Snotty Scotty
I have to admit I’ve always had a soft-spot for Scotty McClellan. I mean, how can you not like a guy whose dad is a published conspiracy theorist and whose mom recently ran an off-kilter campaign for governor of Texas?
Even when Scotty was up there at the White House podium, lying through his teeth, I felt more sympathy for him than scorn. You could read his knotted-up body language and sorta feel the agony the guy was going through. This isn’t to morally absolve him. Rather, it’s just common sense to have known that he knew that we knew that we couldn’t take a word of his seriously.
Oh well, I guess we know have 341 pages worth of some sort of absolution from him. Here’s how the WaPo reported on his tell-all bombshell memoir:
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated “political propaganda campaign” led by President Bush and aimed at “manipulating sources of public opinion” and “downplaying the major reason for going to war.”
McClellan includes the charges in a 341-page book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” that delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade. He describes Bush as demonstrating a “lack of inquisitiveness,” says the White House operated in “permanent campaign” mode, and admits to having been deceived by some in the president’s inner circle about the leak of a CIA operative’s name.
The book, coming from a man who was a tight-lipped defender of administration aides and policy, is certain to give fuel to critics of the administration, and McClellan has harsh words for many of his past colleagues. He accuses former White House adviser Karl Rove of misleading him about his role in the CIA case. He describes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as being deft at deflecting blame, and he calls Vice President Cheney “the magic man” who steered policy behind the scenes while leaving no fingerprints.
McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not “employing out-and-out deception” to make their case for war in 2002.
But in a chapter titled “Selling the War,” he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush “managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.”
“Over that summer of 2002,” he writes, “top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president’s advantage.”
Nothing much here we didn’t already know. But it’s soul-affirming to now hear it all straight from the guy who was once the President’s official sock-puppet.
I don’t think this much changes the popular view of Bush — it’s hard to get below his current 29% popularity rating if you factor in that swath of the American population who will claim that God personally urges them to support the Prez.
Nope, the real loser here is John McCain. These revelations from Scotty come just at a time when Johnny Mack is insufferably strutting around and offering to “educate” Barack Obama (and by implication his supporters) on the strategic value of continuing the war in Iraq.
Perhaps the good Senator should first do a bit of self-educating. He can start by reading McClellan’s book.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
That guy knows how to write a book that sells to suckers.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Doesn’t anyone else see what I see? Doesn’t anyone else know that Scott McClellan is the sinister Darth Sidious to Bush, Cheney, and Rove’s Darth Vader? McClellan put his minions up into powerful positions and pulled the strings all the while playing the portly buffoon forced to lie on their behalf. Still calling the shots, he forced himself out of the public view and replaced himself to make himself look even more disposable to the unwitting American public. Now that it there is sure to be criminal trials for all involved in the greatest crime ring of all time, he is playing the part of repentant stooge.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Marc, you’ve been duped! Don’t you know that Scotty McClellan is a pawn of George Soros, who is masterminding a plan to take over the world through the Democratic Party? How can you be so gullible? McClellan is obviously bought and paid for by the loony left, and you might as well just write “PACK OF LIES” across the cover of his book.
Now, Ari Fleischer,he was a White House press secretary you could trust. Ahh, those were the days. *swoon*
May 29th, 2008 at 6:46 am
But it’s soul-affirming to now hear it all straight from the guy who was once the President’s official sock-puppet.
If he was truly bothered by things, he should have resigned earlier and said so.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Amen, Randy.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Good night! I also agree with Randy. It’s a sign of the end times.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Indeed. Heh. You’ll probably agree with the NY Times comment here:
So we don’t get carried away, I’m glad he wrote it, but he should have done so earlier.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:31 am
The funny thing is, this pretty much confirms what Woody and GM have been arguing so stridently about the last few years.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Jim, can you provide some clarification? I don’t know from which direction that you’re coming.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I meant against. WMD’s, nuclear threat to the U.S., the propaganda campaign to sell the war…
May 29th, 2008 at 9:01 am
He’s got a long, John Deanish career ahead of him. Plus, Oscar tickets!
