Former Bush White House Press Secretary Bashes Administration Over Iraq War

[dave81]

WASHINGTON - Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that President Bush relied on an aggressive "political propaganda campaign" instead of the truth to sell the Iraq war, and that the decision to invade pushed Bush's presidency "terribly off course.'http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mcclellan_book

Shocking!

Sort of.

[Merfeller]

I'm kind of surprised it's taken him this long to release a book. Usually people in his position like to cash in a bit earlier.

[RICHICOQUI]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/scott_mcclellans_payback.html

[vinny_121_ND]

Of course Dana Perino would be surprised about Scott's change of heart. The job of the white house spokesman is to relay what the president's policies are and not his (McClellan's) own personal opinion. That's the job description. He's free to make his own personal judgment now, and this is not the first time people in the Bush administration have spoken out. The information he receives and releases to the press is carefully selected and filtered. I think I'll pick up the book.

[ed316]

Love how once they leave their jobs they try to wash their hands of it. Reminds me of exes who talk shat behind your back when they are dating someone else.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

What a country. It's almost funny. I mean, if you can suspend your disbelief long enough , and imagine that this guy may have actually thought that his job, as White House press secretary, was to simply stand up and speak the whole unvarnished truth - then ...horrors! He wakes up one day to discover that no! His job is to deliver the administrations version of the truth! Oh how could he have been so foolish?! Surely others need to know about this - quickly now- to the publisher! Of course, if the war had been a smashing success, his book would be all about how he played a pivotal role in the glorious campaign to keep America informed. Meh, he'll sell plenty of books either way.

[Laworkerbee]

A Soros backed publication as well.

[Hilbert]

Pontius Pilot anyone?

Hell even Pontius Pilot must be proud, this guy is not only trying to wash his hands clean but make lots of money in the process.

[Nano]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/washington/28cnd-mcclellan.html?em&ex=1212120000&en=e0c1f74711825f45&ei=5087%0A


White House Reacts Negatively to Ex-Aide’s Book

By ELISABETH BUMILLER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/elisabeth_bumiller/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and ANAHAD O’CONNOR (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/anahad_oconnor/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: May 29, 2008
The White House reacted negatively today to scathing criticisms of President Bush and members of his inner circle that appear in a new memoir written by Scott McClellan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/scott_mcclellan/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the former White House press secretary who was forced out in 2006 after three tumultuous years.
Skip to next paragraph (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/washington/28cnd-mcclellan.html?em&ex=1212120000&en=e0c1f74711825f45&ei=5087%0A#secondParagraph) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/28/us/28mcclellan.190.jpg Doug Mills/The New York Times
Scott McClellan

