Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Former colleagues: What happened to Scotty?
Night before last, word started trickling out (led by Politico) about former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s new Bush administration–bashing book due out next week. Since then, the new darling of the Left (Nancy Pelosi agrees with him; he’s on Keith Olbermann’s show tonight; Rep. Robert Wexler wants him to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee; Hillary and Obama are aligning themselves with him) has many of his former colleagues wondering what’s happened to him since he left the White House:
Karl Rove on Fox News Tuesday night: “First of all, this doesn’t sound like Scott. It really doesn’t. Not the Scott McClellan I’ve known for a long time. Second of all, it sounds like somebody else. It sounds like a left-wing blogger”
One of McClellan’s successors as press secretary and his former deputy, Dana Perino: “Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew.”
His predecessor, Ari Fleischer: “That’s one of the reasons this book comes as such a shock. It comes from the last person that anyone would have thought would have said these things or written these things. … All you can do is scratch your head when you see how far he’s turned.”
Former presidential counselor Dan Bartlett, who followed an interview with McClellan on “Today” this morning: “He never communicated to us that he had these personal misgivings. There’s not a lot of specific evidence about the most explosive charges.”
So just what is going on with McClellan? Is he just a disgruntled former employee out to make a quick buck? There’s no doubt that all the talk fueling the controversy this week will translate into book sales next week. The book is already No. 1 at Amazon.com, and Oprah hasn’t even endorsed it as the big summer read yet!
back to top87 Comments to “Former colleagues: What happened to Scotty?”
Let the smear campaign and damage control begin! I love it when they eat their own.
Report comment to moderator
Especially when it’s a Loyal Bushie from the Texas Days.
Report comment to moderator
Please re-read those comments on the people listed above.
Those people were more interested in going after McClellan personally than disputing what he said.
I believe this is just the first step. Once Bush is finally out of office Congress, the military and the intelligence community will say what they really feel about this vile man.
Report comment to moderator
#3 yup!
Report comment to moderator
I have no reason to believe everything McClellan is saying, but I have no reason to believe he’s making it all up either. He’s not the only one who has left the Bush fold with scathing critiques. I’m sure he is disgruntled, but he probably has good reason to be.
I think it’s clear that there has been a good deal of deception and incompetence during Bush’s time in the White House.
I voted for Bush twice, and I STILL think he was a better alternative than his democratic opponents…but I am disappointed in his presidency.
Report comment to moderator
I always thought McClellan was an inadequate press secretary. Like President Bush, it always appeared that he was in way over his head for the job he had. His press briefings were generally awkward and ineffective, and the information he provided seldom came across as credible. Tony Snow was a welcome change.
Current CNN poll: 70% of respondents feel that McClellan’s claims are credible.
Report comment to moderator
My favorite part is when McC reports Bush as saying that he was partying so hard during college that he “doesn’t remember” if he tried cocaine.
I do kind of wish he had been paying more attention to his history classes.
The other good part was when he revealed that Buckshot Cheney’s true nickname was “The Magic Man.”
Report comment to moderator
What puzzles me is the conspicuous member of Bush’s choir who doesn’t have a part in the mass chorus of puzzlement, “What’s up with Scott?” Andrew Card’s lips aren’t moving to the music. Maybe he’s counting the measures until his solo.
Report comment to moderator
I repeat my paragraph from Whirled Views:
I heard Ari Fleischer say this morning that McClellan wasn’t privy to the Iraq briefings and therefore had no inside knowledge because he was covering domestic issues and had no access. So, can he really write with authority for things that occurred before he became the press secretary? And even then, was he really sitting inside all those meetings where decisions were being made. I don’t think so. I still have a paperback somewhere called “Speaking Out” written by, I believe, Reagan’s press secretary, the name escapes me. What I recall was his hatred for Ollie North, or perhaps it was jealousy. The author wanted the reader to believe that North was this rogue working on his own in the basement of the White House. I never believed that. I think that admin. used his roguish tendencies to their advantage and then denied he was ever given orders. The author was never privy to what really happened there either. McClellan “knows” some things for sure, but other things are his opinion and speculation. Time will tell. And quite frankly, even if he were 100% correct, which I doubt, we still have to wait to see if in the long run taking Saddam out was wrong. That will come in time, too.
There has to be someting else going on here. It’s hard to believe that all of it is true or untrue. I do find it surprising that no one else is jumping on McClellan’s bandwagon besides Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
#9 NJLawyer, some of the harshest critics of this President have been the “disappointed” conservatives, those “paleocon” types like Pat Buchanan or former Congressmen like Dick Armey or Bob Barr.
Left wingnuts arent the only folks disappointed with W
Report comment to moderator
I am amazed at all the vitriol from the leftists (including those above who were, not surprisingly, quick to comment negatively) against GW Bush. The man is not even running this time! I also wish the Right would stop bringing up Bill Clinton. There will always be disgruntled members of a president’s crew, and they will always try to get their moment in the limelight. So what? Until a jury finds this or any other president guilty of something, all we can do is assume right or wrong. (And we all know what it means to assume!)
Report comment to moderator
Bush whacking is where all the money is. The formula is “All hate, all the time”. America’s enemies (and Democrats) can buy their speech material at Barnes & Noble. Is any of it true? Who knows? Who cares?
