I am proud of former press secy Scott McLellan

[Muldfeld]

He rightly criticizes the media's complicity in cheap journalism, which I feel was based more on nationalism and gaining favor with the White House and ratings, Bush's self-delusional qualities, which I feel are criminal when one takes into account the millions, if not billions, of lives ruined by his actions, and the rest of the administration's criminality on everything from the trumped up charges to lead the nation to war in Iraq, to the Valery Plame affair, to the wake of Hurricaine Katrina.

(I'm sure deep or someone better at collecting info will provide a better summary with the appropriate link).

I just wanted to say, even if he didn't speak out at the time and didn't do what he could to stop this president from being elected in 2004 by exposing him, I'm so proud of him for having the courage to face up to what he did that was wrong and expose these vile people for what they've done.

I am disgusted of course by former administration officials like scum Ari Fleisher, who left the admin to make a ton of cash because he had connections with the current administration, and current scum like Dana Perino, for criticizing McLellan. However, I'm extremely disappointed by those outside the administration and on the moderate or supposed "left" wing of the political spectrum who call his speaking out "disloyal" and inappropriate.

I saw David Gergen say that McLellan was wrong to not save his comments until after the administration was out of office, and then contradict himself by saying that a press secretary had a duty to the nation to speak his mind. Firstly, I doubt any press secretary has honestly been anything other than an expression of an administration's official stance on policies; there's little room for honest discussion because such a person would be fired immediately; a press secretary is there to say what the president and other officials are too busy to say. If press secretaries are as free to express themselves as Gergen and Fleisher indicate, then I want both Fleisher and Perino in front of an international criminal tribunal along with the rest of the administration for their complicity in ruining the world for perceived short-term interest.

Secondly -- and most importantly -- how does it serve the public good for a former official to only speak out as a matter of historical record removed from having any political impact on the current administration? Public servants have a duty to the public good before the officials they serve, otherwise such public servants are no better than any other case of enemy states who refused to combat the tide that threatens humanity. I suppose, then, Khrushchev would have been inappropriately disloyal for criticizing Stalin, as would have been Yakovlev for criticizing Lenin and Gorbachev for allowing him to do so. Any respective government official of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany who opposed Stalin and Hitler, and died for it would have deserved it -- let alone anyone official in Iran that might oppose the heavy repression of civil liberties or the treatment of the Kurds, or former Treasury Secy O'Neil and Richard Clarke who both criticized Bush when they left office.

Yet those are the very people who are essential to prevent injustice. If they cannot delegitimize or question the regime and it is only left to the poor left in the wake of Katrina or the protester who has little sway, then we are giving up on the very essence of democracy. What Gergen and even an Obama supporter I saw 2 days ago on CNN are conceding to is fascism because, according to their logic and sense of justice, the president IS the nation.

I'm just glad Scott McLellan knows better. Well done, buddy.

[financeguy]

The aspens continue to turn.

Whoah.

"so that's why what I get to in this book is so important for people to understand, so we can learn from this and not make these kind of mistakes again and rush into a war that now was very clearly one that was unnecessary"

Referring to 'philosophy of co-ercive democracy' and torture at Abu Ghraib:

"those have tarnished the reputation of the United States in a very negative way and I think that has been harmful over the long term"

The neo-'conservative' 'philosophy' is now dust on the ground.

[VintagePunk]

On The Daily Show last night, they read statements that McClellan made as Press Secretary when Richard Clarke's book came out. Hypocrisy, much? It's very easy to cash in after the fact.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

On The Daily Show last night, they read statements that McClellan made as Press Secretary when Richard Clarke's book came out. Hypocrisy, much? It's very easy to cash in after the fact.

Yes, you can see it on thedailyshow.com McClellan criticized Clarke for publishing a critical book in an election year, only to do so himself. Did he fear some competition for book sales?

[AchtungBono]

My initial response is - I think that it's appalling that McLellan enjoyed all the perks of his job while he was press secretary and then turned around and bit the hand that fed him.

However, I will reserve my opinion until I see his interview on Bill O'Reilly's show on Monday.

[U2democrat]

The truth shall set you free

[corianderstem]

I dunno. I guess I'd have more respect for him if he'd piped up sooner and wasn't trying to sell something.

[randhail]

I don't have a problem with him speaking up or that he's schilling a book while doing the speaking up. Who knows, maybe he was ok with things at the time and after getting out there he realized how fucked up things were. Better late than never.

[deep]

MoveOn says McClellan should not profit


Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's book "What Happened" is seen at the White House in Washington, Thursday, May 29, 2009. McClellan defended his bombshell book about the Bush administration on Thursday, saying he didn't speak up against the overselling of war in Iraq at the time because he, like other Americans, gave the president the benefit of the doubt.

The liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org today launched a petition drive calling on former White House official Scott McClellan to donate the proceeds of his book to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The petition drive, intended to create pressure for Mr. McClellan to be asked about it on the morning news-interview shows Sunday, is the latest signal of a backlash by Democrats and Republicans alike against the former press secretary for turning on his ex-boss, President Bush.

MoveOn's petition e-mail, sent out to its supporters Saturday morning, said that Mr. McClellan's "coming clean is admirable.”

"But McClellan shouldn't profit off the role he played in our nation's largest foreign policy blunder,” the release reads.

