McClellan savages Bush and the Bush admin

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Come on. He was the press secretary for crying out loud. His job was to be an advocate for the White House. I imagine he pushed back his doubts and carried on as a good soldier. Shame on Bush for conducting a presidency resulting in this kind of soul-searching from his former inner circle.

That is part of his job, but I guarantee you the press secretary sees himself as more than that. They almost all describe their job as having a dual role: one in which the press secretary is an advocate for the president's policies, and the other in which they are advocates for the media inside the government, lobbying for more disclosure and access.

I do agree that the atmosphere Bush created in the White House was hardly conducive to open discussions and dissent, but I don't give McClellan a free pass for not having the guts to stand up and do what was right until he was paid handsomely to do so.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Definitely, my Texas pride has taken a hit. Moreso from this FLDS debacle however.

Now the state govt. is arguing that if the children are returned to their parents, the parents MIGHT LEAVE THE STATE.

WELL NO SHIT SHERLOCK, WITH NOTHING LEGALLY HOLDING THEM HERE IN TEXAS, AND TEXAS DEMONSTRATING HOW FAIR-MINDED THEY ARE, OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO LEAVE THIS STUPID STATE!

Did you hear the latest? One of your legislators (republican, no less) trying to pass a law to get the FLDS to foot the bill for the raid and associated legal costs. I'm sure it will go nowhere, but jeez, what a tool.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Shame on Bush, but shame on his enablers. McClellan had a chance to stand against perceived wrongdoing, though it would have been unprofitable to do so. After being shoved out the door and with dollar signs flashing, he writes a tell-all.

He's doing it for the money? Bad timing, if that's the case. This stuff is neither shocking nor interesting any more. I bet the book will be a flop.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I manned-up and registered so I could vote in the primary this time around. I registered as a Democrat.

I'm probably not a great one as I have an independent streak some three miles wide, but I am now a registered "D."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Who associated with the administration is a measure of objectivity? The people in the West Wing are either strongly biased for Bush or against him, and yet you would have us all give tremendous credence to the statements of those who are for Bush and who work with him closely.

"Tremendous credence"? No idea where you got that. All statements from political people should be considered in that light and weighed accordingly.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

McClellan's motives are likely not pure, but that doesn't mean his statements aren't factual either. His statements are worth carefully scrutinizing. If they appear true after that analysis, Bush is in deep trouble.

Thus I said, "Some of what McClellan says is likely true ..."

You still aren't reading carefully, Cali.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

"Tremendous credence"? No idea where you got that. All statements from political people should be considered in that light and weighed accordingly.



Thus I said, "Some of what McClellan says is likely true ..."

You still aren't reading carefully, Cali.

"Some of what McClellan says is likely true" suggests that "most of what McClellans says is likely not true," which isn't something you can reasonably conclude right now. You aren't thinking clearly, Tex.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

"Some of what McClellan says is likely true" suggests that "most of what McClellans says is likely not true," which isn't something you can reasonably conclude right now. You aren't thinking clearly, Tex.

No, that's not what it suggests, and I'm not concluding that.

I don't have any way of verifying what is or is not true in the book.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

"Some of what McClellan says is likely true" suggests that "most of what McClellans says is likely not true," which isn't something you can reasonably conclude right now. You aren't thinking clearly, Tex.

Here's a pretty good take on the McClellan mess, IMO, assuming your attention span will permit you to read it all:

I'll say this for Scott McClellan, at last he learned how to communicate. He was, to my mind, one of the worst press secretaries in presidential history — at least in modern times, continually cowed by the press, never able to show any confidence, and making us all wince whenever he held a briefing.

His book, titled What Happened, seems to go after Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, the president and others. The main releases we read about are how the president bollixed the response to Katrina and how the White House made a political campaign of the Iraq war, using, as Scott puts it, "a propaganda campaign."

The first thing to ask about these kinds of books is "does it help history, does it shed light, does it add to the sum total of knowledge about a topic history or contemporary analysis can use to shed light on an administration?" OR, rather, "is this a self-aggrandizing after-the-fact justification to bolster one's own reputation and credibility?" especially after having done such a poor job in the first place.

I think we'll probably find this book is mostly of the latter category. The evidence I've seen does in fact show that the administration had different justifications for the liberation of Iraq — but we saw them plainly and in the open before as well as after the invasion. The president, the secretary of state, the VP, and many others gave lots of reasons for the invasion of Iraq. There were international legal cases, there were public policy cases, there were national security cases all to be made. And they were. The idea that the press didn't do its job and was too soft on the president — as McClellan writes — is, frankly, laughable. Raise your hand if you have any evidence that the press was too soft on the administration.

As far as Katrina, I think we all know and can admit it was both a public policy and public relations disaster. We had a bad FEMA director, the president should not have flown over the disaster, or said Michael Brown was doing a good job. But it wasn't just the administration that didn't do so hot. I seem to recall state and local officials, those who had more access to the facts on the ground, those tasked with evacuation plans, those responsible for the city and state, were pretty unprepared as well. Heck, the mayor's family fled the state. Not the city, the state.

Finally, we'll learn more as those written about in his book speak out. I note Fran Townsend is already on record saying she recalls no meeting where Scott McClellan ever objected to what was being said or made his dissenting views known. And I'll just leave you with this — having not read the book and having no plans to do so: don't you think that when someone has an objection to what is being done, they owe it to the public and as a mark of duty to do something about it or say something about it at the time, rather than wait two years and save it for a book? Does that in and of itself not cut down some of the credibility.

The job of press secretary is not easy, but it can be done well, as Tony Snow and Dana Perino have shown. You want a Democratic example, I always thought Mike McCurry did a good job — and with good cheer in a tough time. But I'll say one other thing, too. I think this genre of book is losing its cachet, and people are getting a little tired of the game which goes something like this: Get a high-level job, make your name and reputation, do an average job at it, then write a book after you leave that helps nobody but bolsters your own reputation at the expense of those without book contracts. It's one of the uglier things in Washington, and as I say, I think its days will soon be over. People are tired of it.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...ljNmJmNTQzYWQ=

[il Padrino Ute]

I'm no fan of the current administration at all and while I agree with those here who state that McClellan should have said something with which he disagreed while he was press secretary, I also believe McClellin was a dickhead to write this book.

Why, you ask?

McClellen is only relevant because he worked for Bush. He spoke for Bush. Nothing he said was his own opinion. Without Bush, McClellan would be nothing.

I believe in loyalty - and in McClellin's case, it's not his lack of loyalty to Bush's politics or policies that I have a problem with, but the fact that he is willing to sell out and bash the man that made him relevant.

If he was too cowardly to say something as press secretary, then he should be forever mocked for trying to make money after he held that job. Man up and say it to his face, McClellin.

[il Padrino Ute]

deleted because of double post.