Heckuva job, Scotty: McClellan writes a book Update: AOL Hot Seat Poll added; Update: McClellan chastised tell-all tomes in 2004

posted at 7:38 am on May 28, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has written a memoir of his experiences — and the political punditry has already started feasting at the appetizers. Politico’s Mike Allen gives an exclusive preview of the newest must-read, which dishes on the Bush administration and attempts to distance McClellan from its more notable controversies. Unfortunately, if Allen has properly represented it, one has to wonder why McClellan stuck around as long as he did:

Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.

One has to operate with a caveat on pre-release information. Mike Allen is normally responsible in his reporting, but these kind of bullet-point revelations can leave out a lot of context. The actual release may mitigate quite a bit of these issues, or it may not, but one cannot tell until the book appears on the shelves.

McClellan says he still admires Bush, but thinks that his advisers served him very poorly, especially in the war. That will certainly gain a lot of attention, but it also calls into question why McClellan stuck around for three years of dealing “propaganda”. As Kathryn Jean Lopez notes, the honorable action would have been to resign for a press secretary who feels he or she has been told to lie. One White House insider has already stated that McClellan didn’t object during any of the meetings she attended or make his dissent known within the West Wing.

Furthermore, why wait for two years to reveal this? Obviously it makes his book a hot commodity, but the war started going badly in 2006 after he left the job. Two months earlier, AQI bombed the Golden Mosque and nearly touched off a civil war. Wouldn’t that have been a good time to open his mouth, especially with elections approaching that could have had a big impact on the war? Instead, McClellan waited until the war was almost over and the Bush administration has all but exited. The advisers he blames no longer work for Bush. What’s the point, except to cash out?

Expect all sides to redefine McClellan in order to either boost or reduce his credibility. To the Right, McClellan will have been the worst press secretary of modern times, and to the Left a man of extraordinary ability chased out of his job by Bush’s minions. The truth will be somewhere in the middle. When he left office, most people on both sides considered him a mediocrity at best. His status as favored punching bag for the hard Left can best be captured in the Keith Olbermann farewell McClellan received as he exited in April 2006. It will be particularly amusing to watch this fringe try to rehabilitate McClellan now.

We can expect more of these memoirs as the Bush administration comes to a close. The tell-all tome has become its own genre, and with mixed results except for the authors’ bank accounts. If the press secretary was that interested in truth, he took an awfully long time to tell it.

Update: ABC’s Jake Tapper recalls when a member of the Bush administration admonished another tell-all author and former official. Oh, wait — that was Scott McClellan scolding Paul O’Neill in 2004:

On the book critical of the Bush White House written in cooperation with former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill,” McClellan said on January 12, 2004:

McCLELLAN: “It appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people.”

McClellan also took issue with the book by former Bush White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror,” on March 22, 2004:

McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he 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. …

Yeah, we can’t trust people who do that, can we, Scott?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Gosh that’s something I’d really want to jump right up on; if I was an attorney. One guy they can’t find or has assumed room temperature and the other has a broken neck.

There’s a pair I’d luv to draw to!

when the ruling was made, Saddam was alive. you must be a liberal.

point is, which you cannot refute, or deal with, is that saddam was involved with al-qaeda, and with the 9/11 attack.

but then you libs can never deal with the truh.

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:07 AM

I’m thinking the poll could be taken by anyone? Not just HA commenters — is that right Ed?
wytammic on May 28, 2008 at 11:05 AM

It’s linked directly to AOL.

wise_man on May 28, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Right now, the poll above reflects that 45% believe McClellan’s book to be a “courageous truth-telling.” What’s up with that?

Rick on May 28, 2008 at 10:51 AM

No. 45% believe that McClellan’s book will be received as a courageous truth-telling.

I.e., received by the media, the book reviewers, the loony left, etc.

That’s why I voted that it would be received as courageous blah-blah.

misterpeasea on May 28, 2008 at 11:12 AM

So let’s see if I got this straight, lefties…..

Before he wrote the book, Scott was just a mouthpiece for the Antichrist.

After the book, he’s now the heroic, courageous, forthright, upstanding and incredibly good looking man of your dreams.

Which is it?

CurtZHP on May 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM

The mystery about why Scotty wrote the book and published it now is easily solved -

1. Payback for Bush supporting Perry in the last Texas gubernatorial election over Carol Keeton Strayhorn (One Tough Grandma), Scotty’s mom.
pullingmyhairout on May 28, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Well done. Think it bears repeating.

JiangxiDad on May 28, 2008 at 11:22 AM

CurtZHP on May 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Heh. Never ask a leftist to explain more than one of their “facts” at a time. Each fact exists in its own reality.

Like:

Bush is a stupid dumbhead. Bush manipulated and deceived the whole world into going to war.

It’s a war for oil. The war is responsible for high oil prices.

Everybody hates Bush and disagrees with him, just look at all the news, newspapers, and protests. Bush is crushing dissent.

misterpeasea on May 28, 2008 at 11:22 AM

I’m beginning to wonder about people’s real opinions around here. Right now, the poll above reflects that 45% believe McClellan’s book to be a “courageous truth-telling.” What’s up with that?

