PDA

View Full Version : et tu mcclellan?


twentyshots
28 May 2008, 06:12 AM
with no obvious axe to grind, scott mcclellen blasts the bush presidency...

ouch (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23772283-601,00.html)

ONE of George W. Bush's most loyal former aides, Scott McClellan, has launched a blistering attack on the President, saying Mr Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the Iraq war and that the administration has "veered terribly off course".

In a new book, Mr McClellan, Mr Bush's former press spokesman and who had been by his side since his days as Texas governor, said the President was not "open and forthright on Iraq" and he had not served the US well as a wartime leader.

"I still like and admire President Bush," Mr McClellan writes in What Happened - Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, "but he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candour and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war.

"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided - that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder.

“No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact.

"What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

He adds Mr Bush was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those “involved directly in national security," in a swipe at first-term national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who now serves as Secretary of State and remains Mr Bush's closest confidante.

While Mr McClellan also described Mr Bush as "sincere" and "authentic", his critique has stunned administration's insiders, and likely the President himself, who instils an intense sense of loyalty in his staff.

This is the most openly critical book of the Bush years from someone who has been so close to him during the White House years.

At one point, Mr McClellan also discusses rumours of Mr Bush's possible cocaine use in his younger days _ a charge that dogged him on the campaign trail for the presidency in 1999. Despite public denials, Mr McClellan says Mr Bush told him privately he "could not remember" if he used it.

"I remember thinking to myself, how can that be?" Mr McClellan writes. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

Mr Bush, he said, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie.

"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," he writes.

"And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious - political convenience."

He described this "penchant for self-deception" would have devastating consequences in the US's foreign policy _ saying Mr Bush was too "stubborn to change and grow" in the White House.

When Mr McClellan resigned in April 2006 after three years as press secretary, Mr Bush noted that "one of these days, he and I are going to be rocking on chairs in Texas, talking about the good old days".

That would appear less likely now. His book is in stark contrast to his years as a spokesman when he was admired by Mr Bush for his willingness to obfuscate from the White House podium, so much so that he was dubbed the "Unanswer Man" by The Washington Post.

But at just 40, Mr McClellan is now playing a textbook Washington game. By spilling some beans on administration as it winds down, he is looking to sell some books while also trying to distance himself from his former employer whose popularity with the American people continues to sag.

The 341-page book also offers, for example, a scathing analysis of the President's response to Hurricane Katrina which wiped out parts of New Orleans in August 2005.

He said the White House "spent most of the first week in a state of denial".

One of the worst images of the crisis for the President was a photo of Mr Bush surveying from the window of Air Force One as he flew over the city.

Mr McClellan puts the blame for that disastrous piece of political imagery squarely at the feet of Karl Rove, the former White House aide to Mr Bush who the President once dubbed the "architect" of his political success.

"One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency,” he writes.

akip
28 May 2008, 06:20 AM
i won't let bush off the hook for not "flat out" lying. he believed what he wanted to believe, was incapable of thinking for himself and found that hotbed of deceit useful. there were contrarian voices all along and he never gave them consideration.

jneale
28 May 2008, 07:22 AM
he is just an SOB trying to distance himself - there is NO way he didn't know what is going on - they are all guilty, time will expose all of them

akip
28 May 2008, 07:50 AM
yeah, the rats are jumping ship---must feel it's finally safe to do so and still salvage their careers. however, the more admissions come forward, the clearer the picture becomes. so i think it's good, on balance. all these men---mcclellan, sanchez, et al--know pieces of what happened behind public view.

i don't know that cheney will ever get exposed to the extent that he should. it's all circumstantial evidence, but i feel in my gut that he belongs in jail, that he overstepped legal boundaries, with terrible consequences.

but this is also a reason why a mccain presidency is worrisome to me, with his promise of more hardcore conservative supreme court appointments. in view of what happened under bush, i am against what was essentially cheney's baby---the push for unfettered executive powers.

markalot
28 May 2008, 08:29 AM
I've said this before, here it goes again.

To say that Bush lied really gives the man too much credit. Idiots are easily swayed by propaganda, which Cheney and Rumsfeld fed to Bush like a stiff drink to an alcoholic. Bush believed it, probably still believes it.

Bush is not a single person but a corrupt organization run by people who see him as a talking head. I should have seen this when Cheney appointed himself the best choice for VP.

epeolatry
28 May 2008, 10:13 AM
I've said this before, here it goes again.

To say that Bush lied really gives the man too much credit. Idiots are easily swayed by propaganda, which Cheney and Rumsfeld fed to Bush like a stiff drink to an alcoholic. Bush believed it, probably still believes it.

Bush is not a single person but a corrupt organization run by people who see him as a talking head. I should have seen this when Cheney appointed himself the best choice for VP.

i concur with you.

Duemellon
28 May 2008, 10:41 AM
I've said this before, here it goes again.

To say that Bush lied really gives the man too much credit. Idiots are easily swayed by propaganda, which Cheney and Rumsfeld fed to Bush like a stiff drink to an alcoholic. Bush believed it, probably still believes it.

