The big story today (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/washington/28cnd-mcclellan.html?hp) is former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan's "scathing criticisms" of Bush in his new memoir. As I recall, past discussions of Mr. McClellan concluded - on both sides of the debate - that he was an incompetent boob.

Current Press Secretary Dana Perino and McClellan target Karl Rove both say this is not the Scott they knew. The critical excerpts in this article seem to back that up - they are identical to the anti-Bush talking points we've all heard (and many of you have used) for the past 5 years.

Now that his memoirs are out, is he still just an incompetent boob, or has he suddenly become brilliant?

Basically McClellan didn't tell me anything I already didn't know about the nuances of the Bush admin. I saw how the Dubya PR machine went after McCain in the 2000 primaries and how Bush handled the last seven and half years in office. While I know that Scott embellished several of the stories, there are nuggets of truth to his accusations much like McNamee vs. Clemens. We all know Clemens did the steroids. I'm one the biggest Clemens fans, but the guy should had taken the Pettitte route and this would had been old news and done away with.

What better way to sell a book, than to spew mouthfuls of crap, regardless of accuracy or truth.

Get one side or the other all riled up, so they start talking about your book, all over the TV, Radio, and print media.

Yes, he is an ingenious, incompetent boob.

The operative word is "was " . He will now be the toast of the MSNBC talk show circuit.
Hey ;everyone's got to make a buck ! What better way to secure your future prospects then to get in with the Washington insider coffee klatch and cocktail party crowd. Why not? It has worked well for David Gergen ;Morning Joe Scarborough , Richard Clarke ,Colin Powell ,and dare I say John McCain when he was the media darling (before he returned to the dark side).

Today my thoughts and prayers are with Tony Snow
Former Bush press secretary Snow, sick, cancels Ohio speech (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90UOJEO1&show_article=1)
I will have more to say on the paper mache rat McClellan later.

McClellan from the press room on Richard Clarke's book :Why didn't Clark speak up with his concerns and objections while he was part of the Administration? He never did that; now a year and a half after he leaves he comes out with this book.

OK here's the story . Scotty's mom,Carole Keeton Strayhorn is a Texas Republican "reformer " which means she is a lib .She ran for Guv against incumbent Rick good hair Perry . Scotty thought that the Bush political machine would help his mom out but she got no support at all from the State GOP and got trounced.
This could be payback time...

Or

A 'like father like son' situation .

Scotty's old man ,Oliver Barr McClellan,was an operative in the LBJ administation.

From Wikipedia : Initially he was attorney-clerk for the National Labor Relations Board; soon after, he became attorney for a Commissioner of the Federal Power Commission.....

In 1966 McClellan joined the legal firm of Clark, Thomas, Harris, Denius and Winters, based in Austin. At that time the firm was run by the partners Edward Clark, Sam Winters, Don Thomas, Martin Harris and Frank Denius. The firm was closely associated with Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democratic Party in Texas. McClellan's work included advising on political strategy, campaign contributions, media issues, and labor disputes.

His old man later started his own law firm and made some $ through litigation involving Ford Pintos and tobacco cases.

But the old man got in trouble .During litigation with a local bank, McClellan resigned his Texas law license. The litigation was subsequently dismissed and McClellan resigned in lieu of disciplinary action by the State Bar of Texas Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel.

So the old man decided to cash in on his time in Washington and his target was his old bosses LBJ and Edward Clark .

Disallowed from practicing law, McClellan published Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK, in 2003 which became a best-seller in November of that year. In the book McClellan presents a theory that Lyndon B. Johnson and Edward Clark were involved in the planning and cover-up of the Kennedy assassination. ..... McClellan purports that Clark got $6 million for this work.

Guess Scotty and Bush won't be hangin together on the porch remembering the good ole days .

Update :

Congressman Wexler wants to haul Scotty's butt before the House Judiciary Committee under oath to testify in Wexler's ongoing dog and pony show over the Plame case. That should be fun . May Scotty spend all his royalties on lawyer fees ! He implies that Rove and Scooter Libby went behind closed doors to “collude”. He says “I have no idea what they discussed, but it seemed suspicious for these two, whom I had never noticed spending any one-on-one time together, to go behind closed doors and visit privately".
There-in lies all the evidence he has that two major White House operatives ,who probably coordinated the activities of the offices of the VP and the President hundreds of times ,were colluding during the Plame investigation... he saw them go into an office together. Lol

“The admissions made by Scott McClellan in his new book are earth-shattering and allege facts to establish that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby – and possibly Vice President Cheney - conspired to obstruct justice by lying about their role in the Plame Wilson matter and that the Bush Administration deliberately lied to the American people in order to take us to war in Iraq. Scott McClellan must now appear before the House Judiciary Committee under oath to tell Congress and the American people how President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and White House officials deliberately orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people.” -Congressman Robert Wexler

I guess Wexler doesn't get around much - too tied up in trying to impeach Cheney to realize the earth-shattering moments have long passed.