Rick on May 28, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Well you better wonder. I get sick of people thinking that everyone who disagrees with the idiot in chief is liberal when the man himself is not even conservative. He’s not even as good on the budget or illegals as Clinton yet the loyalists stick up for this Rockefeller. He’s a bigger government liberal than his dad. He was against nationbuilding before he was for it. And not even nationbuilding after getting the people who attacked us. No we go an engage in nationbuilding with someone who was not an imminent threat and that did not do 9/11. Bin Laden even wanted to overthrow Saddam. Yet its all part of a supposed bigger picture. Yet when you refer that bigger picture…to PNAC, the AEI, or some of the people at the Weekly Standard all of the sudden conspiracy theory even though all kind of reading material can be found online from their own sources, their personal influences can be found by reading a few old books, but the idiot crowd is waiting for the Talk Radio Media to beam in their next set of thoughts. The people running our foreign policy agreed with Clinton on the nations he interfered with and wanted more boots on the ground there, while we opposed them. Conservatives who have stayed true to form, or at least have come back to 1994′s principles can see what a bum Mr. Bush is, the rest have flipped and flopped on their principles, or they don’t have any.

LevStrauss on May 28, 2008 at 11:24 AM

I’m beginning to wonder about people’s real opinions around here. Right now, the poll above reflects that 45% believe McClellan’s book to be a “courageous truth-telling.” What’s up with that?

Rick on May 28, 2008 at 10:51 AM

The poll asks how we think the book will be received, not what we believe.

RushBaby on May 28, 2008 at 11:25 AM

LevStrauss on May 28, 2008 at 11:24 AM

and you could careless, like the media, about Feith’s book which is devistating to your talking points on ‘nation building’, etc.

jp on May 28, 2008 at 11:26 AM

LevStrauss on May 28, 2008 at 11:24 AM

You have some foam flecks on the corners of your mouth.

misterpeasea on May 28, 2008 at 11:27 AM

In the words of the immortal Ted DiBiase: everyone’s got a price.

Pcoop on May 28, 2008 at 11:28 AM

the Rothbardians need to be kicked to the curb, usefull tools of the left and thats about it.

jp on May 28, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Warning/disclaimer:

Monkie and Shipley were longtime resident liberals* at Cap’s Quarters. To be honest, these two (at least) rarely qualified for the “moonbat” category that claimed 9/11 was an inside job, (and off the wall diatribes). While many here would consider them “resident trolls”, Ed believed that it was necessary to have “differing perspectives” so CQ could not be accused of becoming similar to the scum websites like Kos and DU that banned any dissent that did not toe their agenda. While I do not agree with 98% of most of Ships and Monkie’s comments, these two rarely engaged in personal attacks with the vileness any of us would receive at a liberal site, and (I believe) it would be an injustice to not allow their views to be “Hot Aired”. Now I shall shower to wash this film from my keyboard.

Respectfully,

Rovin

* the “resident liberal” is my own label—Shipley and Monkie may have a different title for their political philosophies

Rovin on May 28, 2008 at 11:30 AM

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:07 AM

You cling desperately to your “guns and belief in” the Bush Administration…?

Your guns…being your political, “belief in” the Bush Administration?

Rusty bore and damn low on ammo!
I say…

J_Gocht on May 28, 2008 at 11:31 AM

Your guns…being your political, “belief in” the Bush Administration?

Rusty bore and damn low on ammo!
I say…

perhaps, but it doesn’t take much to make you look foolish, obviously.

keep clinging to your lies, its all ya got. since you’ve posted nothing but talking points…when you get an original idea, let me know!

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:35 AM

and you could careless, like the media, about Feith’s book which is devistating to your talking points on ‘nation building’, etc.

jp on May 28, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Somebody still has faith in Feith. You know those OSP people are really the worst kind of liars. They come back and blame intelligence on Iraq when the intelligence and the way it was presented was just a marketing plan. Go and read Feith and his ilk. Go to the PNAC articles. Read Ledeen’s Machiavelli on Modern Leadership. Read the Weekly Standard and the Podhoretz’s. Give them all a good look over. These guys have wanted to destabalize the whole Middle East for some time. This has been in the works since the end of the first Gulf War when Cheney had his guys draw up future plans for America’s role as a superpower. Go ahead look at Iraq as part of the bigger picture. It was the easiest to justify, so it is obviously a good place to start. Then after you inflame the region hopefully somebody would attack you and you can spread. We are trying to do it with Iran, but if you just go back and read people like Perle, Kristol, and many in the American Enterprise Institute/PNAC circles you would see that they would like to see a true “war of civilizations”. 9/11 was just a “lucky” event for them, something that would give them the political capital to put their plans into action.

LevStrauss on May 28, 2008 at 11:36 AM

misterpeasea on May 28, 2008 at 11:12 AM

RushBaby on May 28, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Yeah, I misread it. That’s what happens when you try to skim through things.

Rick on May 28, 2008 at 11:39 AM

These guys have wanted to destabalize the whole Middle East for some time. This has been in the works since the end of the first Gulf War when Cheney had his guys draw up future plans for America’s role as a superpower

yeah its all a conspiracy by the:

NEOCONS (liberal code word for jews)
Rothschilds
Bush family
Oil companies
skull and bones
space aliens

read people like Perle, Kristol

both jews right?

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:41 AM

oops sorry I forgot the ILLUMINATI

and the Bilderbergs!!

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Yeah, I misread it. That’s what happens when you try to skim through things.

