Former GWB Press Sec. Scott McClellan Book: Admin. Controversies (merged x 3--M.E.T.)

[JMS]

Yeah, the Clark and Tennet books are probably the first to come to mind, but there's also this one and probably others floating around...

The Price of Loyalty

The George W. Bush White House, as described by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, is a world out of kilter. Policy decisions are determined not by careful weighing of an issue's complexities; rather, they're dictated by a cabal of ideologues and political advisors operating outside the view of...

I read the Paul O'Neil book the big news coming out of that book was that Bush started Planning the Iran war months before 911. The very first national security meeting of his cabinent.....

Item #1 was the administration wasn't going to follow up on Clinton's Middle East peace plan. "Sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better" was the Bush quote. 1999 the year before Bush took office was the last year no Israeli died due to terrorism.

Item #2 was the war in Iraq.

Tell all books by Bush Administration folks..

Books by Bush Insiders, and Republicans about the Bush Administation

• Richard Clark, Against all Enemies
  
• Paul O'Neil, Price of loyalty
  
• Collin Powel
  
• Brent Snowcroft
  
• Richard Armatage
  
• Valerie Plame
  
• Joeseph Wilson, Politics of Truth
  
• Paul Bremer, "My year in Iraq"
  
• Jeffrey Record
  
• Alan Friedman
  
• George Tennant
  
• Peter Peterson, Running on Empty
  
• John Prados, Hoodwinked
  
• John Dean, Worse than Watergate
  
• Tommy Franks, American Soldier.
  
• Gary Berntsen, head of CIA task force on Bin Laudin
  
• Douglas Feith, "Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism"
  

Books by Journalists.. and Dems on Bush.

• Maureen Dowd
  
• Bob Woodward
  
• Seymoure Hersh
  
• Tom Hicks, Fiasco
  
• George Soros
  
• Michael Moore
  
• Craig Unger, House of Bush house of Saud.
  
• Kevin Phillips, American Dynesty
  
• Al Franken, Lies and the lyeing liers who tell them.
  
• Joe Conason, Big Lies
  
• Eric Alterman, What liberal media
  
• David Corn, The lies of George Bush
  
• Molly Ivins, Bushwhacked
  
• Jim Hightower, Thieves in High places
  
• Jack Huberman, The Bush Haters Handbook
  
• Paul Krugman, The Great Unraveling
  
• William Blum, Rogue State
  
• Charles Tefler, Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts the Law for Conservative Causes
  

[JMS]

The thing is would his book change anyones opinion about this administration?? My guess is no, now if Dick or Powell wrote a book with even more detail about what happened that would be interesting. This is his chance at his 15 minutes of fame and it looks it is not going to last.

Didn't Powel already write a book?

I don't think there is anything new in this book either. I do think it's interesting that even the guy telling the lies for Bush is now coming out admitting he lied. Admitting what everybody already knew, He left because the lies were getting so transparent that he couldn't in good faith serve or believe anymore...

I think the value of this book is it shows how Bush thinks. Bush lies as a matter of policy in order to justify things that he believes are good ideas. It's a fundimental lack of respect for the American people, in my opinion believing the facts have to be dressed up in order to be more readily consumed. Bush undermines his own ability to govern, because he takes away informed consent of the people he governs. I think Scott McClellen bought into that as all the bushes did. But when the federal prosecutor was investigating senior Bushies who had lied and implicated him in their lies, He had a failure of that faith. It was the last straw.

I don't think Bush is an evil guy. I think he's a sloppy disinterested thinker who tries to follow the advice of folks around him who he trusted. I think Bush is overmatched for the job. I believe if key Bush Advisors had been replaced by more competent people from the get go; Bush could have been a sucessful President. I think Cheney is to root of most of the incompetents who arrived with Bush. Cheney brought in Rummy, Rice and most of the Neo Cons ( Libby, Pearl, Feith and Wolfowitz ).

It's amazing to me that Cheney a guy known for pragmatic good judgement under Reagan and Bush senior could turn out to be such an incompetent misinformed idiot only eight years after leaving office under Bush Sr.

[Guest sith lord]

Does this surprise anybody? And there's still some who don't think he stole the 2000 election.