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER: . . . jumping on McClellan’s bandwagon . . .
Democrats aren’t jumping on, they’re welcoming Scotty aboard. I don’t like watching their self-congratulatory smirks. Democrats need to be angry about this. McClellan should have spoken out when it mattered. Why he didn’t and how culpable he is are good questions (even Colin Powell diminished himself). At the very least, we’re looking at a crimes by Cheney and Rove. At the most, a trial of Bush for conspiracy and the murder of American soldiers.
It’s not at all surprising that Republicans have not jumped on McClellan’s bandwagon. What’s astonishing is that a Texas loyalist has made this revelation (or committed this betrayal).
Report comment to moderator
PETER L
Please give us a break. W is still in office and BC has been gone 7 1/2 years. “Everybody quit talking about the past” isn’t a fair rule. Furthermore, “Bush isn’t running” makes a terrible slogan for the party of a president who sees himself as one of history’s transformative leaders.
Report comment to moderator
That our government has been engaged in a propaganda war against us should be highly disturbing to everyone.
Report comment to moderator
In the absence of evidence, Scroopy, I’m not going to assume that McClellan is culpable of anything. He was a press guy. He was not an advisor. If he felt as strongly as this pre-release info says he did, it defies my understanding that he didn’t resign. Ari Fleischer did resign, and he was privy to more than McClellan until McClellan took his place. If all of what McClellan is saying is true, there would be someone from the inside who is no longer there backing him up. You mentioned Andrew Card, but he hasn’t said anything yet and may not do so.
I think you’re waaaayyy out there on conspiracy and murder charges, but you’re free to define them better. Give us the elements of the crime.
Report comment to moderator
To Peter
You mentioned people complaining about Bush and he isn’t even running for President.
You forget the American public is going to be paying for Bush’s mistakes long after he is thankfully out of office.
Tens of thousands of young men and women who served in Iraq will need medical care for the next 50 years.
Islamic people plotting revenge for Iraq for the next couple of decades.
A war that is far from over that Bush is going to cowardly hand over to the next President.
Report comment to moderator
Douglas Feith, a far brighter guy than McClellan, pointed out in a WSJ article on Tuesday that Bush made a mistake in shifting the primary basis for the Iraq War from WMD and Iraq’s relation with various terrorist groups in the Middle East to the complex quest for establishing democracy in Iraq, which was merely a consequence of taking down Hussein. Bush did this after learning of the intelligence failure of regarding stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. Feith warned both Rumsfeld and Bush that altering the main premise the war to establishing democracy in Iraq was fraught with difficulty.
Scott McClellan’s view is that Bush promoted the war on basis of WMD, knowing that this wasn’t true. Both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Robb Silverman investigation have disproved this thesis.
The fact is that McClellan was well known by the press and eventually the Bush administration as a Texas reporter in over his head in Washington. The success of Tony Snow and Dana Perino has rather proved this,
Basically, McClellan was properly moved aside by the Bush administration and, as little people will, he is trying to settle a score and make some some money with this book. The issues that he has raised will in the long run be debated and settled by competent historians.
Meanwhile the liberal media, which in the past viewed McClellan as a Bush flunkie, has found
a hero.
Report comment to moderator
In John McKinnon article in today’s WSJ he brings up another interesting view, McClellan may be doing this for personal reasons. The relevant graf:
Report comment to moderator
Douglas Feith smarter? That would be a pretty low bar (at least according to General Tommy Franks).
The problem is that McClellan is not so much settling a score as confirming what numerous others have already written about. One more nail, as it were. I suspect that one other motivation is that of reputation: he wants to introduce some distance between himself and an administration that will live on in popular memory (and perhaps history) as one of the worst American administrations in memory. With no public protest, he gets remembered as an abettor of a political disaster; with his protest he lives on as a footnote.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed Harris. Too many people have come out of this Administration reporting the same things from different perspectives for it not to be true.
The recent revelation that the Pentagon had hired former military officers to spread their propaganda posing as “military experts” on the “news” dovetails with what McClellan reports.
These whistle blowers better watch their backs. Cornered animals are extremely dangerous, and we’ve seen they have no conscience.
Report comment to moderator
“with his protest he lives on as a footnote.”
Which takes you back to Peter Leavitt’s post.
Report comment to moderator
How many of you Bush-bashers would care about this book if it backed Bush and bashed the dems?
Exactly, none of you. The idea behind writing books, is to SELL them. This will sell, cause it’s what you want to hear and believe about Bush, the other wouldn’t.
Nick says, “A war that is far from over that Bush is going to cowardly hand over to the next President.”
I usually find your posts somewhat amusing, in an eye-rolling kinda way, even though I don’t think that’s what you intend. But this one takes the cake.
So since his second term is almost up, what else should he do? I’ve got an idea! Bush should immediately declare marshall law, postpone the upcoming pres. election, and stay in office till the war is finished! That’s the honorable thing to do, instead of cowardly leaving office after his 2nd term, as is the law of the land. And to think I thought you were eagerly awaiting Bush leaving office. I’m so glad to hear that you’d like him to stay and finish the job!