May 29th, 2008 at 9:02 am
That still comes out sort of muddled, but you get my drift, right, Woody
May 29th, 2008 at 9:51 am
So Jim, here’s a question (as opposed to THE question). Was McClellan lying then, or lying now. His book means that at one time he WAS lying… so, why believe him now?
If he Was lying THEN, then so were all the Democrats in the Senate and in the Clinton Administration because THEY said essentially the same things that Bush said… my bet (though I have no way of knowing and neither does anyone else here) is tha t he is lying now. If you say he was lying THEN, then you are also saying that Reid, Clinton, Albright, Kerry etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nausea were lying then too.
You don’t get it both ways…. Conundrums a-plenty in politics ain’t there?
May 29th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Bob W. Maybe they’ll make a movie out of his book and he’ll not only get tickets, he’ll get an oscar for a screenplay.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:06 am
This book is as objective and has as much credibility as its publisher and the publisher’s ghost-writers.
This comment provides insight into the substance and intent of the book. Here’s the bottom line, “McClellan gave the publishers the book they wanted to sell.”
I don’t mind the truth, but don’t assume that something is true because it happens to state what you want to hear or because you can read into it what you choose to believe.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:06 am
“These revelations from Scotty come just at a time when Johnny Mack is insufferably strutting around and offering to “educate” Barack Obama (and by implication his supporters) on the strategic value of continuing the war in Iraq.”
Balter’s Blog offers some thoughts on this today. Click on my name above.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:22 am
As Marc sez, there is not much here we already didn’t know, chiefly because a whole squad of journalists have already reported the same basic facts over several years now. So the ruminations of GM, Woody et al. over the book’s “credibility” are really irrelevant. The new book does, however, some interesting new wrinkles, and it is far from the first expose by a former Bush insider–too bad for the political right that there is so much to expose.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“That guy knows how to write a book that sells to suckers.”
I’m slughtly bemused by the claim that people on the left are all going to rush out and buy McClellan’s book.
No we won’t!
In any case, our shelves are, at this stage, rather full of books documenting the deceit, corruption and felonies of the present administration written by people who didn’t wait seven years to tell us what was already well established for anyone who cared to find out.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:11 am
What Alex Higgins said. I’d have to get a new apartment to place all the books and magazines documenting the perfidies of the Bush administration.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I like the argument that Scotty should have quit and told all while he was discontented with his job. Why would anyone do that? You get paid to learn about the corruption of the highest government office, not for political gain but for honesty’s sake. The book deal and the cash flow that comes with it is just the icing on the cake. Can anyone else imagine the hell that would have been his life if he said anything to anyone (the president, Rove, Fleischer, the media, his mother) at the peak of everyone in the country buying the shit he had to spew? Truth deserves to be observed, no matter how belated it may be.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
AH: I’m slughtly bemused by the claim that people on the left are all going to rush out and buy McClellan’s book. No we won’t!
The left-wing publisher begs to differ or it would not have invested the money. The liberal news media can’t get enough of it. The book is currently number 1 on Amazon’s best seller list.
Conservatives are not the ones buying the book and getting excited about it. So, tell me again that wacky liberals aren’t going ape over this.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Where did the publisher get its backing to fund books against Republicans? Hmmmm. Could it be George Soros?
May 29th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
GM, you won’t see me defended Clinton…the original Senate hearings with Scott Ritter happened during his term.
McClellan always seemed overwhelmed by his job, and many times seemed that he was not comfortable with the positions he was stating. But he stated them anyway, rather than resigning.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“Was McClellan lying then, or lying now. His book means that at one time he WAS lying… so, why believe him now?”