[Larry]

Yea, I saw a clip from Karl Rove saying that McClellen sounded like a "left-wing liberal blogger."

Not that that means he's wrong, but you know, if someone says something true about the past, you should always just call him names. :doh:

You mean, somebody says unflattering things about the Bush administration, and Karl Rove attributes evil motives to the person who said them?

Wow. That's new.

[#98QBKiller]

You mean, somebody says unflattering things about the Bush administration, and Karl Rove attributes evil motives to the person who said them?

Wow. That's new.

He got paid a lot of money to do just that.

[81artmonk]

This guy is very odd. We heard nothing about the issues he raises in his book until now. If these issues where so important, why didn't he speak up and quit?

In fact while working for Bush made this quote about Richard Clarkes tell all book on the Bush administration:

"Why all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns [Richard Clarke] 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's bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book. He certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it."

So isn't it a little odd and contradictory to say something about someone else like this and than turn around and do the exact same thing??

[jbooma]

I don't think Bush is an evil guy. I think he's a sloppy disinterested thinker who tries to follow the advice of folks around him who he trusted. I think Bush is overmatched for the job. I believe if key Bush Advisors had been replaced by more competent people from the get go; Bush could have been a sucessful President. I think Cheney is to root of most of the incompetents who arrived with Bush. Cheney brought in Rummy, Rice and most of the Neo Cons ( Libby, Pearl, Feith and Wolfowitz ).

It's amazing to me that Cheney a guy known for pragmatic good judgement under Reagan and Bush senior could turn out to be such an incompetent misinformed idiot only eight years after leaving office under Bush Sr.

I would agree 100% with that

[chomerics]

This guy is very odd. We heard nothing about the issues he raises in his book until now. If these issues where so important, why didn't he speak up and quit?

First off, if you are going to have the unmitigated gall to post off rushlimbaugh.com at least have the stones to link your source. ..

So McClellan, as press secretary, was asked about this. Here's what he said: "Why all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns [Richard Clarke] 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's bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book. He certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it." Thank you, Scott! You, too, have written a book. You couldn't wait 'til the administration of your president was over. You had to inject your book into this presidential campaign. And you and your grave concerns, where were they all the time you were out there fronting for the administration? No, no.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052808/content/01125104.guest.html

So isn't it a little odd and contradictory to say something about someone else like this and than turn around and do the exact same thing??

Are you saying that you don't believe him? Why? What would be HIS reasoning for it?

At what point do you finally decide that everyone else was right and good ole Rushbo has it wrong? Ever?

[ChocolateCitySkin]

I would agree 100% with that

You know whats interesting... a completed thesis is supposed to be public record -- however, i've never been able to get my hands on a single piece that GWB has written. It's been locked up tight... I assume by the "family."

Sigh... it would be nice to see if Bush has the acumen support a well founded argument. Hell even create an argument. I just want a some sort of intellectual barometer. I mean anything academically that this guy created independent of someone else.

I'll probably never get that pleasure.

[chomerics]

You know whats interesting... a completed thesis is supposed to be public record -- however, i've never been able to get my hands on a single piece that GWB has written. It's been locked up tight... I assume by the "family."

Sigh... it would be nice to see if Bush has the acumen support a well founded argument. Hell even create an argument. I just want a some sort of intellectual barometer. I mean anything academically that this guy created independent of someone else.

I'll probably never get that pleasure.

There is a reason for that :obvious:

[Larry]

This guy is very odd. We heard nothing about the issues he raises in his book until now.

Then obviously you weren't in Tailgate back then. Because back when Bush was selling the war, I knew he was selling the war. I said so. Repeatedly. Here, in numerous discussions we had on the subject.

(I also said that I don't have a problem with the President selling a war, if there's a good reason for the war. That one man's "propaganda" is another man's "leadership". And that leadership is, IMO, the #1 job for a President. I pointed out that, IMO, Lincoln sold his war to the people. My opinion of the invasion, back before we did it, was "He'd better be prepared to go public with a damn good reason later, or this is gonna be one of darkest marks against our nation in our history.")