I know, it sounds silly. Just like your statement above.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: Meanwhile the liberal media . . . has found
a hero.
Peter has this backwards. The media is attacking McClellan to defend against his charge that reporters didn’t push back hard enough against the disinformation he was peddling. White House correspondents are objecting to McClellan’s characterization of their passivity and they accuse him of shifting blame. Left-wing commentators are sneering at McClellan for being too late. As a leftist, I see him as a sleepy cipher of his negligent fellow citizens.
. . . altering the main premise the war . . .
Feith’s comments at this late stage of the catastroph are self serving, whether or not true. Given the small hope that there will be an Iraq, let alone a democratic Iraq, the least delusional and most exculpatory motive Feith can pretend now is the fear that Saddam had The Bomb.
Bush’s language from the beginning dripped with the dream of re-doing the world’s political colors. To me, McClellan’s definition of the reason and rationale makes far more sense than Feith’s. The clincher is the minimalist size of Rumsfeld’s army. The invasion was designed to demonstrate the ability of America to spread change with as much effort and pain as it costs a fairy to spread stardust with her wand. “Mission Accomplished” was supposed to be a Hiroshima, a demonstration of the capacity of American power and the futility of resistance. A huge, Powell-Shinseki invasion would have secured the WMD and regime change but cost so much that other regimes would have calculated that the United States couldn’t afford an encore. The fact that Bush listened to Rumsfeld, not Shinseki, proves his primary intention was to create the fear of further military exercises.
Report comment to moderator
To AJ
Bush is going to turn the Iraq debacle over to the next President so that country implodes under someone else’s watch.
Bush can then say he was making “progress” in Iraq and the new President screwed it up.
To me that is a coward.
Report comment to moderator
#5 Graceland wrote; “I think it’s clear that there has been a good deal of deception and incompetence during Bush’s time in the White House.”
Please justify this graceless unproven comment. Every commission or committee that has dealt with the cheap and partisan deception allegations have ruled them flat out false. Condoleezza Rice also pointed out that several U.N Resolutions claimed all the same things that Predient Bush presumed to be true.
Those who claim the President Bush lied, are lying. He has his flaws but he has not told any lies.
But disagreeing honorably with him is impossible for leftists, and apparently too much to ask from Graceland.
Report comment to moderator
Victor David Hanson pointed out:
“Over 70 percent of the American people, and a majority of Democratic senators, wanted to remove Saddam Hussein — overwhelming support for the administration’s war that rose even higher as a brilliant campaign finished off the Baathists in three weeks.”
Hanson continued:
“But when a messy insurgency erupted, suddenly we heard that our victory was ruined by ‘their stupid occupation.’”
I am proud of our country for deposing Saddam and then NOT abandoning Iraq high and dry. We stayed as allies at great sacrifice to ourselves to help them re-build and stabilize the country. After Saddam, that region became one more front for the war on terror that we could not (and should not) run away from. It;s been tough, but the cheap critics are all over the opportunist map. Meanwhile, the decision-maker we elected has stood his ground steadfast all along.
Report comment to moderator
In the words of TR:
* “[The] man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic–the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done.” Theodore Roosevelt (1891).
* “It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger.” Theodore Roosevelt (1894).
* “It is not the critic who counts… The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause.” Theodore Roosevelt. “Citizenship in a Republic,” Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
Clearly, this was a principel TR held on to over the years.
Report comment to moderator
OK Nick,
So the only option is the one I mentioned above.. Or everyone should vote for McCain. Since all I hear are McSame references, and how electing him would continue the present Iraq strategy, and Bush policies. That way Bush can’t say the strategy changed, or shift blame. And that way some poor innocent dem can’t be blamed. Voting McCain sounds like the only logical thing to do.
Report comment to moderator
To AJ
I am sure Bush wants McCain to win the election hoping that somehow, someway McCain turns the war around.
To Joel Mark #26
I will answer that. Have you heard about 935 lies the Bush Administration told about Iraq? And do you know who told the most lies? You guessed it, Bush led the way with 232 lies.
Report comment to moderator
OH MAN!!! This just get’s better!! Turns out George Soros is the man behind McClellan’s book.
http://tinyurl.com/4nre8o
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #19: Meanwhile the liberal media, which in the past viewed McClellan as a Bush flunkie, has found
a hero.
I am sure that you will never realize that your “liberal media” canard isn’t true and hasn’t been since 1975, if it was even then.
But the stories I’ve read report what McClellan alleges and the harsh criticism being leveled by his former colleagues quite evenhandedly.
Care to produce one example of a mainstream outlet treating McClellan as a “hero?” Just one?
Report comment to moderator
Democrats need to be angry about this. McClellan should have spoken out when it mattered.
Yeah, well I echo SteveG in #32 – we all remember McClellan’s quasi-”Ministry of Information” rhetoric as the not-well-disguised frontline of the Bush propaganda machine. Though it is refreshing to have him admit it now, it doesn’t erase the memory of his complicity.
Report comment to moderator
This just proves that Bush is powerless; McClellan isn’t afraid of being whacked!
All those books about Clinton and his Arkansas Mafia must be true; none of Bill’s “people” came out with any tell-alls. They were afraid!