News flash (no one tell Wexler please )... Richard Armitage leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the press.

news flash (no one tell Wexler please ) ........Richard Armitage leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the press.

And he admitted it (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html)...

Bob Dole does a hammer time on Scotty

Jonathan Martin's Blog: Bob Dole unloads on McClellan - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Bob_Dole_unloads_on_McClellan.html)

Bob Dole does a hammer time on Scotty

Jonathan Martin's Blog: Bob Dole unloads on McClellan - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Bob_Dole_unloads_on_McClellan.html)

LOL, no kidding:


"In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you," Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate. "No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years"

Just in case you guys are not aware: the White House approved the book and knew about before it was sold to the public.

It is too little, too late. It really doesn't reveal the "axis of energy" plan that explains McSame's "100" year war.

It reveal nothing new . Scotty is just reguritating Keith Olberman talking points. Truth is that Scotty is clearly upset that he was not in the inner circle... That he was irrelevant except to the point that Bush felt a loyalty to some of the "Texas Mafia " that helped him get elected . Given their performance (except Rove) one could say that Bush's loyalty to them (Karen Hughes , Harriot Miers , Scott McClellan,Alberto Gonzales , Joe Allbaugh and others ) may turn out to be the fatal flaw of his administration .For the most part they did not serve him well in Washington.

Hello:

I didn't read it... But, I believe every word.

excon

I think Bush's father was a reasonable and just President. In fact, I have spent a little time with the man (in a non-political arena).
Mr. Reagan was a leader who I often differed with, but there were still bi-partisan handshakes across the aisle at the end of the day.
The days of wise and respected leadership are on hold.

My heart goes out to all those folks who still want to defend the Bush administration. It is hard to watch one's party march relentlessly without a plan for success for years on end. To be an ever shrinking minority drowned in the facts and realities of two terms of problematic leadership is tough. To question one's own family (in this case party) is not always natural or comfortable.

Still, to have one person after another, after another feel an obligation to clear their conscience after leaving (Paul O'Neil, Whitman, Wilson, McClellan, A growing list of Generals,. etc.) Are they all simple greedy vindictive pawns? They were all embraced and respected upon their entry into the administration.

I think the facts would stretch any party loyalist a little thin. I fully believe McClellan is telling the truth - and he was considered "one of ours" - as was Paul O'Neil - which makes it harder to marginalize them.

This president was not the man for the job. And it has/will become more apparent every day.

I would have liked it to have been different. But one cannot reside on the small island of denial forever - for fear of drowning.
Time to look to the future. And embrace these "canaries" as a source of information that will shine a light on how not to repeat this madness.

McClellan was a man clearing his conscience and yes, making a dollar, but he's hardly a simple mercenary pen.
As for other "Sell-outs"? (Well, here's another, who ironically didn't need the money): Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq?, O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11 - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml)

Hello again:

It's apparent to me that Bush is and has been, a puppet of Cheney.

excon

PS - I think McClellan showed guts in pissing off a standing president.

I think this is going to refocus the light where it belongs - at the TOP: Good or bad - the white house knows exactly what's going on.

Though it is easy to forget that sometimes...

I don't doubt for a moment that he is telling the truth. I just think his truth is old news and too little too late. Most of us know what the middle east war is all about.

I don't doubt for a moment that he is telling the truth. I just think his truth is old news and too little too late. Most of us know what the middle east war is all about.

You may be wiser than most.

I wish it was old news.

But as the White House continues to obfuscate, the law and accountability still have not found their way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Not wiser than anyone. I just don't believe a word they say. I know the Bush family are crooks. Law and accountability does not apply to the super rich and their puppets.

Indeed... and it doesn't stop there... cheney walks free in a year. All the rest have slowly left town before the law arrives (rummy, rove, wolfowitz... etc)

No one has left town. They are all the same. The elections are bought and paid for. The elite will not allow a "Real President" that would stop their crimes against humanity. They have lived in complete opulence on the backs of us all for too long. They are very used to it and refuse to give it up.

news flash (no one tell Wexler please ) ........Richard Armitage leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the press.