Rick on May 28, 2008 at 11:39 AM

I should have read the comments on page 2 before I chimed in. You didn’t need it pointed out to you twice. Seems I am guilty of skimming too! Peace!

RushBaby on May 28, 2008 at 11:45 AM

kook alert….amazing how easy the Left can brainwash the Rothbardians like Straus above.

jp on May 28, 2008 at 11:45 AM

I don’t care, I just don’t care. I have never accepted the validity of these after the fact tomes that simply are out there for the notoriety or quick buck. McClellan is NOT important or interesting.

MNDavenotPC on May 28, 2008 at 11:45 AM

9/11 was just a “lucky” event for them, something that would give them the political capital to put their plans into action.

yeah 9/11 was a plot by the:

NEOCONS
Rothschilds
Bush family
Oil companies
skull and bones
space aliens
ILLUMINATI
Bilderbergs

those pesky folks are behind everything!!!

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:46 AM

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Most of them worked under and at the direction of Cheney who is not “Jewish”. Their “religion”, the Neocons, if you read their influences are really atheist. They use all religions for the sake of organizing the state. That is why Ledeen said Machiavelli would have loved evangelical christianity. Look up their influences and read the old books that they read. It has nothing to do with dogma and doctrine, it is religion as a useful tool for political objectives. The “Left Behind” series was nothing but propaganda to get the superstitious to apply end times theology to their foriegn policy strategy. Actually the Jewish religion is much more superior to the Christian relgion as far as intellect is concerned which might be why so many “Jews” are in such high positions.

NEOCONS (liberal code word for jews)
Rothschilds
Bush family
Oil companies
skull and bones
space aliens

This is just childish but again look who I am responding to.

LevStrauss on May 28, 2008 at 11:52 AM

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:46 AM

Lucky was put in quotes becaue I believe Perle said something to that effect before 9/11. No dumb@ss, it wasn’t an inside job, just chance falling in their favor.

LevStrauss on May 28, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Lucky was put in quotes becaue I believe Perle said something to that effect before 9/11. No dumb@ss, it wasn’t an inside job, just chance falling in their favor.

LevStrauss on May 28, 2008 at 11:54 AM

So the world revolves politics, huh?

terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 11:56 AM

The “Left Behind” series was nothing but propaganda to get the superstitious to apply end times theology to their foriegn policy strategy

ok I’ll add evengelical christians to the list of conspirators!!

if you read their influences are really atheist

ok, I’ll add atheists too…I guess the question should be who is not part of the conspiracy!!!

This is just childish but again look who I am responding to.

actually its crazy, please get back on your meds.

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Lucky was put in quotes becaue I believe Perle said something to that effect before 9/11. No dumb@ss, it wasn’t an inside job, just chance falling in their favor.

come on…we all know that Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the boys couldn’t wait for ‘chance’!!

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Peace!

RushBaby on May 28, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Not while the Bushitler is in office…: )

Rick on May 28, 2008 at 12:02 PM

AOL Hot Seat Poll: “viewed by whom?” might be valuable conttext for )the question. I suppose that’s part of the trick in the poll, but the lack of crucial context makes this poll even more meaningless than most.

As for McClellan, fuck him. The only thing one can say with certainty about that fat little nothing is that he was the worst of the various Press Flaks for Bush. On a 1 – 5 scale, if Tony Snow was a 5 and Dane Perino is a 4.5 (and a 9, if you know what I mean), this douche was a deer-in-the-headlights 2.

Jaibones on May 28, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Bush 1 rocked – Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Axis of Evil, and kick the media in the a– , then it all got watered down somewhere along the way.

Halley on May 28, 2008 at 12:04 PM

McClellan was out of his league as WHPS.

He’s no Tony Snow.

Kini on May 28, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Most of them worked under and at the direction of Cheney who is not “Jewish”. Their “religion”, the Neocons, if you read their influences are really atheist. They use all religions for the sake of organizing the state. That is why Ledeen said Machiavelli would have loved evangelical christianity. Look up their influences and read the old books that they read. It has nothing to do with dogma and doctrine, it is religion as a useful tool for political objectives. The “Left Behind” series was nothing but propaganda to get the superstitious to apply end times theology to their foriegn policy strategy.

YES IT’S ALL AN JEWISH AND EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN PLOY! I personally meet with my Zionist Jewish and Christian friends every week and plot how we can start a new war every week. We sit together and draw up plans. Want to know which country we are going to war next? I’LL NEVER TELL!

terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 12:05 PM

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Certainly not all of them, just a convenient example of group think.

All in the Neocon Family…

“…New American Century (PNAC), a front group which cemented the powerful alliance between right-wing Republicans like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, Christian and Catholic Right leaders like Gary Bauer and William Bennett, and the neocons behind a platform of global U.S. military dominance…”

J_Gocht on May 28, 2008 at 12:06 PM

He’s obviously learned that if you want media attention for a book written by a Republican you need to bash Bush.

kimsch on May 28, 2008 at 12:07 PM

Five blind men are asked to describe an elephant but they each only get one part to examine. One gets the trunk, another an ear. “An elephant is like a snake” says the first and so on. McClellan, being a press type followed the smell. That’s all.

dingbat on May 28, 2008 at 12:09 PM

New American Century (PNAC), a front group which cemented the powerful alliance between right-wing Republicans like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, Christian and Catholic Right leaders like Gary Bauer and William Bennett, and the neocons behind a platform of global U.S. military dominance

don’t forget our alliance with the space aliens and of course our liason is the smoking man

keep it quiet, but we’re gonna force the return of Jesus….but first somehow we have to convince Iran to hate jews….its a tall order, but we’ve been very successful in the past few hundred years!!!