Report comment to moderator
Buckles-
Clinton is a red herring. This is the Bush administration implosion. It has based on an unsound foundation and it’s coming down.
Report comment to moderator
I hope Graceland will reply. I thought his or her accusation at #5 was ill-founded and unjustified. It’s too easy to just to say someone is guilty of “a good deal of deception,” and then not offer a shred of evidence or reason for it.
Bush deserves criticism but why can’t his opponents disagree with him honorably or with solid substance? No legal or governing commission, committee or authority has concluded that ANY lies were told or any deception was at play from the Bush administration. In fact they have exonerated Bush from such charges, just like Ken Starr exonerated the Clintons from the feverish accusations that they had something to do with Vince Foster’s death.
The accusations are partisan George Soros fever swamp flame throwing.
Report comment to moderator
Poor Scottie is not very well liked today. The liberals are mad he spread propaganda for the Bushies. The Bushies are mad he’s telling the truth about them and their methods. The media is mad because he called them out as the corporate puppets they are.
Congressman Wexler, who sits on the Judiciary Committee had this to say.
“Scott McClellan must be called to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee to tell Congress and the American people everything he knows about this massive effort by the White House to deceive this nation into war.
Last week, a subpoena was issued for Karl Rove to testify before the Judiciary Committee. It appears he will take every legal action to block this subpoena. The truth is that Congress has the right – and obligation – to hold him accountable now – not months or years from now. It is long past time to pass Inherent Contempt and bring Rove, Libby and others before Congress. We simply cannot ignore these recent developments, nor should we postpone serious inquiry until after the next election.”
I’ve never been a fan of the Democrats, but if they can restore accountability and honor to our Government, I will start saying nice things about them. Go Wexler. Do your thing.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: Those who claim the President Bush lied, are lying. He has his flaws but he has not told any lies.
Bush claims that a soul-searching conversation with Billy Graham in the summer of 1985 prompted him subsequently to accept Jesus. “Billy Graham stimulated my heart–I would like to say planted the mustard seed which grew, and started me on a journey, a walk, to recommit myself to Jesus Christ,” Bush told an interviewer during the 2000 campaign.
The beach on which Bush walked with Graham in his autobiography doesn’t exist. Graham can’t remember the talk, and struggled to try and confirm it. The facts of Bush’s conversion are otherwise. Bush was led to Jesus by the itinerant, peripatetic evangelist, Arthur Blessitt, at a motel in Midland TX, more than a year earlier, in April 1984.
Bush lied about his coming to Christ in order to enhance the political use of his religious experiences.
When I first heard the Kennebunkport story, I was as skeptical of it as Graham seemed to be. “There’s not much of a beach there. Mostly rocks,” Graham told reporters who tried to confirm the story. Not having been to the vacation compound myself, I didn’t know about the non-existent beach. However, I was offended that Bush could experience an inspiring talk under the stars with Billy Graham and not accept salvation, immediately on the spot (rocky or sandy). I certainly would have!
McClellan tells us that Bush says privately he “can’t remember” whether or not he used cocaine at the wild parties he attended. McClellan doesn’t believe his former boss could forget. Nor do I believe that a man whom Rev. Graham made “right with God” would be so unaccountable for his past.
If one were to list all of Bush’s lies, I don’t suppose this thread could run long enough to contain them.
Report comment to moderator
What proof does McClellon offer for any of his smears? None that I have heard. Not even evidence. It’s just belated speculation at a convenient time for a thick nickle.
But unfounded speculation, not facts, is what sells.
Report comment to moderator
Scoopp quotes Bush to say: “Billy Graham stimulated my heart–I would like to say planted the mustard seed which grew, and started me on a journey, a walk, to recommit myself to Jesus Christ.”
Twisting allegations of lying out of such statements as this or out of the context for it is pathetic.
Billy Graham does not challenge or deny one shred of Bush’s account of his coming to Christ. If he did, that would be huge news. It’s not.
Those who say Bush lied, are lying.
Those who criticize Bush honorably should be listened to honorably.
Report comment to moderator
We’ll separate the facts from the fluff when he is sworn in before the House Judiciary Committee.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s someone Joel can trust.
“Add me to the growing list of those who are having great difficulty understanding McClellan’s motives. I spent two years as a White House reporter, much of it during McClellan’s reign. At no time did Scott ever indicate, either publicly or privately, he had the misgivings he expressed in this book.
What I hear about the book does not sound like the Scott McClellan I knew for two years. I can say without fear of contradiction, that I knew Scott better than any other White House correspondent or Washington reporter.” -Jeff Guckert Gannon, male prostitute and fake news reporter hidden in the press corpse
Report comment to moderator
It’s interesting to me that the administration can offer little more than statements that Scott was out of the loop. This would make some sense if he were not the President’s chief spokesperson. Even if he did not hold that position during the entirety of the relevant time period, he would not have risen to that position if he knew nothing.
Moreover, the assertions are not too inconsistent with those of others who had inside knowledge of the administration’s conduct from 2001 to 2006.
Besides, the book is much more specific about the cover-up of the Plame leak investigation. His comments about the early days in Iraq are less specific, and are the type of facts that most administration insiders would know (not just key decisionmakers). Thus, his assertions are consistent with what one might expect of someone who held two different positions (one as an insider and another as an ultra-insider).
