McClellan’s analysis isn’t very keen Posted by: McQ
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008
No I haven't read Scott McClellan's book. As usual we're left to hear about it second hand from the media who put their own spin on it. But I was struck by these few paragraphs in Michael Shear's WaPo column:
Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes. McClellan defends the president's intellect — "Bush is plenty smart enough to be president," he writes — but casts him as unwilling or unable to be reflective about his job.
"A more self-confident executive would be willing to acknowledge failure, to trust people's ability to forgive those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change," he writes.
In another section, McClellan describes Bush as able to convince himself of his own spin and relates a phone call he overheard Bush having during the 2000 campaign, in which he said he could not remember whether he had used cocaine. "I remember thinking to myself, 'How can that be?' " he writes.
The former aide describes Bush as a willing participant in treating his presidency as a permanent political campaign, run in large part by his top political adviser, Rove.
"The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office," he writes. "And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."
New SecDef, new commander, new strategy.
What does that say to you? Or must someone go down on bended knee, tear at their hair and wail "woe is me" to make it official?
And how did the Democrats treat this obvious admission that things weren't going well in Iraq? Did they "forgive those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change"?
Uh, no. And the fact that McClellan seems to have missed all of that doesn't give me much hope that the rest of the book will provide many keen insights that I don't want to miss.
However, even before its release, it is providing plenty of fodder for the administration's enemies. But McClellan knew that would be the case.
I'm certainly not going to defend this administration's actions on a number of fronts. Like Republicans in November, it will most likely get precisely what is deserves when judged by history. And they'll all get what they deserve the old fashioned way - they'll have earned it.
But I'm also not a fan of tell-all books by supposed insiders who know full well that no organized effort is going to be, or really can be, mounted to refute the allegations and charges brought. McClellan obviously had a problem with Bush's honesty while he was governor of Texas (see his statement above about the 2000 campaign and the question about cocaine use). If so, Mr. McClellan, why did you follow him to DC and accept the position you accepted?
One can only surmise he wasn't bothered by principle. Instead it was because he knew that the higher he went with the Bush, the larger today's payday would be.
Bah! I don’t give a frappe about the Bush administration. They got what is coming to them. This guy will be all the rage with the MSM for about three weeks then no one will ever hear of him again.
And since he was absolutely the worst ever press secretary, no one will hire him again either.
Seriously, McClellan could have written two books:
#1. Bush is OK, everything I said as Press Secretary was true and complete, there’s nothing to see here; or
#2. Now I’m gonna tell you the deep, dark secrets of the Bush Administration. Coincidentally, those deep, dark secrets are just what the opposition (which includes much of the media) has been saying about him all along.
If he writes #1, then he probably doesn’t even get published. If he does, then everybody dismisses it as "Oh, I see he’s still a stooge of Bush" and he makes it to #692,827 on Amazon.
If he writes #2, then he’s suddenly very interesting, a soul of nearly Greenwaldian stature that has courageously shaken off the Rove/Cheney mind-control rays. As a result, he gets to the top ten on Amazon and, more importantly, gets paid to do the talk show circuit for a few weeks.
He’s Joe Wilson without the super-secret, double-naught 7 wife and love of sweet tea.
A more self-confident executive would be willing to acknowledge failure, to trust people’s ability to forgive those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change,"
Yeah....in an era where lousy intel gets spun by the opposition party as "deliberately lying" us into a war for his oil cronies....
In an era where a disturbingly large chunk of the "loyal" opposition believes The Bush Crime Family was responsible for 9/11.....
In an era where some jerkstore foreign reporter tries to arrest our former UN Ambassador for "war crimes"....
In an era where some of the "loyal" opposition are seriously talking about post-administration arrest and impeachment of the Pres....
What does that say to you? Or must someone go down on bended knee, tear at their hair and wail "woe is me" to make it official?
Good job at erasing any doubt as to your true Bush-bot status. We have left the dead end and entered the bunker.
My god, if you cannot understand the point McClellan is making, you really are out to lunch.
McClellan was lied to by these thugs. Lied to and lied to and lied to. That’s why he wrote this book. And you attack him? Sure McClellan is damaged goods, but so what? He was lied to again and again and again.
The thing I always find interesting about "public-spirited whistleblowers" like McClellan, General Shinseki, et al is that they supposedly knew all these bad decisions were being made behind closed doors, but only discovered their "public-spiritedness" after being asked to leave / coming to the end of the career at the public trough.......
And I understand McClellan and his kind clearly, kultie. They continue the long tradition since Benedict Arnold of betraying the country because they didn’t get what they thought they deserved.
As usual, MK again proves the Left is completely clueless. Agendas only are revealing when it can be used against the Right. McClellan was removed from his position as Press Secratary because of ineptitude - even the White House Press Corps was calling for his removal. In order to "clear the air" and prove it wasn’t he who was at fault, he writes a book full of innuendo and heresay which becomes tatamount to Gospel to the Left. And, as usual, MK steps in and goes all weak in the knees for this bufoon. Typical!
if that is so, then we can conclude every night George Bush crept into McClellen’s room with a loaded gun, pointed it at his head and said... "Scott....You’re a nice guy, I’m a scum bag, quit and I’ll kill you....."
Isn’t that right MK?
The other alternative is we come to understand that if Bush and company have no ethics and no honor, Scott McClellen is merely another scumbag to be numbered amongst them. But you don’t SEE that do you MK.... The witness’s credibility is SHOT by virtue of his long and seemingly comfortable association with the accused through all the alleged dirty deeds. One lie you can sustain as an argument in your defense, alleged repeated lies, allegedly exposed by others, mean you KNOW you’re being lied to, and you’re complicit in it.
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. Certainly let’s look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry’s campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. ...
Q: Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors.
McCLELLAN: Yes, and that’s just flat-out wrong. …When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it’s important that we set the record straight. And that’s what we’re doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today.
so...if we use McClellan’s own standards, then ’we should look back at what he said then and look at what he’s saying today.’
I find it convenient, to say the least, that someone you once labeled a ’Bush Bot’ is now the person to quote in these matters because he’s singing a different tune, regardless of what he’s said before? And his only method of proof is ’they lied to me’ and nothing concrete?