[WVUforREDSKINS]

24/7 coverage on MSNBC and CNN

Not a thing on Fox. Fox is discussing whether or not Obama is a lying elitist.

Im glad one of Bush's Texas boys finally called him for lying to a terrified country in order live out his boyhood fantasy of killing Saddam.

This administration will go down with Nixon as the worst in history. Im pissed because I truly believed he had WMD. Why would he lie?

Then, studying this later my senior year, I learned that he couldn't get the intelligence to sell the war from the NSC so he set up the NSA (or vice versa) which was basically a bunch of people who got together and came up with lies to tell us, so defense corporations could make a lot of money.

You can't get the info you want from one agency, set up your own and tell them to give it to you.

And there are still people who blindly defend this assclown and his administration of evil. Speaking of clowns, where are the usual right wingers?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This guy is very odd. We heard nothing about the issues he raises in his book until now. If these issues where so important, why didn't he speak up and quit?

In fact while working for Bush made this quote about Richard Clarkes tell all book on the Bush administration:

So isn't it a little odd and contradictory to say something about someone else like this and than turn around and do the exact same thing??

I really don't see what's so odd about it.

From what I've read, he said that he did NOT have these feelings at the time, but the more he thought about it and reflected on it SINCE QUITTING he was able to see what was going on.

What's so odd about that. He got a perspective on it after stepping outside where he was.

There is nothing in your life you look back on now and say you would have done this or that differently? I find that hard to believe.

He also accepts responsibility for being part of the deception and not recognizing what was going on.

so, what's so odd about it?

[Vicious]

If you are surprised by any of this you have been very uninformed for the past five years.

[Ax]

This is just, "The Set-Up"

[Special K]

bingo he wants to make money and write a book so he has to have something in there for it to sell

Yes.

24/7 coverage on MSNBC and CNN

Not a thing on Fox.

Actually, I watched Fox and Friends this morning and they were covering it.

I find it interesting that he didn't speak up about his "grave concerns" with the administration a few years ago....but, hey, now that he's got a book to sell he's got accusations flying out of his mouth left and right...

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I find it interesting that he didn't speak up about his "grave concerns" with the administration a few years ago....but, hey, now that he's got a book to sell he's got accusations flying out of his mouth left and right...

The talking points made it all the way down to the Tailgate, huh?

Honestly, I am under the impression that in the book he says that he did not have these concerns until recently AFTER he had a chance to reflect on it while he was not working in the administration. And now he regrets it. People have regrets all the time. I don't see how its unbelievable for a guy to come to this conclusion only 2 years after leaving the administration.

Why don't you just say it K'man... he "hates Bush and you get it."

[Larry]

I find it interesting that he didn't speak up about his "grave concerns" with the administration a few years ago....but, hey, now that he's got a book to sell he's got accusations flying out of his mouth left and right...

What I find interesting is that the Bushies never get tired of this image that everybody who's in the Administration, frantically covering Bush at every turn, are all fine, upstanding, honest people. But that anybody who says anything bad about Bush after he leaves, then well, he's a liar who's out for money.

The folks who are covering for him don't have a motive to lie. Just the folks who have left, do.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Yes.

Actually, I watched Fox and Friends this morning and they were covering it.

Fox and Friends is one of the worst news shows on TV, I had to suffer through it this morning. They are extremely unprofessional and I honestly think even more biased then lets say MSNBC. The prick on the right tried so desperately to get the two radio show hosts to say that Obama's comments about his Uncle and Auschwitz were a "huge gaffe" and that "we should expect better from the man running for president." Then they had Karl Rove talking about how McClellan was as bad as "a liberal blogger."

Fair and balanced my ass

[Teller]

What I find interesting is that the Bushies never get tired of this image that everybody who's in the Administration, frantically covering Bush at every turn, are all fine, upstanding, honest people. But that anybody who says anything bad about Bush after he leaves, then well, he's a liar who's out for money.

Let's not pretend that "covering" for the president is not unique to this administration, nor any other.

What confuses me, is that if it's true that the administration made everything up, and McClellan was the one spouting lies daily, why his tome is suddenly gospel truth.

Can we all just admit that our view of this book is horribly skewed by whatever preconceived notions (read: political affiliations) we have going in?