In conclusion, there is no reason to reject McClellan’s statements on their face, as this blog’s evangelical talk-backers have done. Moreover, the White House appears not to be denying the statements. They’re just “puzzled.” Puzzled about what, though?
Report comment to moderator
The evidence that Bush told associates he could not remember whether or not he used cocaine is McClellan’s assertion in print that he heard Bush say it. The evidence that Bush prevaricated about his memory is MClellan’s disbelief. You don’t ordinarily need “proof” to credit such information, only persuasive evidence. Statements are evidence. Presumably, one could also interrogate the people who McClellan says were present — including Bush himself — as McClellan well knows.
None of the White House retainers are calling McClellan a liar. How could they? He was a personal friend and confidant whom Bush brought with him from Texas as a reward for proven loyalty.
By accusing Bush critics of lack of honesty, Joel Mark misdirects readers from Bush’s own rejection of candor and honesty.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Wehner, former deputy assistant to Pres. Bush, now a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has some insightful remarks on the McClellan imbroglio:
Scott’s broader claim that “in some small way” his hope is to “move us beyond the destructive partisan warfare of the past 15 years” and that he wants to “contribute to [a] national conversation” about making our politics higher and better is not terribly persuasive. The same can be said about his complaints about his disdain for “the Washington game.” In fact, one of the oldest games in Washington is to turn against those in power who cared for you and gave you the greatest opportunity in your life to serve this nation — and to do so in a book, for which you received a hefty advance.
George W. Bush is an imperfect man, as are we all, and our administration certainly made mistakes over the course of two terms. Many of us, in fact, feel quite free to talk about them. But the president is, at his core, a decent and honorable man. His presidency will, I think, be judged much better by history than it is being judged right now, though of course much depends on how circumstances play out in Iraq and elsewhere (it’s puzzling that Scott seems to have turned against the war at a time when, thanks to the surge by the president and the leadership by General Petraeus and others on the ground, we’ve seen remarkable progress on almost every front and a good outcome in Iraq is achievable). But regardless of history’s verdict, what Scott McClellan has done — which is to both turn on the president and in the process to paint a false and misleading picture — is doubly dishonorable.
Scott claims he is on a journey to discover “his” truth. But what he has done is do injury to the truth. The vast majority of us who served in the White House and for President Bush are very glad and grateful we did — and we will always consider it to have been the professional honor of a lifetime.
Report comment to moderator
Peter-
The oldest game in Washington is to discredit those who speak truth to power. McClellan is paying the price for speaking the truth under a regime that has been very selective, secretive, and exclusive.
Report comment to moderator
Godlumps, an older game is for little people to envy and hate their betters.
Report comment to moderator
an older game is for little people to envy and hate their betters. [Peter Leavitt, 47]
Is Peter Leavitt a closet elitist? Oh! say it isn’t so! But perrenniel optimist that I am, I’m glad he at least won’t be mouthing the “Obama is an elitist” schtick.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT:
Scott McClellan was far closer to W. than Peter Wehner could have gotten in 100 years. McClellan was a Texas Bushie. Wehner worked in the “smallest unit of the Rove empire” according to WaPo, tucked away on the 4th floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, doing research and sending e-mails. Wehner is a Bill Kristol neo-con caught up in the tragic delusion that Bush was the most consequential president since Lincoln. Wehner’s comments about McClellan are banal, not material to questions of fact alleged by McClellan, and unresponsive to McClellan’s analysis.
McClellan was. . . in over his head in Washington
Whose fault was that? McClellan had been Gov. Bush’s communications director, a campaign spokesman, deputy White House press secretary two years. He lasted three years as Press Secretary. When a war president’s press secretary is in over his head, the problem touches national security. Bush is wounded.
McClellan . . . is trying to settle a score and make some some money with this book.
Interesting, but not very relevant. More interesting, nobody bought McClellan’s silence, probably afraid of obstruction charges.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi (#43) wrote; “It’s interesting to me that the administration can offer little more than statements that Scott was out of the loop.”
Then you did not listen to Condoleezza Rice’s solid point about the many U.N. resolutions that comported with what Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Tenet, Blair and others believed and were saying about Saddam’s threat.
There’s no real doubt that McClellon indeed was out of the loop on the matters he emotes about on paper. According to reports, he offered no proof or evidence, but just his belated feelings about his feelings about what he thinks he was told or what happened. Apparently, him being out of the loop is a crucial point, consistent with the apparent lack of substance in the book.
Kiyoshi wrote; “Moreover, the White House appears not to be denying the statements.”
Huh? There is apparently nothing new about anything he wrote and it’s all been answered and reanswered long ago. It’s just unconfirmed inuendo. The White House is paid by us and was elected by us to do work far beyond the scope of answering this stale nonsense. And what’s to deny? McClellon’s emotive expressions of his own feelings about unjconfirmed speculations without evidence?
Report comment to moderator
This is about the ongoing inability of President Bush’s opponents to disagree with him substitantively or honorably, and about how little legitimate evidence they have on a leader who has run a rather clean and honest administration.