Obviously I haven’t read the book (and I’m not going to) but the story he’s selling of some one who became disillusioned with the various members of the administration, the policies they pushed, and the tactics they used. This has nothing to do with lying, it’s more like somebody who followed one path with his pals and eventually realized he was heading the wrong way. The realization that the Bush Administration wasn’t advocating good policy or proposing it honestly isn’t a rare one. That may make it good salesmanship but it also pretty plausible to the 40% or so of Americans who went on that same journey.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Well aside from the pet rightie relativism, I’ve never heard any of those crazy assertions anywhere, but I’m sure they exist, though hardly the line conservativel-leaning pundits purport. What could Scott McClellan possibly bring in the form of income? Cheney, Powell, Rove and Rice are just spewing propagandists with no concern for truth. Any journalist that signs on to that doctrine deserves to lose their job.
But blogging isn’t a real job and won’t ever be. Especially with the level of truth standards we see now. It’s like a liars festival out there.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The book is currently number 1 on Amazon’s best seller list.
So I guess only lefties can read.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Because McClelland’s book obviously fits your view of the current administration and if he had written the opposite you would be currently panning it because it DIDN’T fit your view I have for you 5 words: George Soros, Carol Keaton Rylander.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
GMR – it would be useful if, before you challenge McClellan’s veracity, you demonstrate some minimal understanding of what he’s saying. Whether or not many – but of course not all – Democrats bought into some version of Saddam’s “WMDs” is irrelevant to McClellan’s argument that the “clear and present danger” of some threat was hyped by the Bush administration in order to justify a war that was launched for geo-political, not national security, reasons. Also, it’s not really arguable anymore that the rhetoric invoking “mushroom clouds” etc. was based on torturing the evidence of a nuclear program, dubious informants, etc.
Totally unnecessary and counterproductive war. Deal with it.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
GMR – I have four words for you: Return to planet earth.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Four more words: Paul O’Neill, Lawrence Wilkerson
May 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I’m puzzled.
It doesn’t sound like the Scottie I know.
Btw, how is construction on the Authors & Memoirists Wing at Gitmo coming? It will be ready by October ’08, claro?
Dick Cheney
May 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Yeah this is a decsion based around old rust righties in areas that are hard to fill. You could call it a free-market decison based on supply and demand. The law was circumvented. It is a bad precedent, but one based on human decency which knows no borders, only open niches to fill.
The right is always quick grab onto these issues and the Authors & Memoirists Wing at Gitmo is the paper. They don’t mention how this could happen ifit was not such a slippery slope. That’s a disconnect.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
From the Amazon site selling McClellan’s book, this should tell you something:
Customers Who Bought Items in Your Recent History Also Bought:
Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House by Valerie Plame Wilson
Broken Government by John W. Dean
Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush by Robert Draper
Truth and Consequences by Keith Olbermann
It seems as if liberals have nothing to do but read bad books. Publishers know how to take their money.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
The most interesting point McClellan makes (that I’ve heard) is that the liberal media was asleep at the keyboard in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Last night on Hardball, David Gregory was adamant (“but I’m not defensive….” [uh-huh]) that the media asked all the necessary questions, but stopped short only of calling the President a liar: “That’s not our job…”
However. over on CNN, where Field Marshall Wolf Blitzer bivouacs, reporter Jessica Yellin told an incredulous (or mock-incredulous…it’s hard to tell) Anderson Cooper that she had been ordered to kill or re-write a number of stories. She reported that pressure had come from advertisers and/or corporate network ownership to do so. [She said this wasn’t CNN, and I don’t know where she worked in 2002-03.} I’m assuming we will hear more about this…probably some sort of back-tracking from her, unless she’s a real mensch.
But Gregory’s point was bogus. Yes, they asked questions, then went on to cheerlead and praise the Freedom Fry Movement and embed reporters who would play Charlie McCarthy to the Edgar Bergen’s of the High Command. What reporter, during the “Shock and Awe” phase asked about the possibility of civil war? When our Airman in Chief landed upon the good ship “Mission Accomplished,” which reporter asked what exactly that mission was?
