"White House press secretary Dana Perino released this statement on Scott McClellan's critical book on the Bush White House:posted by ericb at 8:16 AM on May 28, 2008
'Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. 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.'
More from Perino: 'The book, as reported by the press, has been described to the president. I do not expect a comment from him on it -- he has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers.'"*
“The news of Scott McClellan’s new book on President Bush -- first reported by the Politico’s Mike Allen -- guarantees one thing: There is NO CHANCE Bush fixes his perception problems in the public and the media anytime soon. He's a political pariah, pure and simple. In the book, according to reports, McClellan says that Bush ‘was not open and forthright on Iraq’; that the president sold the war through a ‘political propaganda campaign’; that he took a permanent campaign approach to governing; and that the White House mishandled Hurricane Katrina, both governmentally and politically. For McCain, the timing of the news of this book couldn’t have been worse. On the very day that the Arizona senator broke with Bush on nuclear proliferation, he not only held a closed-press fundraiser with the president (that produced just one photo-op), but also came news of the McClellan book. Now will come constant cable news chatter about the book, an interview with McClellan himself tomorrow on TODAY, as well as the inevitable questions from the traveling press corps following McCain… Meanwhile, Bush today hits two more fundraisers (in Salt Lake City and Park City, UT) for McCain and the RNC; Romney joins the president at these events.”*posted by ericb at 8:22 AM on May 28, 2008 [1 favorite]
In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness," something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.I thought Bush didn't care about what the history books or others thought of his legacy?
The president's real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.I'm sorry, but if shading the truth is not out-and-out deception then it is has got to be at least out deception.
"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he wrote of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an effort he said used "innuendo and implication" and "intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary."
"President Bush managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option," McClellan concluded...
“The former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W. Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.posted by ericb at 8:30 AM on May 28, 2008 [5 favorites]
‘I tried to avoid this war,’ Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado [transcript | PDF]. ‘I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.’
Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. ‘The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,’ he said. ‘It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.’
He added: ‘It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.’ All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put ‘a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew.’”
"...We're sure that McClellan means what he says, but lots of Washingtonians think poorly of their successors but bite their tongue and play the role of a good soldier. So why didn't McClellan do this? Simple: Speaking out against the Bush administration in such harsh tones is simply a smart career move by McClellan. He never became a stand-alone brand. He was never adored by the press corps. He was never adored by the Bush White House and Republicans generally (especially not now). He never developed his own schtick like Tony Snow (charming, funny, cancer survivor) or Dana Perino (hot, snippy, cute dog).posted by ericb at 8:50 AM on May 28, 2008
So what does this get him? Some John Dean-like street cred and the business opportunities (books, speaking engagements, consulting gigs, etc.) presented to a 'reformed Republican' who possesses a rather rare quality nowadays (and one loved by the Left): A willingness to speak out against the Bush administration's march to war." *
not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth
Powell tried to talk Bush out of war
Bush saw 'his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness,' something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.
Bush doesn't care what people today think about him, only that the history books remember him as great. Odd for a guy that doesn't like to read.
Whereas now we have Perino, who seems to not only not know what the truth is, but also not care.
... the considered view of the intelligence community is that Al Qaeda only constitutes perhaps 10 percent of all of the belligerents in this conflict. It is a nasty 10 percent. It is a 10 percent that is focusing on killing American troops. And they are the most effective 10 percent with their enhanced IEDs and the way they go about it. But it's still 10 percent.posted by russilwvong at 11:16 AM on May 28, 2008 [2 favorites]
... even if you got rid of Al Qaeda you're still going to have the civil war that can only be solved by the Iraqi political leadership. Much was said about Mr. Maliki and his government. It's a government that hasn't extended its authority outside of the Green Zone to any large extent. It is a government that is as much organized around sectarian interests within the parliament, within the Cabinet, as it is a government that has come together for a single national purpose. Everybody says we've got to go make sure that Mr. Maliki has the will. So the Vice President has gone over and told him you’ve got to have the will. The Secretary of Defense has gone over. The Secretary of State has gone over. Everybody has gone over and delivered the same message. And Mr. Maliki always says yes. But that is not the right question. The question that should have been asked at the beginning of the surge, as we move in with all of our troops, not only does Mr. Maliki have the will to do the political part of it, does he have the means, does he have the ability? And the answer so far is a flat no. ...