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM

terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Actually you are the useful idiots necessary to keep the thing going. Take a look at CUFI and see some of the things that Hagee has said about Jews and the Holocaust yet the Likudnuts, who are so quick to call anyone else an anti-semite stay mum. It is all about politics, because if you look at politics and religion, only one actually exists in reality. Religion has been used to mold the political order for years. There is no conspiracy, just some groups have representatives in higher places of power than others.

Hagee is trying to say that our current foreign policy is necessary for the end times to happen.

Less crazy evangelicals do think we are in a Holy War.

The Republican outreach to African Americans was primarily based on Republican relations with Megachurches.

LevStrauss on May 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM

our liason is the smoking man

Did you mean to write, “Burning Man”?

J_Gocht on May 28, 2008 at 12:15 PM

terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 12:05 PM

And let me just finish that it was my reading of the influences of the Neocons that caused me to break from Christianity. Would you like being laughed at?

LevStrauss on May 28, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Hagee is highly placed in our plans to rule the world!!

actually you are just another pawn in our plans!!!

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Speaking of eeevil secret cabals

misterpeasea on May 28, 2008 at 12:25 PM

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM

On a lighter note…perhaps we could all get together and rent a bus for this years, “Burning Man”

Fabulous fun folks!

J_Gocht on May 28, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Did you mean to write, “Burning Man”?

no, the smoking man, from the x-files…he just wanted a little face time on TV, so we made the TV people an offer they couldn’t refuse

we were just having a little fun with the pawns!!! little do they know….

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 12:27 PM

McClellan is to Bush as Dick Morris is to Bubba.

themistocles on May 28, 2008 at 12:27 PM

terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 12:05 PM

What’s wrong with you?? That information was not supposed to be leaked. You have broken the sacred promise. The Dark Lord will not be pleased.

Rick on May 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Methinks not!

Timing is everything… this may be just the thing the electorate needs to hear before voting for McBush and the continuation of his disastrous policy with respect to the War in Iraq.

J_Gocht on May 28, 2008 at 10:53 AM

It only stands up through the fall if Scott can go out there and stand up to questioning about the contents of the book to places willing to ask tougher questions than Keith Olbermann on “Countdown”. If he can do that, and explain why he’s telling the truth now when he wasn’t before, or why if all this was going on he didn’t resign back in 2005, he’ll have a little more widespread credability (and I can remember Clinton Administration appointees on the left who resigned in 1996 in protest over Clinton signing the welfare reform bill, so it has been done).

If, on the other hand, he simply retreats to safe houses in the media on the left and refuses to answer any tough questions, this will be, at best, a one week story for 90 percent of the people out there, even if it remains a cause celeb for those 10 percent on the left whose suddenly see a nobleness in McClellan they never perceived before Monday night.

jon1979 on May 28, 2008 at 12:35 PM

Their “religion”, the Neocons, if you read their influences are really atheist.

this is such a crock and goes to show just how easily led the Rothbardians are.

“Neocons” = NEW conservatives, originally in the 70′s that was jews who left the dems because they were “mugged by reality”.

since then the bircher kooks and their close socialist allies have applied this to Reagan/Goldwater conservatism and are trying to clam Rothbardian anarcho-Capitalism is ‘old school’ conservatism that was ‘hijacked’.

too bad there is nothing “neo” about “Neocon” foreign policy, which goes all the way back to our founding fathers.

Jonah Goldberg: How Neo are the Neocons?

Robert Kagan’s book, ‘Dangerous Nation”, is a good read btw.

jp on May 28, 2008 at 12:39 PM

No we go an engage in nationbuilding with someone who was not an imminent threat and that did not do 9/11. Bin Laden even wanted to overthrow Saddam. Yet its all part of a supposed bigger picture. LevStrauss on May 28, 2008 at 11:24 AM

By LevStrauss’s contention that there was no “imminent threat”, the Bush administration saw a different outlook on what the future would look like five to ten years down the road. Bush had the strategic foresight to understand that if we continued with the status quo attitude by Clinton would result in the destablization of the region and yes, would effect the economic stability of the free world while also allowing an ideology of hate and extremism to capitulate wide-spread distruction through murderous tactics and cowardly indiscriminate homocidal brutality on the innocent.

Respecfully, LevStrauss’s attempt to “frame” these historical events that minimizes and trivializes the atrocities that came to bare on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush may have very well prevented the genocide and escalation of the califate that has pronounced their intentions to destroy the west. Isolationism may get a party elected by the sheep that follow this philosophy, but history may record a different perspective.

Rovin on May 28, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Judging by this thread, it looks like DU and the Daily Kooks had a fire sale and got rid of some of their loons, and quite a few staggered over to HA.

RMR on May 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM

that said, as an evil neocon I still support on the merits the 23 reasons debated that we went into the Bad War that is Iraq. also have no problems with the good war either and hope we keep a Muscular posture as world leader against our mortal enemies such as the “Hidden Imam” beleiving Iranians and their puppet armies Hezzbollah, Hamas, etc.

jp on May 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Judging by this thread, it looks like DU and the Daily Kooks had a fire sale and got rid of some of their loons, and quite a few staggered over to HA.

