A video, apropos of nothing in particular, but it made me laugh to make it:
It seems to me that Scott McClellan's main point is that Bush and the White House were dishonest in how they communicated: spinning facts and using rhetoric to build a case instead of being totally honest.
... there are so many things to complain about in regard to Bush: his lack of communication, his poor communication, even amounting to misleading ... when he is communicating, he often contradicts himself, if not in word, then in tone or emphasis (was the war about terrorism, or liberty, or UN resolutions, or weapons? the correct answer is "all of the above and more," but you get a different message each time).
I was even saying this before the invasion. And I am supposed to be shocked that McClellan's agreeing with me five years later? Eh. Color me bored.
That's not to say I agree with all he said; I haven't followed it much and I doubt I will spend the time to read the book. I do think, however, that he should have held his tongue until Bush was out of office, though. I would have, were I a member of his administration. Loyalty means much more to me than book profits (if that was part of his motivation for coming out with it now), and at least as much as the other values he cited about honesty and so on.
The McClellan clan (of which I am a member) has a motto: "Think on." McClellan should have heeded this a bit more, both while he was in the administration, and after he left it.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 30, 2008 01:23 PM | Email This(But do we actually know it's the truth, or merely his opinion?)
Posted by: Larry on May 30, 2008 04:01 PMWe will confess to not being surprised to hear that even George Bush's former staffers think he deceived the country into the Iraq War, and we will also confess to regarding Scott McClellan as a loser for so blatantly stabbing his former colleagues in the back.
But, in any event, in this MediaBistro transcript, we note that Katie Couric was able to reveal not only McClellan's hypocrisy but the standard behind-the-scenes behavior that governs many news organization - news maker relationships:
Couric: Weren't you the ultimate complicit enabler, though? I asked a tough question before the Iraq War and you personally called an executive at NBC News and you threatened to deny access to us.
McClellan: I did?
Couric: Yes, you did, once the war began.
McClellan: Me personally? I don't, I don't remember that.
Couric: But did you strong-arm people into not questioning the administration?
McClellan: My style usually wasn't that way.
Couric: Well, it was you who made the call.
McClellan: I just, I just don't remember that. That may be but I certainly don't remember that incident. In terms of my style of working with reporters, it was usually straightforward when we were dealing with each other; I think I had that reputation with White House reporters. I just don't recall that specific incident.
McClellan's next book will no doubt blame his phone call on Cheney.
If he would have waited until after the election to write this, he would have garnered more respect, but he was an opportunist.
I believe he was paid under the table by the progressive left to "sex it up" for political gain in the Presidential race. But, when he goes on Keith Olberman's show - a tool of the Daily Kos and Media Matters, he has lost all senses. I don't wish to kill the messenger, just set phasers to stun and whack him up side the head with a 2 X 4 to help him regain his senses and perhaps lost dignity.
Har Har Har Har Har Har
How soon she forgot her promises.
Damn!
Posted by: gs on May 31, 2008 12:05 AMMR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he (Richard Clarke) had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.
All I can say is Pot meet Kettle.
i love reading this stuff at this point in the game. all of this site's heroes getting called on the carpet for their failures. you really have to ask yourself what credibility you have after 7.5 years of bush, jr.
these were the idiots that you all supported with so much fervor.
Oh, don't be stupid. I quoted myself five years ago AGREEING with McClellan's central point NOW. How on Earth can you convert me saying that Bush was misleading in 2003, with me supporting Bush with "so much fervor"?
Posted by: pudge on May 31, 2008 11:45 AMWith regards to the post in general, after seeing McClellan on Meet the Press yesterday, I was left with a couple of impressions:
(1) Either McClellan or Rove is lying about their interaction regarding the Plame affair. I will leave it up to the readers to judge. My only question to you is whose version of the truth benefits them the most? If it is Scott's, then it shows him as a very naive staff member who blindly believed whatever the other senior staff told him. If it is Rove, then it shows Scott as being soley out for the money. Follow the money? Who has more to gain from their version of the questioning?
(2)I find it fascinating how Bush can "chat" up someone so much at their departure ceremony (e.g., Bush stated how he appreciated the work McClellan had done and how he could envision them sitting back with a couple of beers chatting on the Ranch after Bush left the WH), yet now it seems that the staffer was no good. How disengenious. Is it meant to put the fear in any other staffer who has left (i.e., talk and you will be drug through the mud)?
3. Personally, I believe the media play McClellan is getting speaks volume to the current state of the MSM and how they play for ratings (i.e., go for controversy anytime you can).
Posted by: tc on June 2, 2008 12:53 PMRush actually said something like this: 'George W. Bush was so incompetent that, uh, ...' And that's the take-home message we should take home from a president who entrusted his message to a duallard, a stooge, and an idiot.
Posted by: Beat the Rush on June 2, 2008 08:09 PM