Report comment to moderator
It’s funny how people who are demanding that McClellan’s accusations be proved are quite ready to level their own accusations against McClellan.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
Those of us who have been here for a while would expect nothing less from Joel Mark. I tire a bit of hearing about “honorable disagreement” from someone who constantly quotes others out of context and misconstrues their words.
Besides, I said nothing about the President, so Joel Mark is free to stop lecturing me about the proper ways to oppose the President. I was simply pointing out that McClellan’s assertions do not appear to be false on their face (i.e., they are internally consistent and are consistent with what someone in his positions would have known). Moreover, I find it interesting that the administration is more interested in questioning his loyalty than in questioning the veracity of his claims. These are purely factual observations. So, Joel Mark, you can save your self-righteous evangelical lecturing for someone else.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
What is funny about any of this?
McClellon’s accusations are indeed unproven and that means something to fair-minded people. And he has much to gain from spinning his speculations on shows that cater to Bush-haters who will buy his book.
Think.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi,
Nothing less than what?
Who did I quote out of context, since you are now accusations me? Who’s words have I misconstrued and how, please?
What specific administration official has “questioned” McClellon’s “loyalty?”
Or are you just making up unfounded accusations too?
McClellon’s “claims” appear to be just his feelings about his feelings about what may have been said or happened. No evidence. No proof. How and why should the Bush administration pay attention to that?
Report comment to moderator
Some of you people are laughable. When McC. was the press sec., he was just another unqualified crony that Bush brought with him from Texas. Now it’s the gospel according to St. Scott. Make up your mind. Which is it?
And steveg, the mainstream media may not yet consider him a hero, but give them time. Check out the daily kos comments, or the democratic underground comments. Plenty of lefties are already using the hero term. It’s only a matter of time before the mainstream folks start parroting the leftwing bloggers. I’d guess by the end of the week. You guys seem to work off the assumption that if it’s repeated enough, it must be true. So far it’s just McC.’s word, and he wasn’t privy to most of it, which doesn’t exactly make it reliable. He is just trying to sell a book. He doesn’t seem to have many others backing his assertions.
And I noticed that none of you folks commented on the fact that Soros is the man, and money, behind this. I wonder why? OK, not really, I know why. It’s cause it’s what you want to believe. Soros serves it, and you lap it up like good little doggies. Try thinking for yourselves, it’s quite liberating, although it does require some work.
Report comment to moderator
Very little of what McClellan is saying is new news. Most of this has been reported for years now. What McClellan does is add one more first hand account of how it was done.
McClellan is a slug. He sat there and fed us lies, and now he wants to clear his conscience. At least he is trying to correct his wrongs. I’ll give him that. More than can be said for any of the Bush Zombies still drinking blood at the trough. For that I give him credit. Otherwise, I hold him partly responsible for selling us the Government Propaganda and running interference for these very bad people.
Report comment to moderator
I find it interesting that the most ardent and self-righteous Christians on this site are willing to speak badly of a man who in effect is repenting for his wrongs. He is telling us what he knows. Is this not to be applauded rather than discouraged, even if he is a slug?
Report comment to moderator
“This” is about Bush, Joel.
McClellan’s book is primary historical material. “This” isn’t about the people who post on blogs.
McClellan has written a challenging and ambitious argument about the Bush administration. You’re free to make counter arguments, but you have no basis for disputing McClellan’s facts. Remarkably, nobody has tried to correct a single fact — not even one.
KIYOSHI made an acute observation about the issue of McClellan’s loyalty. Mr. Loyalty, the submissive yes man to whom Cheney and Libbey fed lies because he was the last guy who would ever protest. McClellan’s loyalty is what makes the rather conventional content of his book so incendiary. Republicans are attacking his loyalty when they raise their alarms about an invasion of the body snatchers and ask, “Scotty, who are you?” Bob Bartlett has been saying McClellan sold Bush for 30 pieces of silver.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #55:
What is funny about any of this?
The blatant double standard of yourself, Peter Leavitt and some others is funny in a rueful way.
McClellon’s accusations are indeed unproven and that means something to fair-minded people. And he has much to gain from spinning his speculations on shows that cater to Bush-haters who will buy his book.
Yeah yeah. As both Kiyoshi and Godlumps have pointed out, McClellan isn’t alleging anything that seems to be obviously false. And since I doubt you’ve read the book, I daresay you don’t know whether he proves the case or not.
Also, you and I both know that if a former Clinton press secretary wrote a book like this about the Clinton administration, you’d be first in line to promote it. So please, do spare us your self-righteous prattle about “fair minded people.”
AJ: The liberal blogs are not the mainstream media. The mainstream media has been decidedly right of center for some time now. Please do catch up. The last time we had a “liberal media” in this country was around the time of Nixon’s resignation.
It is not obvious that Soros is “behind” this. The Perseus publishing company is an established publisher with about a half dozen different imprints and might be vaguely linked to a firm that Soros has investments in. That is a pretty thin connection.
And even if Soros was directly involved, so what? That doesn’t change the accuracy of the information.
Report comment to moderator
Godlumps wrote: “He is telling us what he knows. Is this not to be applauded rather than discouraged, even if he is a slug?”