RMR on May 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM

LeviStraus is a paultard, i.e. a Murray Rothbardian kook.

not any different than the Kossacks though, same talking points, same propaganda and just as big a joke. but hey, they understand how the laws of supply and demand work.

jp on May 28, 2008 at 12:43 PM

All I’m going to say is that (in my opinion) its impossible to pass judgment on the book unless you have read it. I have not read it, so I am withholding judgment until I know more detail.

PaulD on May 28, 2008 at 12:43 PM

and you could careless, like the media, about Feith’s book which is devistating to your talking points on ‘nation building’, etc.

jp on May 28, 2008 at 11:26 AM

OMG!!!

Feith? Doug Feith? The Doug Feith? You’re going by what he says?

I’ll worry about OSD, all of them, including Doug Feith, who’s getting
a reputation around here as the dumbest #ucking guy on the planet.
- Tommy Franks

MB4 on May 28, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Forget McClellan.

Pray for Tony Snow.

Former Bush press secretary Snow, sick, cancels Ohio speech
May 28 12:31 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90UOJEO1&show_article=1

Brat on May 28, 2008 at 12:49 PM

I’ll skip judgement until I read it and see the follow up questions layed on Scotty’s doorstep. That said this book is certainly going to be a stone around McCain’s neck. I know it isn’t about McCain, but it does reinforce the main argument the Dem’s have about GW/the GOP/Iraq….lies on top of lies( I am not endorsing that view).

At the least, and I have said this all through this war, that the administration is guilty of not leveling with the peeps that the real strategy behind Iraq was to sandwich Iran. Instead they grabbed onto the WMD-LetFreedomRing strawman. If they would have laid out in the first place that Iran was the mover and shaker in regards to overall support for terrorism then I believe the American public would have gone along. Once we were in they got cold feet about Iran because they couldn’t control the spin of the WMD-Democracy line they laid on the American public.

Limerick on May 28, 2008 at 12:53 PM

I largely agree with Kagan on all of these points. But I have a problem, too. Kagan embraces and celebrates the definition of neoconservatism as a doctrine of democracy promotion abroad, moralism in foreign policy and unilateralism toward these ends when necessary. But the original neoconservatism of the late ’60s and early ’70s wasn’t about any of these things.

It was about domestic affairs, primarily the dangers of overreach. Less an ideology than a branch of skepticism about the ability of government to achieve anything like utopian goals, neoconservatism was the school for former liberals who’d been “mugged by reality,” in Irving Kristol’s words.

Kagan and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol (son of Irving) actually rejected the label “neoconservative” when describing their ideal foreign policy in a now-famous 1994 Foreign Affairs essay, “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy.” Yet, since then, their neo-Reaganism has simply been called “neoconservatism.”

Hence the irony: The best cure for today’s neoconservatism is a big dose of the neoconservatism of old.

jp on May 28, 2008 at 12:53 PM

This is just another straw heaped on “W’s” back. Just makes one wonder if he’ll make it through the next 7 months without having is approval numbers sink into the single digits.
The hamartia of the Bush presidency is the fact that he could, presently, be enjoying extreme support from his former base, had he not turned on them with insult after insult. The key issue where W, tragically, opposed the base – that of illegal immigration. Calling the Minutemen vigilantes. Ramos/Compean. Refusing to seal the border. Siding with the World Court against Texas on the Jose Medellin case. And on and on! Resulting in those that have been his most strident/vocal supporters to now, be repulsed by him. Would that W had embraced Nationalism instead of buying into internationalism/globalism, these supporters would be shouting down this Mama’s boy, wimp McClellan right now. Instead. Silence. Crickets chirping.

Oh the tragedy. Sack cloth and ashes. DD

Darvin Dowdy on May 28, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Darvin Dowdy on May 28, 2008 at 12:56 PM

very true, wonder if Bush even realizes it?

jp on May 28, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Iraq War Architects Shrug Off Truth
So there I was, listening to a few of the major “architects” of the war in Iraq — Paul Wolfowitz, formerly No. 2 man at the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld; Douglas J. Feith (This is the man about whom Tommy Franks said, “He is rapidly getting a reputation around here as being the dumbest #ucking guy on the planet.”), formerly
No. 3 man at the Pentagon under Rumsfeld; Peter Rodman, another former senior adviser to Rumsfeld; and Dan
Senor, former senior adviser to Paul Bremer of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). They had assembled at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., for a discussion of Feith’s new book, “War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism,” but what they were drawn to discuss was what went wrong with the war in Iraq.

A rather large topic. Would it cover, perhaps, such grand themes as the multicultural Big Lie that insists Western ways may be grafted — presto! — onto Islamic cultures? Or maybe the difficulties inherent in the Western-style, humane projection of power against seventh-century terrorist barbarians?

No.