The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms. The Shias will ultimately prevail because they are 60 percent of the population. And their militia can be pretty violent. They will prevail also because they are determined not to be ruled again by a Sunni the way they were ruled under Saddam Hussein. The Sunnis are struggling for power and survival and it's going to be resolved in a test of arms. It's going to be very ugly. It's not going to be pretty to watch. But I don't know any way to avoid it. ...
... it is hard for me to be optimistic. But what is it that I see at the end of the -- the end of the game. I see a country that has probably stayed together. Its three constituent parts stay together -- the Sunnis, the Kurds and the Shias, and it will have a Shia dominated government that hopefully, will be sensible enough to give the Sunnis a piece of the action with oil revenues, political presence, participating in the government in a real way. It will be a Shia regime that will be more fundamentalist than we would like. It will be a Shia regime that will probably be linked more closely to Iran than we would like to see. But it will not be Iranian dominated. Because we still have an eight-year war between them that is recent history.
It will be a Shia regime that will be more fundamentalist than we would like. It will be a Shia regime that will probably be linked more closely to Iran than we would like to see. But it will not be Iranian dominated. Because we still have an eight-year war between them that is recent history.It bothers me so much that we never hear people talk about the Iran-Iraq war when they talk about current relationship between the two countries. What bothers me more is that, as I understand it, isn't Powell wrong here?
if he had been given a crystal ball in which he could have foreseen the costs of war...he would never have made the decision to invade
History is and always has been a gut major at Yale (like psychology practically everywhere else).
– 'There was a lot of debate going on about the pre-war intelligence that was used in the lead up to the decision to go into Iraq and remove a brutal tyrant from his position of power. There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration, suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence. That was flat-out false.' [4/07/06]posted by ericb at 4:26 PM on May 28, 2008
– 'I’ve known this President a long time, and this President is someone I think the American people recognize as a straight shooter, someone who, when he says something, means it, and does exactly what he says he’s going to do…when it comes to Iraq, in terms of the intelligence the President is someone that laid all that information out before the American people.' [7/01/04]
– '[W]e’ve been very straightforward about where we are in terms of the theater in Iraq.' [8/20/03]
– QUESTION: [D]oes [Bush] feel he misled the American people? McCLELLAN: No. [7/16/03] *
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.-- Scott McLellan [via]
Brad Blakeman, former White House staffer: “A publisher got to him and he waved a lot of money, I’m sure, in front of him and he took the bait and that is just unfortunate.”posted by ericb at 8:59 AM on May 29, 2008
Trent Duffy, former White House deputy press secretary: “It’s like the just turned over the pen to a publisher and signed his name at the bottom and got a big fat book contract.”
Bill O’Reilly: “McClellan is in it for the bucks, keeping in mind his publisher also distributes books by George Soros and other far left people.”
Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary: “And I talked to Scott yesterday and Scott did tell me, that his editor, this is Scott’s words, ‘tweaked some things closely in the last few months.’ And I think what did happen, Bill, was the book was pretty much done and set and Scott went back in, and I think his editor wrote a lot of it.”
Newt Gingrich, former House speaker: “Here is this guy who want to sell books. He’s cut his ties to the administration and his publisher says, ‘Now look, you can spice it up a little bit.’”
Steve Doocy: “Apparently the publisher did some tweaking. How much? That’s a really good question.”
"What I hear about the book does not sound like the Scott McClellan I knew for two years. I can say without fear of contradiction, that I knew Scott better than any other White House correspondent or Washington reporter."FYI -- an analysis of the "comings and goings" of Gannon into/out of the White House (2003 - 2005).