Well, I wouldn’t call him a slug, but I’m not sure why you think this is about “repentance.” As a press secretary, you’re told “this is the policy of the administration, go and tell the people” This he did. He doesn’t have to repent for doing his job. He wasn’t an advisor, and he was no decision maker. He wasn’t sitting in on policy meetings as far as I know.
If he “KNEW” — and I don’t know what this guy knew or when he knew it — and if his “facts” are actual facts, then I guess you think he’s repenting for not resigning?
This book has not been released, so I don’t know if what we’re talking about is facts or feelings, but next week, we’ll find out.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, the Soros connection with McClellan’s publisher is thicker than you think, as the following from a WSJ editorial today makes clear:
We’d merely note that the book’s publisher is PublicAffairs, an imprint founded by left-wing editor Peter Osnos and which has published six books by George Soros. PublicAffairs is owned by Perseus Books, which is owned by Perseus LLC, a merchant bank whose board includes Democrats Richard Holbrooke and Jim Johnson, who is now doing Barack Obama’s vice presidential vetting. One of Perseus’s investment funds, Perseus-Soros Biopharmaceutical, is co-managed with Mr. Soros.
Mr. Osnos, who is “editor-at-large” at PublicAffairs, told liberal blogger Rachel Sklar that he “worked very closely” with Mr. McClellan and his editor, Lisa Kaufman. Readers can guess what advice Mr. Osnos gave them about how to make headlines and sell a book six months before a presidential election in which Iraq will be a major issue.
And make no mistake, Iraq is the reason this book is getting so much political attention. Mr. Obama has staked out a position for immediate troop withdrawal that looks increasingly untenable amid the success of the “surge” and improving security in Baghdad and Basra. John McCain was a key supporter of the surge, so Democrats now want to change the subject and claim the war was a mistake in the first place and sold under false pretenses. Mr. McClellan’s confessions fit neatly into this political narrative.
Report comment to moderator
Peter: When you read books published by Regnery, a well-known publisher of right-wing political works, do you take them with similar skepticism?
If not, then you have no real standing to criticize PublicAffairs. They have a political point of view; so does Regnery.
So what? The information, from either one, is either accurate or it’s not. When you retreat into guilt-by-association, you’re indicating you don’t really have actual evidence that he’s wrong.
Report comment to moderator
#60 STEVEG
” The mainstream media has been decidedly right of center for some time now. Please do catch up. The last time we had a “liberal media” in this country was around the time of Nixon’s resignation.”
Report comment to moderator
Rich Lowry captures the essence of McClellan:
Likable, but maladroit and plodding, he was the perfect spokesman for the administration of Harriet Miers, Michael Brown, and Al Gonzales. For anyone who doubted that President Bush too often valued loyalty over talent, there was McClellan stumbling through daily briefings to embody the point more eloquently than he ever could have stated it.
Lowry is quite right that Bush had a fatal attraction and loyalty towards some people who were in over their heads on the national scene. O’Neil and Snow at Treasury would be two other examples.
Report comment to moderator
George Bush is a tragically bad manager whether his subordinates are incompetents like Gonzales or geniuses like Rumsfeld and Cheney. There’s no way you can spin Bush’s toleration of poor performance during war. Bush has obligations to humanity. What you call “loyalty” to his catastrophic retainers must be called by something besides the name of a virtue.
Report comment to moderator
It’s impressive how Peter can be so sure that all the former administration officials who are now critics were “in over their heads.”
It’s also convenient.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Peter Leavitt in 65.
Bush is a terrible manager who has put loyalty above ability when making his appointments. This is called cronyism.
I watched some of the McClellan interviews last night. I also watched Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove on FOX try to discredit him. McClellan appeared much more credible and believable than Rove.
I look forward to Rove and McClellan testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. Under OATH.
Report comment to moderator
One can criticze Bush for a few faulty appointments, as is the case with most presidents. However, on balance he made excellent decisions on initially fighting the Iraq War, developing a policy of preemptive war against terrorists, lowering taxes, furthering free trade, and attempting to deal with immigration, social security, and health care.
Assuming that the situation in Iraq turns out well, which just now it bids fair to do, Bush will be seen as the liberator of Iraq, the only country in the Middle East with a genuine democracy.
Fortunately, Bush, with his sterling family and educational background, never needed to suffer Potomac Fever. Truth to be told the social and political climbers in Washington have been furious with him from the beginning due to not being invited to dinners and parties at the White House. He was able to make decisions according to his honest view of the national interest.
Like Eisenhower, Ford and Reagan, whom the leftist pundits despised as incompetent fools, Bush will in the long run be viewed as an able and effective president.
The venomous Bush haters on this thread are merely joining the national chorus of those who couldn’t care less about McClellan, other than being delighted by his bumbling betrayal of a good and decent man.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: Bush, with his sterling family and educational background, never needed to suffer Potomac Fever
Patomic Fever is a congenital disease of the Walker-Bush dynasty. The burden of proof regarding the excellence of W’s decision-making has devolved upon Bush’s defenders who fortunately won’t be writing the last chapters.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt-
You’re snoring and slobbering on my shoulder.
Report comment to moderator
To Peter
So you approve of Bush’s pre-emptive war against terrorists?
1) Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive attack against the U.S. Are you okay with that?