I got one of those answers myself, at least from Feith. I asked: What did these gentlemen think the United States would ultimately get out of Iraq in exchange for our massive investment of blood and treasure? And had they learned anything to make them doubt the president’s often-repeated promise that Iraq would become an “ally” in the “war on terror”? Shrug. Not interested in answering.
- Diana West

MB4 on May 28, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Calling the Minutemen vigilantes. Ramos/Compean. Refusing to seal the border. Siding with the World Court against Texas on the Jose Medellin case. And on and on! Resulting in those that have been his most strident/vocal supporters to now, be repulsed by him. Would that W had embraced Nationalism instead of buying into internationalism/globalism, these supporters would be shouting down this Mama’s boy, wimp McClellan right now. Instead. Silence. Crickets chirping.

Well then I hope building a stupid fence is worth losing the an election and the continue perpetration of lies.

terryannonline on May 28, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Bush got exactly what he deserved. He gave this incompetent fool an important job and kept him in the position long after it was obvious to everyone the guy was way over his head. He looked and sounded like Patrick Starfish. McClellan’s reign marked the beginning of the poor communication that did grave harm to the Presidency and GOP in general. His was the worse Press Secretary in my lifetime and it came at a time when the country desperately needed a really good one.

Every idiot Bush hired and kept out of loyalty have done us great harm and come back after their incompetency is fully exposed to bite Bush right on the arse.

TheBigOldDog on May 28, 2008 at 1:17 PM

Bush got exactly what he deserved. He gave this incompetent fool an important job and kept him in the position long after it was obvious to everyone the guy was way over his head. He looked and sounded like Patrick Starfish. McClellan’s reign marked the beginning of the poor communication that did grave harm to the Presidency and GOP in general. His was the worse Press Secretary in my lifetime and it came at a time when the country desperately needed a really good one.

Every idiot Bush hired and kept out of loyalty have done us great harm and come back after their incompetency is fully exposed to bite Bush right on the arse.

TheBigOldDog on May 28, 2008 at 1:17 PM

bingo

funky chicken on May 28, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Ed:

“The truth will be somewhere in the middle.”

Not necessarily. This is one of the most annoying bits of knee-jerk conventional wisdom around.

JM Hanes on May 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM

“Furthermore, why wait for two years to reveal this? ”

Because it takes time to write a f**king book!

Not to mention the time it’d take getting lawyers to sign off on it.

Look at all you people throwing Scottie under the bus because he wrote things you didn’t like. If he’d given Bush a literary b.j., you’d all be dancing in the streets chanting SCOTTIE! SCOTTIE!

Dave Rywall on May 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Look at all you people throwing Scottie under the bus because he wrote things you didn’t like.

Not exactly. He didn’t really add any facts to the mix, he just decided he was going to articulate the liberal spin on everything, whereas he’d previously taken the administration spin. We’re “throwing him under the bus,” as you put it, because there’s no factual reason for him to change his spin.

The reasonable question to ask is, “If the facts didn’t change, and the man didn’t change, why did the interpretation change?”

The most reasonable interpretation is that the man wanted to get positive reactions from the people he’s now mimicking. That’s hardly a surprise, given that he spent 3 years trying to mollify them unsuccessfully. He’s probably psychically wounded that so many people didn’t like him while he was press secretary. He probably wants their approbation. He probably has a better chance getting crude oil from a turnip, but wounded people do irrational and desperate things.

By the way, you’re wrong about what we’d be doing if he’d given Bush positive comments; we’d have yawned. He wasn’t a very good Press Secretary.

philwynk on May 28, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Dave Rywall on May 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Right. That’s why many of us were begging Bush to fire him after about a week into his tenure. The man was an incompetent fool. He made deers frozen by headlights look sharp and alert. It’s the one time in memory when I was in complete agreement with the entire White House Press Corps.

He wasn’t a very good Press Secretary.

philwynk on May 28, 2008 at 1:45 PM

That’s the understatement of the year.

Again, Bush deserves everything he’s getting from the fool. He put the Pillsbury Dough Boy in the job because of cronyism and he stuck with him long after everybody with at least the intellect of an 8-year-old knew he was incompetent. He did great harm to the GOP in general and Bush’s Presidency in particular and Bush has nobody to blame but himself.

TheBigOldDog on May 28, 2008 at 1:56 PM

“Furthermore, why wait for two years to reveal this? ”

Because it takes time to write a f**king book!

Not to mention the time it’d take getting lawyers to sign off on it.

Look at all you people throwing Scottie under the bus because he wrote things you didn’t like. If he’d given Bush a literary b.j., you’d all be dancing in the streets chanting SCOTTIE! SCOTTIE!

Dave Rywall on May 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Hey, drywall is back!

For you HA regulars, Dave was one of the loonier leftists on Captain’s Quarters.

By the way, sheetrock, it doesn’t always take 2 years to write a book. Alan Dershowitz’ highly flawed book on the 2000 Florida recount was out 6 months after the SCOTUS stopped Gore from stealing the election (by a 7-2 vote no less). Bugliosi’s book on the same subject only took 5 months to write and publish, as did Washington Times writer Bill Sammon’s. And the best of all of the 2000 recount books, “The Perfect Tie”, came out in late March of 2001.

As for the reaction to his book, let’s not forget that it’s your side of the aisle that is now suddenly declaring Scott a “prophet”, after calling him a liar for years.

Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Payback for Bush supporting Perry in the last Texas gubernatorial election over Carol Keeton Strayhorn (One Tough Grandma), Scotty’s mom.
pullingmyhairout on May 28, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Slightly “payback” for something Strayhorn had no right asking for and not getting. Perry was Bush’ Lt.Gov., and a loyal supporter of Pres.Bush, so no one in their right mind expected Bush to pull away from Perry.