I've yet to see any reason to believe McClellan is anymore credible than Bush.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Let's not pretend that "covering" for the president is not unique to this administration, nor any other.

What confuses me, is that if it's true that the administration made everything up, and McClellan was the one spouting lies daily, why his tome is suddenly gospel truth.

Can we all just admit that our view of this book is horribly skewed by whatever preconceived notions (read: political affiliations) we have going in?

I've yet to see any reason to believe McClellan is anymore credible than Bush.

I don't think he's especially credible but I think quite a few people believe that what he's saying is true. Bush did use propoganda to sell the Iraq war, and I do believe he decieved the American people.

[Teller]

I don't think he's especially credible but I think quite a few people believe that what he's saying is true. Bush did use propoganda to sell the Iraq war, and I do believe he decieved the American people.

So he's less 'un-credible' than Bush? Why? How bout the credibility of the general that said Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria? He's not credible, right? And yet, he's utterly dismissed. Why is that? Do we have any reason to question him? Has he been documented lying to start a war? Or lying for a president who would seek to do so?

Look, I'm as guilty as anyone. But I don't think there's any denying that the overwhelming majority of us are supporting the liar who most furthers our personal agenda.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This idea that his story is less credible because this is the first time he spoke out is just BS. First of all, it hasnt been 20 years, its been about 2, 1 of which he probably spent writing the book. This indicates that he reflected on his time there for a year, not a ridiculously long time, and then he came up with this:

"I began the process of writing this book by putting myself under the microscope. In my efforts on behalf of the presidential administration of George W. Bush I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be. Having accepted the post of White House press secretary at age 35 and possessing scant experience of the Washington power game, I didn’t fully understand what I was getting myself into. Today, I understand it much better. This book records the often painful process by which I gained that understanding.

I frequently stumbled along the way and failed in my duty to myself, to the president I served, and to the American people. I tried to play the Washington game according to the current rules and, at times, didn’t play it very well. Because I didn’t stay true to myself, I couldn’t stay true to others. The mistakes were mine, and I’ve suffered the consequences."

* * *

"The episode that became the jumping-off point for this book was the scandal over the leaking of classified national security information — the so-called Plame affair. It originated in a controversy over the intelligence the Bush administration used to make the case that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq represented a “grave and gathering danger” that needed to be eliminated. When a covert CIA officer's identity was disclosed during the ensuing partisan warfare, turning the controversy into the latest Washington scandal, I was caught up in the deception that followed. It was the defining moment in my time working for the president, and one of the most painful experiences of my life.

When words I uttered, believing them to be true, were exposed as false, I was constrained by my duties and loyalty to the president and unable to comment. But I promised reporters and the public that I would someday tell the whole story of what I knew. After leaving the White House, I realized that the story was meaningless without an appreciation of the personal, political, and institutional context in which it took place. So the story grew into a book.

Writing it wasn’t easy. Some of the best advice I received as I began came from a senior editor at a publishing house that expressed interest in my book. He said the hardest challenge for me would be to keep questioning my own beliefs and perceptions throughout the writing process. His advice was prescient. I’ve found myself constantly questioning my own thinking, my assumptions, my interpretations of events. Many of the conclusions I’ve reached are quite different from those I would have embraced at the start of the process. The quest for truth has been a struggle for me, but a rewarding one. I don’t claim a monopoly on truth. But after wrestling with my experiences over the past several months, I’ve come much closer to my truth than ever before."

This does not sound like a man who suddenly became mentally ill or something, as the talking point suggests. It sounds like a man who has taken a long hard look at himself and the job he performed, and didn't approve of it, honestly.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

McClellan will be on Olberman tomorrow.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

One more thing, the FACT that it doesn't sound like "Scott McClellan" makes it MORE credible.

If this WAS a left-wing blogger, it would not be so credible. But this is a Bush loyalist. So, to insinuate that he is - for reasons unknown to anyone - either "disgruntled" or somehow not mentally well is what is sad and disgusting.

I'm tired of this politics. If its not true, come out and say its not true. Don't say the guy is mentally ill. Why didn't Rove come out and say "its not true."