In excerpts from the book, set to be published next week, Mr. McClellan writes that President Bush “convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment,” and has engaged in “self-deception” to justify his political ends. He calls the decision to invade Iraq a “serious strategic blunder,” and says that the biggest mistake the Bush White House made was “a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.”
But Dana Perino (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/dana_perino/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the current White House press secretary, had harsh words for Mr. McClellan, calling the situation “sad” and suggesting that he mischaracterized his years in the West Wing to sell books.
“Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House,” she said. “For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew.”
She said that President Bush was told of some of the excerpts but would not be commenting on them because “he has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers.” But Karl Rove (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/karl_rove/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a principal target of many of Mr. McClellan’s charges and the former deputy chief of staff for President Bush, reacted immediately on Tuesday night. Speaking on Fox News, where he is now a commentator, Mr. Rove said Mr. McClellan was not even present at many of the meetings he describes and suggested that he was not writing truthfully.
“First of all, this doesn’t sound like Scott. It really doesn’t,” he said. “Not the Scott McClellan I’ve known for a long time. Second of all, it sounds like somebody else. It sounds like a left-wing blogger.
“If he had these moral qualms,” he added, “he should have spoken up about them.”
Mr. McClellan’s book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” is the first negative account by a member of the tight circle of Texans around Mr. Bush. Mr. McClellan, 40, went to work for Mr. Bush when he was governor of Texas and was the White House press secretary from 2003 to 2006.
The revelations in the book, to be published by PublicAffairs next Monday, were first reported Tuesday on Politico.com (http://politico.com/) by Mike Allen. Mr. Allen wrote that he bought the book at a Washington store. The New York Times also obtained an advance copy.
Mr. McClellan writes that top White House officials deceived him about the administration’s involvement in the leaking of the identity of a C.I.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) operative, Valerie Wilson (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/valerie_plame/index.html?inline=nyt-per). He says he did not know for almost two years that his statements from the press room that Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/i_lewis_libby_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per) were not involved in the leak were a lie.
“Neither, I believe, did President Bush,” Mr. McClellan writes. “He too had been deceived, and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby, and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie.”
He is harsh about the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/hurricane_katrina/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), saying it “spent most of the first week in a state of denial” and “allowed our institutional response to go on autopilot.” Mr. McClellan blames Mr. Rove for one of the more damaging images after the hurricane: Mr. Bush’s flyover of the devastation of New Orleans. When Mr. Rove brought up the idea, Mr. McClellan writes, he and Dan Bartlett, a top communications adviser, told Mr. Bush it was a bad idea because he would appear detached and out of touch. But Mr. Rove won out, Mr. McClellan writes.
A theme in the book is that the White House suffered from a “permanent campaign” mentality, and that policy decisions were inextricably interwoven with politics.
He is critical of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/condoleezza_rice/index.html?inline=nyt-per) for her role as the “sometimes too accommodating” first term national security adviser, and what he calls her deftness at protecting her reputation.
“No matter what went wrong, she was somehow able to keep her hands clean,” Mr. McClellan writes, adding that “she knew how to adapt to potential trouble, dismiss brooding problems, and come out looking like a star.”
Throughout the day Wednesday, a number of White House staff members went on the television and radio news circuit to criticize Mr. McClellan and dispute his harshest claims, including his predecessor, Ari Fleischer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/ari_fleischer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who served as the press secretary from 2001 to 2003.
“Scott took the podium,” Mr. Fleischer said on the NPR News show “Day to Day” on Wednesday afternoon. “He repeatedly defended the war and the approach to the war. Even after Scott left the White House, he went on TV shows and defended President Bush and the war. So I don’t know what changed so dramatically for Scott in the last few months.”
In his book, Mr. McClellan does not exempt himself from failings — “I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be” — and calls the news media “complicit enablers” in the White House’s “carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval” in the march to the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003.
He does have a number of kind words for Mr. Bush, particularly from the April day in 2006 when Mr. Bush met with Mr. McClellan after he learned he was being pushed out. “His charm was on full display, but it was hard to know if it was sincere or just an attempt to make me feel better,” Mr. McClellan writes. “But as he continued, something I had never seen before happened: tears were streaming down both his cheeks.”
How can one fault a man from trying to make an honest living really. Compared to before this book writing gig seems quite clean and square.
I like the comedic value you added to his revelation of truth 2Sheds wonder how good you can do with the White House response to it.

[deagle]

well, he still had over 5 yrs to fix it up, but he didnt do much ... and here we are. i wonder how much gas per gallon cost when he become pres

[hell]

I originally ran across this article first: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-28-mcclellan-cover_N.htm


"People need to understand that as an adviser to the president, I or Scott have an obligation, a responsibility, to voice concerns on policy issues," she says. "Scott never did that on any of these issues, as best I can remember, and as best I know from my White House colleagues."


Rove, who described McClellan as "out of loop" on many White House matters, said the former press secretary did not speak up at the time if he had felt strongly about some issues, particularly the war.

"If he had these moral qualms, he should have spoken up about them," Rove said. "And I don't remember him speaking up about them."

I'd venture a guess that he didn't say anything at the time because he assumed (correctly, I'd guess) that the administration would have axed him. Simple as that. Either Frances and Karl are out of touch with reality, or they've been extremely lucky and never had a job where one or more people do things that you oppose on some moral level.

My last job was just that; our CEO was doing shady, underhanded business practices, and I hated it with a passion. But I knew I couldn't quit immediately, so I kept my mouth shut and went job-hunting. I'm neither proud, nor embarrased that I stayed there as long as I did once I became aware of what they were doing, I did it out of self-preservation.

[throwback]

A Soros backed publication as well.