But “in their right mind” eliminates McClellan and momma Keaton. Carol was an AUSTIN TEXAS DEMOCRAT through and through, beginning her political career within the city council. The only reason she temporarily left the Democrat Party was around 1994 when no one could get elected on the TX state ticket because of the huge political backlash against Bill Clinton at that time. When Carol no longer had use for the GOP, it didn’t take a miracle to change her back into a Texas Democrat.

Since McClellan lost his position in Washington, no one’s heard or seen squat out of him. Don’t cry that it takes years to write a tell-all. Once you’re on a roll, it can get written and printed in one season. This guy is a loser. He had no place in the big league, and he’s just being paid now to let himself be prostituted. The problem arises when he drags those better than himself into his depth. He has no legitimate excuse. That he’s a whore is his problem. I’m not buying his book or his story.

Remember St. Thomas More’s traitor? England’s Solicitor General, Richard Rich, testified

that More had, in his presence, denied that the king was the legitimate head of the church. This testimony was almost certainly perjured (witnesses Richard Southwell and Mr Palmer both denied having heard the details of the reported conversation), but on the strength of it the jury voted for More’s conviction.–source: wikipedia

Liberal “Good intentions” or “compassionate conservatism” get proven time and time again: It never pays to entrust a bastard with anything.

maverick muse on May 28, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Gosh that’s something I’d really want to jump right up on; if I was an attorney. One guy they can’t find or has assumed room temperature and the other has a broken neck.

There’s a pair I’d luv to draw to!

J_Gocht on May 28, 2008 at 11:05 AM

I wasn’t aware that Saddam Hussein was dead in 2003. Got any more details?

Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Where is Carol Hermann’s voice?

maverick muse on May 28, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Bush got exactly what he deserved.

I remember that Reagan received a few well placed daggers at the hands of so-called friends and subordinates too. The press had a field day with his documented incompetence like falling asleep at cabinet meetings, and he and Nancy governing by the stars…Now, do we even remember any of those blowhards who got their headlines for a day? No, while Reagan is beloved as one of the greatest Presidents. McClellen is just another in a long line of duplicitous subordinates who dishonor themselves in a money-grab disguised as doing what’s right…Whatever, two-day story that won’t change any minds but will merely distract the public, again…

Nozzle on May 28, 2008 at 2:08 PM

We have 4 quotes out of a 350 page book reported by some reporter and we are to believe this is what the whole book is about? I will wait until Monday and the book comes out because my opinion and respect for reporters is not very high at the moment.

JeffinSac on May 28, 2008 at 2:08 PM

At this point, who cares what McClellan writes. There is no revelation contained therein. IT’S ALL STALE NEWS. ALREADY, WE HAVE ALL LIVED THROUGH EACH DAY THAT IT WILL EXPLICATE. We have endlessly blogged through each item that it will regurgitate. No thanks.

maverick muse on May 28, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Popular re-elected President? Popular re-elected president’s in your world win 51 percent of the vote?

That’s a hell of a lot more than Clinton ever won. In fact Clinton never got over 50%. I think he was first elected with 43%.

flenser on May 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM

At this point, who cares what McClellan writes. There is no revelation contained therein. IT’S ALL STALE NEWS. ALREADY, WE HAVE ALL LIVED THROUGH EACH DAY THAT IT WILL EXPLICATE. We have endlessly blogged through each item that it will regurgitate. No thanks.

maverick muse on May 28, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Bingo.

RushBaby on May 28, 2008 at 2:21 PM

Payback for Bush supporting Perry in the last Texas gubernatorial election over Carol Keeton Strayhorn (One Tough Grandma), Scotty’s mom.

There is waaay too much cronyism and nepotism in American politics.

flenser on May 28, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Search the archives of any conservative-leaning blog during McClellan’s tenure as press secretary, and the consensus about his abilities and efforts in conveying the administration’s message was that he was a dud.

Contrast him with Perino and her knowledge about the White House’s positions.

There is no disputing the difference between McClellan’s incompetence and Perino’s exceptionality.

onlineanalyst on May 28, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Ed, you forgot the third and most plausible option: this is a case of a publicity agent ginning up interest in a book due to be released in an election year.

In fact, this is the second time around for this story. The publicity firm for the publisher released a quote that suggested Bush mislead McClellan about the CIA leak case. Anyone remember Dan Abrahams and Olby going through histrionics about how McClellan said “Bush lied!” Scotty then made a public comment saying the quote was taken out of context and he doesn’t suggest Bush lied in the book.

The guy got a book contract. He wrote a book. Now the publisher is trying to sell the book. And the media is looking for a juicy story. Typical Washington snowball. It’ll be nothing but a puddle of water by the time the book comes out and people read it.

Spolitics on May 28, 2008 at 2:44 PM

There is no disputing the difference between McClellan’s incompetence and Perino’s exceptionality beauty.

onlineanalyst on May 28, 2008 at 2:31 PM

fixed

jp on May 28, 2008 at 2:44 PM

For what it is worth I always thought Scot whatshisface sucked at his job. He made me nervous. Fidgety little man. Now he is just another back stabbing parasite trying to make a buck. The same people who called him a Bushbot will now treat him like the Delphi Oracle or something.