It is notable that the press secretary–the one who was the target of questions from the media (liberal and right-wing gay escorts both)–was underwhelmed by the press’s diligence.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
GM and Woody effectively demonstrate that apostasy is punished just as harshly on the right as it is on the left. Sometimes I despair at the possibility of intellectual honesty anywhere on the spectrum.
Are there any criticisms of Bush, the run-up to the war, the budget deficit, the handling of Katrina, the authorization of torture–anything at all that you would be willing to admit hasn’t gone so well?
May 29th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
And what books would you recommend, Woodster…something by O’Reilly or Malkin. perhaps );
May 29th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Damn, screwed up a simple emoticon
May 29th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
“If he Was lying THEN, then so were all the Democrats in the Senate and in the Clinton Administration because THEY said essentially the same things that Bush said…”
GM, check your history…a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives went against their minority leader Gephardt and voted against the war in Iraq. And not “all” the Democrats in the Senate voted “aye”, unless you think that 29 of 50 Democratic senators constitutes “all.”….and many of those who voted “yes” have suffered the consequences politically. As for the Clinton administration….whatever, who cares about the Clintons.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
“The left-wing publisher begs to differ or it would not have invested the money.”
Just like the so-called “left wing publisher”, Public Affairs, would not have “invested the money” in ALLIES: WHY THE WEST HAD TO REMOVE SADDAM HUSSEIN, by neocon William Shawcross. Or MEN AND SPEED:
A WILD RIDE THROUGH NASCAR’S BREAKOUT SEASON,” by G. Wayne Miller. Or the praise-heavy THE PEOPLE’S MACHINE:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER AND THE RISE OF BLOCKBUSTER DEMOCRACY by Joe Mathews. In fact, to call Public Affairs a “left wing publisher” is laughable at best – they don’t go far right all of the time, their business is publishing in the center.
The difference is, Woody, Public Affairs publish work from the right perspective from time to time. Imagine Regnery, or the Heritage Foundation – genuine “right wing publishers” putting out an occasional book by a progressive. They would do that when pigs could fly.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
That should be, “they don’t go far left, their business is publishing in the center” – end of that big paragraph above.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
A George Soros backed publisher goes to the center? BTW, they may have published the “conservative” books that you claim, but I’ve never heard of any of them.
JH, what books would I recommend? TV Guide.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
“A George Soros backed publisher goes to the center?”
Hmmm….authors like Andy Rooney, Roger Mudd, Sports Illustrated writer Leigh Montville, Bill Kurtis,…Evan Thomas and the Newsweek staff? Jim Lehrer? All left wingers? You are whack…
Also published by this outfit, “THE SWORD AND THE OLIVE:
A Critical History Of The Israeli Defense Force”, by Martin Van Creveld. Try to imagine a “right wing” publisher putting out, say, a criticism of Israeli occupation forces by, say, Edward Said or Noam Chomsky. Fact is, it wouldn’t ever happen. Face it, Woody, there is no “liberal media”, only in your fantasies.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:32 am
“no “liberal mediaâ€, only in your fantasies.”
True!
May 30th, 2008 at 6:59 am
David, tell me you are kidding. Surely, you don’t consider those writers you listed to be conservatives…from CBS, Newsweek, etc. If I’m wacked and you’re not, then I’ll take being wacked any day.
Here’s information on PublicAffairs pushing McClellan to write something other than what he originally intended so as “to be candid.”
May 30th, 2008 at 7:57 am
The same publisher has also published the Starr Report and The Starr Evidence, the complete grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. In addition, they have published three books by Natan Sharansky, whose The Case for Democracy Bush admires greatly.
This argument is the same sort of feeble-minded, put 2 and 2 together and get five arguing that we have heard from the right for years.
These are the same people who would give Rupert Murdoch a pass for publishing three of Michael Moore’s books, but busily impugn the motives of others.