Bet you like the Tommy Franks style better. Got out during the intermission after Act 1, wrote a book about what a good job he did saying "Yes" to Rummy, made a ton of $$ and kept it all to himself. I see him smoking his cigars on the golf courses in Tampa. What balls...

[vinny_121_ND]

I'd venture a guess that he didn't say anything at the time because he assumed (correctly, I'd guess) that the administration would have axed him. Simple as that. Either Frances and Karl are out of touch with reality, or they've been extremely lucky and never had a job where one or more people do things that you oppose on some moral level.


exactly. He has no say in policy matters. Bush and Rumsfeld fired anyone who objected to the Iraq war, and went so far as to expose a CIA agent.

[hank]

These revelations are simply shocking. I had no idea that Bush had engaged in any blunders or policy decisions grounded in partisan politics. Shocking I tell you.

Meh. I might get worked up about this guy spilling his gut ex post facto but its such a non-starter. Bush has screwed up every major decision and that's pretty obvious even to former supporters like me. If this guy can make a buck for himself on Bush's obvious inadequacies then the purchasers of his book have only themselves to blame. Frankly, I could care less either way.

hank

[Kilgor]

Love how once they leave their jobs they try to wash their hands of it. Reminds me of exes who talk shat behind your back when they are dating someone else.

Who hasn't here trashed their former workplaces ? cast thee first stone.

[Zoomie]

exactly. He has no say in policy matters. Bush and Rumsfeld fired anyone who objected to the Iraq war, and went so far as to expose a CIA agent.
Please, she exposed herself when she did that photoshoot.


These revelations are simply shocking. I had no idea that Bush had engaged in any blunders or policy decisions grounded in partisan politics. Shocking I tell you.

Meh. I might get worked up about this guy spilling his gut ex post facto but its such a non-starter. Bush has screwed up every major decision and that's pretty obvious even to former supporters like me. If this guy can make a buck for himself on Bush's obvious inadequacies then the purchasers of his book have only themselves to blame. Frankly, I could care less either way.

hank
Same here Hank. It makes me laugh that McClellan tries to take the moral high ground by "exposes" all of this stuff, but but he had no qualms about selling any of it. To me, he's just a spineless guy who refused to take a stand against something he saw wrong.

[hank]

Same here Hank. It makes me laugh that McClellan tries to take the moral high ground by "exposes" all of this stuff, but but he had no qualms about selling any of it. To me, he's just a spineless guy who refused to take a stand against something he saw wrong.

Yeah, I mean its not like this is the first we've heard of this concept. Bush only listened to the opinions he liked. That ain't news or even newsworthy.

If you buy this book its on you. I ain't buying it and could care less about McClellan, his Mom, etc.

hank

[Zoomie]

Here's a real gem of McClellan's from 2004:

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he (Richard Clarke) 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.
I guess Bush forced him to say that too.

[lightcav]

What gets me is that anybody voted or believed in Bush in the first place. What the hell did they think was going to happen? And everyone thought the Democrats were naive.

Well now that we all know the truth (as if we didn't before, but just refused to recognize it) what are we going to do about it? Sit on our laurels and write self amusing comments on internet forums?

I feel like we are all just sitting in a big SUV going 100MPH at a brick wall we can clearly see 100 yds away and nobody is getting worried.

People need to think when they vote and not just vote for the guy that plays to their emotions. You might say that voting doesn't matter because there aren't any qualified people and all the deals are made in back rooms anyway. Well if thats the case, what the hell are we doing trying to establish that kind of democracy in Iraq, speding billions of $ and killing innocent women and children, and young Americans.

I say God Bless America because we need all the blessings we can get right now.

[Bia]

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that President Bush relied on an aggressive "political propaganda campaign" instead of the truth to sell the Iraq war


LMAO.... I didnt need some douche to tell me what so many already knew years ago.


King George 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"

DUHHHH

[Merfeller]

What gets me is that anybody voted or believed in Bush in the first place. What the hell did they think was going to happen? And everyone thought the Democrats were naive.

Well now that we all know the truth (as if we didn't before, but just refused to recognize it) what are we going to do about it? Sit on our laurels and write self amusing comments on internet forums?