Bob Novak picks apart Scotty's charges about Rove and Libby

RealClearPolitics - Articles - McClellan on Plame (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mcclellan_on_plame.html)

It's all political comedy.

Novak? Come on. We all know he is a silly desperate man.

As for lying - here is transcript of Novak getting caught lying on Fox News:
John Amato: Novak Caught Lying about Murray Waas - Politics on The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-amato/novak-caught-lying-about-_b_25011.html)

If Novak was not literally in bed with the Bush Admin. And part of their own spin cycle, his one page talking point rebuttal would have more weight.

The funny thing is he literally chats with Karl Rove (mr. fox news talking points) and quotes him in his one pager:

"....Rove told me last week he never said that to McClellan..."

HA. I wonder what Cheney told him? :-)

The reason the Novak story is relevant is because it was his column that first named Plame. All the facts he presents have been confirmed .

These days, it's not that the facts have been confirmed... it's "whom" has confirmed those facts.

Novak is not a Bush-bot. In fact he has publicly opposed most of the Bush foreign policy. Also note that Richard Armitage ;who also was opposed to the Iraq initiative ;was the admitted leaker of Valerie Plame. Further ;everyone ,and especially Prosecutor Patrick Fitgerald knew Armitage was the leaker BEFORE he begans his witch-hunt.

Novak is a credible nullification of McClellan
Because it's "his" column (and 'his" leak). Really?


So, Scott McClellan doesn't count now? Even though Novak has stated that he "confirmed" the leak with Rove...And McClellan would have the same, in fact better, access to Rove and Bush. Who KNEW of the leak.

Novak already made a fool of himself n public many times on credibility issues and in this chestnut on Meet the Press on July 16, 2007 - an awkward interview marked with such quotes to Tim Russert as: "That was a misstatement on my part. I -- I'm -- I've found I'm much better -- I hope I'm not screwing up on this interview... "

Libby has already been charged because Patrick Fitzgerald was... crazy? Armitage and Novak can join in too. They should.

Still, Scott McClellan's charges still make sense. It takes bravery to walk away, but the truth does not reside with Novak, Bush or this administration.

One can still be a conservative without falling on their sword or drinking the Kool-Aid for this bunch.

And McClellan would have the same, in fact better, access to Rove and Bush. Who KNEW of the leak.


Libby has already been charged because Patrick Fitzgerald was... crazy? Armitage is yet another to out Plame, let's toss him in there too. But Scott McClellan's charges still make sense.


Again not the facts .
1st ,McClellan knew what the administration wanted him to know. He was not in the inner circle.
2nd , Armitage inadvertently disclosed the information about Plame while speaking about the Wilson trip to Niger .He was not "out to get Plame"
3rd Libby made some minor lies to the Prosecutor and was charged and convicted of them .

I am a critic of this administration where it is justified . Want to talk to me about not vetoing any Republican spending bill in 6 years you'll get an ear full from me. Want to talk to me about expanding entitlements . I'm in the opposition to this administration... same with border security and a number of other issues.

This McClellan book is just as reguritation of Democrat talking points. Even McClellan admits that he had no intention of being so harsh on the administation but his publishers had a hand it writing the book .

1st - If your Press secretary is not in the inner circle that says a lot. Who gets the truth if not him?
2nd - Armitage did speak of it inadvertently. But what happened after is pure manipulation. Do you think that Rove did not know the implications of confirming the leak to Novak?
3rd -"minor lies" Hmmm. I like that one... It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

I am not drinking from the same vessel. And it saddens me how they take loyal folks like you down with them.

Whether it's Yellow Cake or Mission Accomplished or WMD's or pre-war budget manipulations or day to day propaganda, it has gone too far to be called justifiable errors.
The American people, and you, need not defend this madness as people, such as McClellan and others, clear their conscience. The White House and the conservative press corps make it their job to discredit all naysayers. Fortunately, some fight on. And slowly the truth comes out.

If no one spoke out after leaving the White House would that be preferable?

Imagine if all were silent... like robots... It would be chilling. So, when Novak quickly tries to discredit someone on "his" issue, I ask, does he speak for me? And I think his credibility has passed on this matter.