Terrye on May 28, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Del – Maybe Scottie was away at fat camp. Who knows why it took so long for him to write the thing.

Obviously non-repubs are happy the worst press secretary in history’s book takes a huge dump on Bush. Duh.

So maybe Scottie does want to cash out – maybe his glaring incompetence is preventing him from getting a job anywhere. Buy the book or don’t. Who gives a shit.

Dave Rywall on May 28, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Scott McClellan was an f-ing wussy when he was press sec. He is a d%ckless whining, sniffling fembot; half a Hollywood boulevard inflatable toy; fishnet stocking-ed, YMCA shower boy treat after writing this “I’m out of a job won’t anyone (anyone!!!) please pimp me out” book.

Put on your black thong, fire engine lipstick, leggings and pumps, Scott. It’s time to play “I’m cheap and easy”, Washington style.

revolution on May 28, 2008 at 2:45 PM

The most shocking revelation in Scott McClellan’s gossip is where he admits his torrid affair with Barbara Walters.

And the beat goes on.

viking01 on May 28, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Why the Shock and Awe? This is the Bush Administration.

Helloyawl on May 28, 2008 at 2:54 PM

revolution on May 28, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Dang.

Heapload of hidden desires there??

cntrlfrk on May 28, 2008 at 2:59 PM

revolution on May 28, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Can’t say the Bush administration wasn’t inclusive. Why not appeal to the SF vote?

JiangxiDad on May 28, 2008 at 3:05 PM

For you HA regulars, Dave was one of the loonier leftists on Captain’s Quarters.

Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM

My dear fellow, you shall keep watch in the street. I’ll do my own analysis.

Holmes on May 28, 2008 at 3:08 PM

OK, a question here from, uhm, ah what the hell, let’s say, black racist. What is in the book that is factually false?

freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 3:12 PM

What’s wrong with propaganda?

Propaganda—the dissemination of information for the purpose of helping a cause

Propaganda is not nefarious, per se. It is biased by definition, but what information source isn’t biased?

maverick muse on May 28, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Some one needs to bite Maverick Muse’s tongue!

Al in St. Lou on May 28, 2008 at 3:16 PM

I’m thinking the poll could be taken by anyone? Not just HA commenters — is that right Ed?
wytammic on May 28, 2008 at 11:05 AM

It’s linked directly to AOL.

wise_man on May 28, 2008 at 11:09 AM

You can also vote in any aol poll as many times as you want.

Connie on May 28, 2008 at 3:18 PM

What’s wrong with propaganda?

It’s not wrong if you direct it on your enemies and ultimately help a good cause. It’s extremely dangerous and wrong to lie to your own people, because the latter lose ability to make informed decisions about. Basic ability to access truthful information is the cornerstone of democracy.

Of course, most of hardcore right-wingers hate everything that America is founded upon. (Our legislature can’t be trusted to declare a war, our courts are dysfunctional etc. There’s no kind of crap that the right-wing would not love to say about America’s basic foundations.) So maybe they are principally opposed to democracy, too.

freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 3:23 PM

about GOVERNMENT.

freevillage on May 28, 2008 at 3:24 PM

De-bunking the Myths about Iraq War Policy Making is worth a read, especially for the moonbats who prefer the media’s version of events.

onlineanalyst on May 28, 2008 at 3:29 PM

So maybe they are principally opposed to democracy, too.

its called projection…

its the ‘tolerant’ (intolerant) libs that hate democracy, thats why they want judges to impose their policies.

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 3:35 PM

The most shocking revelation in Scott McClellan’s gossip is where he admits his torrid affair with Barbara Walters.

And the beat goes on.

viking01 on May 28, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Hey, I posted something similar at Scrappleface this morning…if it managed to get past Scott Ott’s delete pen for offensive remarks.

onlineanalyst on May 28, 2008 at 3:39 PM

LeviStraus is a paultard, i.e. a Murray Rothbardian kook.

A blaspheming paultard.

…but he does make a good pair of jeans

Hening on May 28, 2008 at 3:52 PM

this may be just the thing the electorate needs to hear before voting for McBush and the continuation of his disastrous policy with respect to the War in Iraq.
the only thing ‘disasterous’ about it is for democrats, who want us to lose the war.

right4life on May 28, 2008 at 11:01 AM

It’s not just the Democrats, what about the Libertarians?? Bob Barr, Ron Paul and every Libertarian out there feels the same way.

AprilOrit on May 28, 2008 at 3:57 PM

LeviStraus is a paultard, i.e. a Murray Rothbardian kook.
A blaspheming paultard.

…but he does make a good pair of jeans

Hening on May 28, 2008 at 3:52 PM

All the name calling just because someone has a differeing opinion. Conservatives are sounding more like DU everyday with the inventory taking, the name calling.

How did this happen? When did it happen?

AprilOrit on May 28, 2008 at 4:00 PM

So, was McClellan for the war or against it? Does he say it should not have been fought? Is his complaint that it was not sold properly? All hindsight or did he present any evidence of foresight on his part?

If he did feel it was wrong, waiting until the war is won to say it should not have been fought would be interesting timing, but not really honorable. For that matter, biting the backside of your mentor is not very honorable unless you are trying to save the public from a mistake. If you are just raising money, you are a weasel.

KW64 on May 28, 2008 at 4:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4