MoveOn

[unico]

i originally read this subject line as "...sexy Scott McClellan". so this comment is completely different than the one i was going to post before i realized my error.

[deep]

I hope some one ask good ol' Scotty about Jeff Gannon
while he is on his book tour.

[A_Wanderer]

I guess that this proposal wasn't attracting publishers

The primary purpose of the book is to give readers a better understanding of President Bush, the press, and national politics as the 2008 presidential campaign gets underway, and to take readers behind-the-scenes of the White House to some of the defining moments and issues of Bush’s presidency.

I also anticipate discussing some of the key personalities in the White House and the Administration, including how they interacted with one another, and the kind of influence they had on the President.

Having spent more than seven years working for George W. Bush, I am able to offer readers my unique perspective. I was one of a small number of Bush loyalists from Texas who became part of his inner circle of trusted advisers, and was at his side as we traveled the world and country together, including through two presidential campaigns. No one will have served longer as press secretary to President Bush than I did.

For the first time publicly, I will give my insider’s perspective on:

• How a popular, bipartisan Governor of Texas became such a divisive and controversial President

• The media, the power they wield and the influence they exert on the President and his agenda, and why they are held in such low esteem

• Iraq and the faulty, prewar intelligence

• The leak investigation into the public disclosure of a CIA official’s identity, including revealing why I publicly exonerated Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, who was later indicted by the Special Prosecutor, and what Karl Rove early on told the President about his involvement

• The botched response to the catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, including looking at who was most at fault and the behind-the-scenes discussions with the President and his inner circle

• The Vice President’s hunting accident and his refusal to notify the press sooner

• The clandestine effort by some CIA officials to undermine the President’s reelection

• The 2000 Presidential campaign, including discussing why then candidate Bush refused to answer questions about potential drug use in his past, the late-breaking, explosive revelation about being charged with driving under the influence in his twenties, and the Florida recount from my on-the-ground perspective

• What it was like working in the West Wing, and my relationship with the White House Press Corps

• The current state of national politics, and the future of the Republican Party
The President

One of the chief reasons I went to work for Governor George W. Bush in early 1999 was his bipartisan leadership. It was one of his greatest political strengths. As Governor of Texas, he was a different kind of Republican and a different kind of politician. He sought to elevate the discourse, and rise above partisanship to bring Democrats and Republicans together to get things done. He made a priority of establishing relationships across the partisan aisle in order to build consensus and get his priorities passed. It was a record of accomplishment he pointed to as he campaigned for President by calling himself “a uniter, not a divider.”

But, bipartisanship became secondary to Bush during his presidency. It was one of the biggest shortcomings of his Administration — one that hurt him in a number of other ways. Why? What happened from Austin to Washington? That is a question I will answer. To do so, I intend to take a critical look into the influence of some social conservative and neo-conservative leaders, and talk about the power they wield inside the White House.

Many of the social conservative opinion leaders are well-intentioned individuals, but their strong-held political stances helped move the focus away from the issues that impact ordinary Americans to ones that were more narrowly focused to motivate their constituencies. In short, their influence has pushed politicians, including the President, at times to focus on more divisive issues that pit people against one another at the expense of keeping attention focused on issues that unite the broader public. By doing so, they have set back their own cause. I will talk about how.

The neo-conservatives emboldened the President to pursue a new and riskier foreign policy, including the decision to invade Iraq and topple a brutal dictator. Has that approach helped advance the interests of our Nation, or has it hurt them as critics contend? I will explore that further as I discuss the President’s thinking when it comes to our national security, and take a closer look at the Iraq War.

The influence of social and neo-conservatives did not necessarily change the President, but they did push bipartisanship further down the list of priorities and changed the way he so successfully governed in Texas.

Today, as a wartime President, George W. Bush has come to be regarded as a polarizing figure. He has made some tough decisions, and those decisions have generated significant controversy. From the broader War on Terror to the War in Iraq, President Bush has sparked some heated exchanges across the partisan political divide.

People tend to love him or hate him, and there are not many in between. Those on the far left of the political spectrum tend to demonize him and view him as an incurious, incompetent politician that will twist the truth to further his own goals. Those further to the right of the political spectrum tend to view him as a principled, strong leader who is driven by a higher calling, and willing to use every bit of power at his disposal to protect us from the evils of the world.

There have been a number of books written about him, including many more recent ones that portray him in a very negative light.

This book is going to take a much different look at our Nation’s 43rd President. While being supportive of the President, I want to give readers a candid look into who George W. Bush is, what he believes, why he believes it so strongly, and what drives him.

I want to give readers a sense of what Bush is like outside of the public view -- in meetings with world leaders, Members of Congress, his Cabinet, key constituents, families of the fallen, wounded soldiers, and key staff.

It will be an insider’s account of his behind-the-scenes persona, including his decision-making style, his personal discipline, his composure under fire, and his sense of humor.

And, I will directly address myths that have been associated with him, some deliberately perpetuated by activist liberals and some created by the media, and look at the reality behind those myths.

Scott McClellan's book proposal - Politico.com Print View

It does go on, criticising the media for liberal bias rather than conspiratorial complicity with the administration.

[LPU2]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

I guess that this proposal wasn't attracting publishers

It sounds like you're suggesting his book changed since this proposal. Have you read the book? I'd say this is a very accurate summary of the book.