Press secretaries are not that big a deal .They come and go and clearly are NOT in the Inner Circle of any administration. Also if he was critical of the administration and the President over policy he should've resigned .

I would say that we both know a Press Secretary's job is to trot out there and spin and duck. Some are better than others. He was the messenger rather than the originator, but amid his tenure he is clearly privy to info that many are not.

(It's the White House's job, incidentally to discredit all that challenge them)

Mc's only mistake or conundrum was one of loyalty, which is common in both politics and the military. One must ask themselves when should I challenge my rank, my role, my superior if I feel something is not right? What is the perfect time? There never is.

Colin Powell faced the same cognitive dissonance. His later criticisms have also been tempered by incidents of his complicitness.

At no time (McClellan) would his resignation have benefitted a public quest for the truth. He would simply have just been labeled a malcontent, an incompetent, an opportunist. You cannot win. I applaud him for allowing himself to be pilloried now.

What White House naysayer do you agree with?

FEL_hndb0kA

The white house memo appears to be: "puzzling, shocked, puzzling, puzzling, doesn't add up..."

AHEM.

The truth is always hard to kill. Isn't it.

What White House naysayer do you agree with?

I made it clear that there are a myriad of issues I disagree with the President about or about his performance.

I have generally do not read the books of the outgoing advisers . They are usually too selfserving to be of any real use .Bob Woodward gained unprecedented access to the White House and I think his books on the Presidency are generally fair. If I was going to read McClellan's book then I would feel compelled to also read Ari Fleischer's book Taking Heat: The President, the Press, and My Years in the White House I don't suppose you've read that have you ?
Nor do I suppose that you agree with Dough Feith in his new book about the Iraq war even though he does have some issues with the planning and execution of the war.

Ok, well good to hear you agree with Woodward.

I think he showed that this White House is big government at it's most dangerous: A big stick and a self-induced moral imperative to use it.

Feith? I'm well aware of that epistle.

The Pentagon's #3 has lots to say... including this when he was in office:

"OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Unfortunately, that was not the case...

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration.

His inside view, no matter how jaundiced, may be is worth sharing, but he shares the same problem that I see with all those who are falling on their sword for the party.

It's not really their fault, but at the time it was politically expedient, and is that mentality that makes this all so irksome.

He seems to blame everyone - and yet like all those involved cannot see the fundamental issue but wants to just reinforce what they hope and think to be true.

Bonus: Karen Kwiatkowski, who was a Desk Officer in Feith's Policy organization, spoke of Feith as follows:

"He seeks information that confirms what he already thinks. And he may go to jail for leaking classified information to The Weekly Standard."

Gen. Tommy Franks called him "the dumbest [bad word] guy on the planet." (that is a little rude, but I like Tommy and he did all he could for the White House...)

As for Woodward, whom we can call "Fair" there was no doubt in his mind (or his book) that the White House was trying to build the case for the Iraq war at all costs - despite disagreement from Powell and others.....And calls Cheney a "steamrolling force" in the effort to get the American people to buy off on a needless war.

I can provide quotes from the book if you wish.

The truth is that the White House screwed up BIG TIME....BIG TIME....and there is no two ways around it...This is an administration that has no credibility left.

The fact that a white house press secretary that was once one of theirs is now airing his opinions is but one small "wafer thin mint" in the bulbous body of overwhelming evidence of misdeeds and bad motives.

I DO agree with Feith that there are a lot of people to blame. Our President and Vice President are chief among them.

Let's hope we get better next time... whomever the party he represents.

The fact that a white house press secretary that was once one of theirs is now airing his opinions is but one small "wafer thin mint" in the bulbous body of overwhelming evidence of misdeeds and bad motives.Hello again,

Indeed!

excon

Interesting you quoting the Weekly Standard. I bet that doesn't happen often.

Do you suppose now in retrospect Woodward would like to retract Bush at War ,or Plan of Attack ? Especially the part where he confirms George Tenet ;a Clintonoid holdover ,told the President the intel about Iraq was a "slam dunk" ? That Bush was planning on attacking Iraq months after 9-11 is of no concern to me. That Powell objected ? He certainly sounded convincing during his address to the UN about Saddam's WMD. Some more revisionist history for Powell when things did not go as planned ? I think so. General Franks did a good job running the war ;then he bolted when things began to go south. Why should I believe his account over Feith's ;especially when Feith is 100% accurate in his central critique of the post-invasion period ;when the big mistake was made,and Viceroy L Paul Bremer was installed.