I feel like we are all just sitting in a big SUV going 100MPH at a brick wall we can clearly see 100 yds away and nobody is getting worried.

People need to think when they vote and not just vote for the guy that plays to their emotions. You might say that voting doesn't matter because there aren't any qualified people and all the deals are made in back rooms anyway. Well if thats the case, what the hell are we doing trying to establish that kind of democracy in Iraq, speding billions of $ and killing innocent women and children, and young Americans.

I say God Bless America because we need all the blessings we can get right now.

You're talking about people being naive. Look at your post. You're freaking out about this ridiculously hyped book. That pudgy little guy isn't telling anyone anything new. He's making money via a book deal before people forget who he is. That's all. And since when do politicians not play to peoples' emotions? They all do. Even the decent ones. It's called campaigning.

[Calanen]

I'm kind of surprised it's taken him this long to release a book. Usually people in his position like to cash in a bit earlier.

He had to write it! Its 341 pages long.

[Merfeller]

He had to write it! Its 341 pages long.

Yeah, you know what I mean. Usually these ex-politicos have co-writers or have been working on books all along. Besides, isn't there a template for a whistle blower/tell all format book on MS Word?:)

[vinny_121_ND]

Here's a real gem of McClellan's from 2004:

I guess Bush forced him to say that too.

Well, not quite. Inspectors were still going through all the WMD facilities and there was an assumption that they would find them. It was not until sept 30, 2004 that the iraqi survey group officially said "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Only_retained_old_weapons_and_equipment_to_develop_later

[Zoomie]

Well, not quite. Inspectors were still going through all the WMD facilities and there was an assumption that they would find them. It was not until sept 30, 2004 that the iraqi survey group officially said "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Only_retained_old_weapons_and_equipment_to_develop_later

And this has what to do with McClellan's Pot, Kettle, Black moment?

[vinny_121_ND]

And this has what to do with McClellan's Pot, Kettle, Black moment?

Well, scott believed early on that the existence of wmds and links to AQ was right on the money. Of course he would go after Clarke for writing the book.

[Power_serj]

Honestly, is this supposed to be somekind of a big deal? Of course he had to "sell" the war to the public. If he didn't, how can he expect to be supported? The definition of this is called POLITICS! Just as Hillary is trying to "sell" 'universal healthcare' and Barrack is trying to "sell" 'change', President Bush was "selling" the war.

I read that the secretary said that President Bush wasn't really afraid of Saddam's WMDs, but was really trying to push democracy on the Middle East.....NO SH*T! President Bush has said this himself.

This book should be called "What Happened: Well, anyone who was paying attention and has common sense already knows what happened, (but I'll just sell it in a book to make money)" :cantbeli:

[INAT]

What a country. It's almost funny. I mean, if you can suspend your disbelief long enough , and imagine that this guy may have actually thought that his job, as White House press secretary, was to simply stand up and speak the whole unvarnished truth - then ...horrors! He wakes up one day to discover that no! His job is to deliver the administrations version of the truth! Oh how could he have been so foolish?! Surely others need to know about this - quickly now- to the publisher! Of course, if the war had been a smashing success, his book would be all about how he played a pivotal role in the glorious campaign to keep America informed. Meh, he'll sell plenty of books either way.


Bravo! well stated.Yeah either way he would have profited from being the mouthpiece of the president.

[ZARDOZ]

My problem is that it is being presented because he had a "epiphany" that his role with the administration was in error and in this new light he is atoning for his past actions.

I have to call BS on that. He is a money grubber and is trying to cash in on it. The only way I would absolve his role in all this is if he sets up a fund from the proceeds of the book going to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

McClellan has no credibility what so ever, it was shot before he left the Whitehouse. Could be a reason for the book for no one will hire him.

[AGE-Ranger]

I love how he implies Rove leaked Plame's name, when we know for a fact it was Armitage. Its as if hes following a sorry arc that was disproven years ago. Also, the Iraqi Liberation Act was signed in 1998, long before bush got in to office. Thats a fact that gets ignored a lot, but we were well on our way in to Iraq before Bush was ever elected. Bush didn't have to manipulate intelligence or "drag" the American people in to war. The approval ratings for it were in the 80s for gods sake.