Here’s information on PublicAffairs pushing McClellan to write something other than what he originally intended so as “to be candid.â€
Actually that’s not what it says at all. It says that distance from the situation enable McClellan’s thinking to evolve. The only here playing fast and loose with the truth here is Woody.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Italics tag should have been closed after Woody’s quote.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:23 am
I know voluntary response surveys are invalid and also that this is a potentially unrepresentative population. However, just for fun, how many of you out there in Marcland are with George W and don’t know whether or not you have ever taken cocaine?
May 30th, 2008 at 9:45 am
This whole bit about McClellan’s publisher is a sign of last gasp desperation in the grab bag of possible arguments over his revelations.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:00 am
reg and Randy, the publisher rejected McClellan’s book until he beefed it up against Bush, under the guise that if it didn’t say bad things about Bush then it couldn’t be accurate. See any bias there?
McClellan didn’t originate the attack and come up with the attack words in the book–the publisher did and McClellan was a duped stooge, as are you.
And, please explain, “his revelations.” Did you learn something new from the book that you and other liberals aren’t going to buy?
Your claims about last gasp desperations are simply last gasps by you.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am
He didn’t reject it, Woody, his editor made suggestions. It’s what editors do.
McClellan didn’t originate the attack and come up with the attack words in the book–the publisher did and McClellan was a duped stooge, as are you.
Insults and name-calling are all you have when you have no facts, and as usual you have no facts.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
So, Randy, we can assume that all the times that you and reg have called Woody names you had no facts? Just askin’!
May 30th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
So, Randy, we can assume that all the times that you and reg have called Woody names you had no facts
I’m not the one making assertions without a shred of support, Woody is. As I don’t do that, your comment is illogical.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Randy is an untier, not a uniter.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
No doubt you never make a typo. Wanker.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Woody,
You are wrong, there are many smart conservative and liberal reporters and journalists, the problem is that you and most right-wingers are so reactionary, even conservatives look like liberals.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“Surely, you don’t consider those writers you listed to be conservatives…from CBS, Newsweek, etc.”
Woody, I don’t know what you mean by “etc.”, but I did not “list” CBS or Newsweek to be “conservative,” I said that they were centrist….although, frankly, for Newsweek to go out and hire Karl Rove, of all people, is an insult to anyone at Newsweek who considers themselves “journalists.” The move was supposedly done by Newsweek to continue their “balance”, and offset Markos. And CBS…post-Rather, they seem to be the poor man’s FOX News, which is the reason why they are being pounded by the other two major networks (FOX does reactionary tv news in a much more entertaining manner). I can remember that for a long time over the last couple of years, during Couric’s half hour, they would bring in so-called “independent voices.” for a few minutes of commentary on events…..Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, …you get the picture. Name one time that Newsweek or CBS ever invited someone like Noam Chomsky (who sells scads more books worldwide than Hannity or Limbaugh combined) to do commentary. Never once has he or Howard Zinn been invited onto any of the three major networks, to my knowledge.
I call all of those titles that I mentioned on Public Affairs Center/Right, but not in any stretch of the imagination (except for yours) could any of them be called “left wing.” So your original labeling of that publisher as “left wing” is bullshit.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Oh yeah, that is another title that Public Affairs put out: KARL ROVE: Boy Genius. Sheesh..
May 30th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
And I know that I was pretty harsh on CBS, but even 60 Minutes, which I have loved for years, has not had at all the number of hard hitting stories that they had back in the 1970′s, when they covered Vietnam and Watergate….slave conditions on an orange farm in Florida that resulted in congressional action that year to improve working conditions. Even 60 minutes, I have to say, has become quite safe, and not the rabble rouser it used to be. So while I may have prematurely called it “the poor man’s Fox News,” I will say that it has become nearly unwatchable in the last two years.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:02 am
Woody and GM,
Why do you guys continue to insist that this administration has done a good job, has done no wrong, and has done right by the American people when so much evidence is surfacing that shows otherwise?
I just want to know. It confuses the shit out of me.