Bush is not a single person but a corrupt organization run by people who see him as a talking head. I should have seen this when Cheney appointed himself the best choice for VP.i concur with you.I agree as well, up to this point:Bush hired them. He is the "decider" & he's also the "leader" of that same group. If they misled him, he put them in that position to mislead him. If they pressured our sources of info to bend reality, then it's his responsibility for putting them there.

I agree it's the Bush [I]administration at fault, but it's the administration only possible with the appointment of Bush as the president because he brought them on.

Unrequited
28 May 2008, 10:51 AM
This seems to be the only Presidential administration in my lifetime where the buck stops below the President. People have been making excuses for Bush since he started his campaign. He's like the kid with a handicap that is allowed to compete on the baseball team, a damning indictment of our country.

akip
28 May 2008, 10:56 AM
i don't think bush is any better than cheney---just way too limited to carry anything off without those other beasts.

Duemellon
28 May 2008, 11:36 AM
i don't think bush is any better than cheney---just way too limited to carry anything off without those other beasts.They certainly couldnt've gotten the rest of the crew in there without him. Cheney running for pres? Who'd they have for VP? Vincent Price?

akip
28 May 2008, 11:49 AM
They certainly couldnt've gotten the rest of the crew in there without him. Cheney running for pres? Who'd they have for VP? Vincent Price?

:D

and who else would've picked dr evil as VP but 'the decider'? nobody.

upwithpeople
28 May 2008, 12:23 PM
Instant and predictable White House response:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24856034
The utter lack of self-reflection or willingness to acknowledge any contrary views as anything less than "disgruntled attacks" is at times still very breathtaking. And oh so "1984."

Hogarth
28 May 2008, 12:58 PM
If it was so bad, why didn't this jerk come out with this stuff in, oh, I don't know, 2004? It might have mattered then. Him and Colin Powell can both go to hell for putting their careers ahead of the nation's interests.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

twentyshots
28 May 2008, 12:59 PM
it should be mentioned that Scott is also a grade A douchebag who apparently found his conscience just prior to final edit.


ETA: that M.I.A. remix has us thinking alike!

Buzzstein
28 May 2008, 03:38 PM
This seems to be the only Presidential administration in my lifetime where the buck stops below the President. People have been making excuses for Bush since he started his campaign. He's like the kid with a handicap that is allowed to compete on the baseball team, a damning indictment of our country.

Hey, watch it with the disability references.

Hogarth
28 May 2008, 05:05 PM
ETA: that M.I.A. remix has us thinking alike!

Scary. Have we ever been seen in the same place together?

The Big Crunch
28 May 2008, 05:38 PM
I've said this before, here it goes again.

To say that Bush lied really gives the man too much credit. Idiots are easily swayed by propaganda, which Cheney and Rumsfeld fed to Bush like a stiff drink to an alcoholic. Bush believed it, probably still believes it.

Bush is not a single person but a corrupt organization run by people who see him as a talking head. I should have seen this when Cheney appointed himself the best choice for VP.
I agree wholeheartedly with these statements.

REMgirl
28 May 2008, 06:43 PM
Posted at Crooks and Liars:

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. …


heh

markalot
28 May 2008, 06:49 PM
It's an interesting thing, for lack of a better word. If the book is true and he waited till now to reveal all this crap then he's is the kid of person that would have no problem lying while press secretary, which apparently he did.

He must have observed how well Clarke's book sold.

juggles
28 May 2008, 08:14 PM
Rats leaving a sinking ship. Pity for this rat, the ship is already resting on the ocean floor.

Duemellon
29 May 2008, 06:28 AM
If you go against "the president's administration" you are anti-American.

No, we aren't talking about short-circuiting your career. I mean, really, if he was in it for job security & power, he could've come out when it happened & toured the nation selling his book & new found infamy.

But he didn't. Why didn't he? When you're working for someone who's a bit unscrupulous, sometimes you justify your actions as "just following orders" or "telling the truth in limited fashion". I mean, really, what would it have looked like if, while at the podium, he just interrupted himself & blurted out "This is all bullshit. We shouldn't go to war!" What if he did? He'd've been labelled a nutcase, a freak, if you will. He wouldn't be able to tour because he'd be forced into rehab or just "disappear" somewhere.

It's funny that when I talk about how politicians make the decisions about war the reaction is that they represent the population's interests. The people who really got it right before the war & were vocal about it, were overseas & a few pockets of domestic dissenters here & there. Now when "we" look back & hear people grumbling they were part of a mechanism (wittingly & unwittingly) to deceive the public through omission or exaggeration, we say "Why didn't you tell us earlier?"

Well, they didn't have to. You just had to look around. Stop looking at the limited domestic news sources.

epeolatry
29 May 2008, 08:58 AM
Hey, watch it with the disability references.

i was gonna say something but you beat me to it.

the-dude
29 May 2008, 04:29 PM
he's is the kid of person that would have no problem lying while press secretary, which apparently he did.
I think thats in the JOB DESCRIPTION for press secretary, under any administration.

akip
29 May 2008, 07:54 PM
big interview with mcclellan on olbermann tonight. you can catch it on the second run, if interested.

Lonestar
30 May 2008, 01:58 PM
McClellan is being pushed to testify in court about his statements, which will be interesting..:D

I'm anxious for the day when McCain has to denounce and reject Bush's endorsement... that will be great...