"There are not one, not two, but three major pieces on Scotty McClellan's book. There's the front page, above the fold, article titled 'McClellan Says Book's Tone Evolved: Aide-Turned-Critic Tells of Growing Disillusionment With Bush Administration.' On page 3, there's another article about the book titled, 'For Future White House Aides, Required Reading.' Then, there's Dana Milbank, who notes Scotty's ability to stay on message, a trick he learned from the Bushies he's now screwing:...Also, McClellan will be doing a live Q&A with the Post at noon Eastern time today."'Bush loyalists watching Scott McClellan kick off his media tour yesterday must have felt a revulsion akin to Dr. Frankenstein's.
McClellan's former White House colleagues had built and trained the former press secretary to parrot their talking points, monotonously if not mindlessly, no matterwhat argument or fact stood in the way. Saddam Hussein was a grave threat. The war in Iraq was going well. Scooter Libby and Karl Rove didn't leak Valerie Plame's identity.
But now the McClellan monster is back -- and he's got a new set of talking points that attack the very people he was trained to defend. He's a bit thinner around the middle, and the sideburns are comically longer, but McClellan's famous fealty to his message is as stubborn as ever.'
"Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) called for former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath regarding the devastating revelations made in his new book on the Bush Administration’s deliberate efforts to mislead the American people into the Iraq War."*posted by ericb at 7:17 AM on May 30, 2008
“‘The [McClellan] story took a markedly political turn yesterday. In a sign of the former aide's political transformation, he told interviewers that he is ‘intrigued’ by Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy. ABC World News noted McClellan is ‘even considering voting for a Democrat.’ McClellan: ‘I'm intrigued by Senator Obama's message,’ but ‘I haven't made any decision.’ The statement was repeated almost verbatim in other interviews….the Los Angeles Times editorializes this morning that ‘the person who needs to respond to McClellan's charges is not George W. Bush but John McCain.’ McCain's ‘ideas on how and when to end the war matter more now than his vote to give the president the power to wage it. But voters should know whether he believes the invasion was a strategic mistake.’ Adds the Times, ‘If McCain wants to be taken seriously as a more honest, competent and moderate Republican than Bush, he's going to have to answer some of the questions he has avoided,’ dealing with the run-up to war and the White House's treatment of ‘dissenters.’”posted by ericb at 7:40 AM on May 30, 2008
"Michelangelo Signorile talked to fake news reporter/escort Jeff Gannon on his radio show yesterday about the GOP smear machine coming after Scott McClellan over his tell-all memoir and the possibility of attacking McClellan on gay rumors that have surfaced in the past.posted by ericb at 10:35 AM on May 30, 2008
Gannon said yesterday that he 'knew Scott [McClellan]better than any other White House correspondent or Washington reporter.' He didn't elaborate to Signorile on the context of that relationship, but suggested that attacks were coming and are fair play.
Writes Signorile: 'I found this odd, considering that Gannon has been outraged in the past at even the speculation about his own past, calling it horrible prying, and McClellan did get married in 2003, and Gannon, as reported back during his debacle, had sent McClellan a wedding card! You'd think he'd adamantly deny it -- as someone who claims to know McClellan -- and vehemently attack the speculation.'
Listen to it here."
"House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said today that he plans to begin discussions with former White House press secretary Scott McClellan regarding his participation in a congressional hearing.posted by ericb at 12:51 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
'I find Mr. McClellan's revelations about attempts to cover-up the Valerie Plame leak extremely troubling. Particularly disturbing is McClellan's assertion that he was specifically directed by Andy Card to 'vouch' for Scooter Libby after the investigation had begun, which, if true, could amount to obstruction of justice beyond that for which Mr. Libby has already been convicted,' said Conyers." [more]
Meet the Press -- McClellan: Karl Rove should have been fired [video | 48:48].posted by ericb at 2:08 PM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
MoveOn to McClellan: Donate the proceeds from book to war vets.
McClellan promises to donate portion of book profits to Iraq veterans.
« Older Hey Joe -- Hey Joe -- Hey Joe -- Hey Joe -- Hey J... | CPU Filter: You know what they... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by psmealey at 7:42 AM on May 28, 2008 [2 favorites]