, if it is true, it should come out. But I question the timing coming before an election and before Bush leaves office. I'm sure there was a $ motive for the timing. For an accurate representation of what occurred in the Bush administration, we would be served better if it were after he leaves office and other insiders had an opportunity to also chime in to confirm, deny or alter what Scott has said.

Yeah - just like we waited 'til Clinton was out of office to investigate his dalliances with an intern.

[Elvado]

Just to clarify, I think McClellan is entitled to write anything he wishes, governed only by the laws of the marketplace and libel. In fact, everything he wrote may be true.

I am simply skeptical of his epiphany on the way to cashing his advance check.

[Boz]

I am skeptical as to how much information McClellan was really privy to in the lead up to the war.

He didn't become press secretary until July of 2003, after the invasion of Iraq. Prior to that, he was a deputy to Ari Fleischer.

I kind of find it hard to believe that a deputy press secretary was routinely included in Oval Office meetings and strategy sessions with the President, so this all seems pretty suspicious.

That is not a case of shooting the messenger, but I think it is fair to question if he has any solid first-hand information to back up these accusations.

[moe09]

Quite frankly, I'm not. I imagine the guy had a lot to do with the preparation of the Administration's press releases, and what information they decided to use and which information they decided not to use, and the reasons behind the choices. Whether or not he got it straight from the horse's mouth doesn't matter, really. I bet the guy was privy to the motives behind what happened. It's usually people like deputy press secretaries that have to do the grunt work, so he was probably well informed about what was going on.

[EasyEd]

May 29, 2008 15:31:25 GMT -5 @cam said:

May 29, 2008 15:12:39 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I don't know whether what he says is true or not and, if it is true, it should come out. But I question the timing coming before an election and before Bush leaves office. I'm sure there was a $ motive for the timing. For an accurate representation of what occurred in the Bush administration, we would be served better if it were after he leaves office and other insiders had an opportunity to also chime in to confirm, deny or alter what Scott has said.

Yeah - just like we waited 'til Clinton was out of office to investigate his dalliances with an intern.

Methinks you just attacked the messenger.

[The Stig]

I don't think it's exactly a revelation that the Bush Administration waged a propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq War starting in early 2002, botched the Katrina response, and liked about the Palme affair.

To me, the only revelation is that McClellan had qualms about it. If that's really the case, he should have spoken up right away, then quit and gone public if his concerns were ignored. I think it was pretty cowardly of him to be the mouthpiece for policies he knew were wrong.

[SFHoya99]

I think most of what McClellan says in the book is probably true.

That makes him a pretty scummy guy, really.

[DFW HOYA]

Bob Dole had it right.

(Then again, it says something about McClellan to be forwarding his e-mails to the Politico.)

www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Bob_Dole_unloads_on_McClellan.html

[AustinHoya03]

Scott's mom, Carol Keeton McClellan Rylander Strayhorn called Rick Perry "a weak leadin', ethics ignorin', pointin' the finger at everyone blamin', special session callin', public school slashin', slush fund spendin', toll road buildin', special interest panderin', rainy day fund raidin', fee increasin', no property tax cuttin', promise breakin', do nothin' phony conservative" during the last Texas gubernatorial election. Ironically, it was probably her decision to run as an independent in that election -- a decision based on poll data that showed Gov. Goodhair would blow her away in a Republican primary -- that ensured Rick the Dick's re-election with 39% of the popular vote.

I guess putting one's own interests first, the inability to make good PR decisions, and not knowing when to open and close one's mouth runs in the family.

[moe09]

Agree with both stig and SF.