2) My neighbor and I don’t get along and he has been acting suspiciously lately. I was thinking about making a pre-emptive attack against him and burning down his house. Are you okay with that?
Report comment to moderator
72 – yeah, and then occupy his property (and call it winning the war on the Joneses) build a new house and teach his wife, children and pets how to be a democracy!
Report comment to moderator
72- Git that no good rascal before he gits ya. Who knows what he’s doing in there at night. Could be bad.
Report comment to moderator
It’s one thing to have an objectionable neighbor; another to have an enemy on record as wanting to destroy your culture and acts to prove it.
Thankfully Bush has played hardball with the result that alQuaeda has not attacked America for seven years and, according to Michael Hayden, head of the C.I.A., yesterday, is near defeat in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and is on the defensive even in its safe havens along the Afghan-Pakistani border. The only way alQuaeda could revive would be for Obama, if elected, to carry out his foolish plan to hastily remove American troops from Iraq.
Meanwhile the pacifist wimps and the isolationist ostriches whine and complain.
Report comment to moderator
McCain, if elected, promises to be out in 4 years.
Withdrawal from Iraq is not a debate about the risks of strategic withdrawal. It’s a contest over language and naming rights. McCain can’t promise an outcome, so he offers to control the terms of our humiliation — and it is a humiliation. We’re broken. Tragically, Bush has killed more people, and more Americans, than al Qaeda could have dreamed of killing.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know how to link, but if you go to FoxNews, you might find Bob Dole’s email to Scotty of interest. I’m sure you could google it, too. Dole is quite bent out of shape.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks NJL. The salient quotes from the Dole email are:
There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues,” Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. “No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.
In my nearly 36 years of public service I’ve known of a few like you,” Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate. No doubt you will ‘clean up’ as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, ‘Biting The Hand That Fed Me.’ Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected…
Bob Dole, who fought and was seriously wounded in a real war, has scant use for such scabrous characters as McClellan
Report comment to moderator
Notice Dole doesn’t argue with a single thing McClellan has written. Just another personal attack chastising him about loyalty. Loyalty and silence got us into this mess costing us billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of human lives. It’s time for the truth. To hell with party loyalty. Truth. McClellan has agreed to testify under oath before the Judiciary Committee. Will Karl Rove willingly testify under oath? No.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Dole is immaterial to McClellan’s book and a loser to boot.
Bush’s use of McClellan exceeded all moral limits. Bush got his money’s worth, sending Scotty out to dissemble until Scotty had no credibility left. Scotty was “in over his head” as Bonnie & Clyde’s driver was in over his head, prior to making a deal to tell the truth.
Let’s grant Peter his point that Dole wouldn’t have used McClellan. Does it matter? Bush used McClellan, and the way he used him tells us an awful lot about Bush. McClellan turned out to be a poor politician, but he makes a fascinating witness.
McClellan has made the biggest splash — but all Bush’s aids have jumped ship. Bush’s inner circle has been rent by feuds and his orders are ignored. Bush is a rudderless character in a play by Ionesco. Long ago, he broke Reagan’s record for vacation days. Air Force One has touched down at Waco hundreds of times to enable him to relax at the “ranch” at the end of his mind.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: Billy Graham does not challenge or deny one shred of Bush’s account of his coming to Christ. If he did, that would be huge news. It’s not.
You’re missing the point, JOEL. Rev. Graham doesn’t deny W.’s story, but he couldn’t remember it when contacted by Time magazine and expressed skepticism and surprise. When pressed, Graham asserted that he remembers talking to Bush, for whatever that’s worth.
On the other hand, W.’s salvation at the motel is documented by contemporary records and remembered by two witnesses who accompanied Bush when Arthur Blessit converted him.
Why would Bush tell the world that Billy Graham planted the seed that led him to Christ? I submit, he wanted a more politically prestigious conversion. Further, W. wanted to use his conversion in a self-portrait of deciciveness. Instead of a long messy process of coming to Christ, Bush wanted us to see an inspiring Hour of Decision.
W. is a liar — an Ananias and Saphira sized liar.
Report comment to moderator
Yes. Bush is a liar. And a really lousy president too.
Report comment to moderator
Bush is nowhere near as bad as the last three Democratic Presidents.
Report comment to moderator
Billy Graham is quite old. I think it is possible that he doesn’t remember everything. I doubt he remembers every convert.
Report comment to moderator
Many times people will pray and ask GOD to forgive them of their sins, and come to HIM as a child to receive Salvation. After any length of time the same person will wonder if they are really saved, and will pray again with someone else to come to the LORD Jesus Christ as their Savior.
This has happened to some people, not everyone, however I have known those who have experienced just what I have written above. This doesn’t make anyone a liar, it just means they wanted to make sure.
It’s sad that anyone here on this blog would question the President’s Salvation or who led him to the LORD. President Bush’s conversion is between he and the LORD.
This is nothing for anyone to fight over, or belittle.
Ananias and Saphira have nothing to do with this, a learned person who studies the Scripture would know better.
Hope this clears the air on this discussion.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree Bob. Bush will definitely go down as the worst in history by the time it’s all said and done. Let’s get back together in 20 years and revisit this. You’ll owe me a lemonade.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!