« Defining ‘political science’ | Main | Energy progress stuck in ‘park’ »

June 04, 2008

Why now, Scott McClellan?

The media and White House surrogates are atwitter about Scott McClellan’s new book with its revelations about the inner workings of our government (5/29, A-1, “Insider faults run-up to war”). Why didn’t McClellan speak up sooner? Why did he not speak louder, and why now? Keep in mind that McClellan’s job as press secretary was to present the administration’s point of view as favorably as possible. That he did. He was not there to critique the president or the administration.

Hundreds of others were in the same position: the Cabinet members who did not agree with many programs, the senior managers in the Pentagon and the hundreds of generals in the field witnessing the mess in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We need only look to Colin Powell, as competent a soldier who has worn the uniform, being a good soldier and going along with the program. Hindsight provides a clearer picture. The truth often hurts.

Robert W. Johnson
Olathe

Why is Scott McClellan publishing a book that bashes the administration he represented as press secretary?

McClellan has said “I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be.” Was he without morals, naive, misled or stupid?

Why, all of a sudden, does he feel the need to have a public confession? Is it the need to clear his conscience or the way to stab some enemies in the back? Might be a little of both, but I doubt it. After all, he could have resigned anytime.

I submit it is for money. Now that he has joined the Bush-bashers he will sell many more books. Nice way to make millions more.

Glad he is not one of my friends. What a man to trust. I find it hard to believe he has the public’s interest at heart.

John H. Brown Jr.
Independence

Comments

Arminius

Jim:

"The best you can do is give me four and five year old quotes from Democrats? Really?"

The Edwards' quote was from 2007, squirt. Those quotes prove that the Democrats were getting the same intelligence in 2002 and 2003 as they were getting during the end of the Clinton administration.

"Ever stop to think that these folks said that because they were told that?"

Well, duh, idiot. That was my point. The folks in the Clinton administration told them that the Clinton administration's intelligence on Iraq was consistent with the Bush administration's.

"You're a liar Diddler. The truth is out, and it completely debunks your weak arguments."

Where's the lie, squirt? I provided three quotes from Democrats and a link to dozens of Clinton administration documents. Those documents prove that the intelligence was consistent from Bush to Clinton. I also made a request: "Read the Clinton administration's own documents regarding Iraq and then tell us where the claims differed between the Clinton and Bush administrations"

You couldn't do it, could you, squirt?


Jim

Only a rightwing dingbat would believe that garbage.

The best you can do is give me four and five year old quotes from Democrats? Really?

Tell me, what intelligence meetings was First Lady Hillary Clinton in on during the 90s?

Ever stop to think that these folks said that because they were told that? Hillary has admitted that she didn't read the intelligence for herself before voting for the war.

You're a liar Diddler. The truth is out, and it completely debunks your weak arguments.

Arminius

Jim:

"The Senate Intel Committee has done an exhaustive review of the available intelligence in the run-up to the war. The "bush and clinton had the same intel" narrative has been proven false many many times. Your refusal to accept proof to the contrary does not change that reality."

That's a flat-out lie. The Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee refused to look at the intelligence prior to the Bush administration in any meaningful manner.

And consider these quotes:

"The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent." - Hillary Clinton, September 24, 2003
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/157wjmhn.asp

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." - Hillary Clinton, April 21, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

"Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials." - John Edwards, February 4, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/

Of course, Hillary is the wife of Bill Clinton, while the Breck Girl sat on the Senate Intel Committee. But don't just take their word for it. Read the Clinton administration's own documents regarding Iraq and then tell us where the claims differed between the Clinton and Bush administrations.
http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/iraqthreat.html

Jim

Diddler,

The Senate Intel Committee has done an exhaustive review of the available intelligence in the run-up to the war. The "bush and clinton had the same intel" narrative has been proven false many many times. Your refusal to accept proof to the contrary does not change that reality.

Arminius

viet-vet:

"Riiight Armandhammer, we should get our information from a partisan website founded solely to spread spin and propaganda."

Actually, as I mentioned earlier, the site features the Clinton administration's own documents. I would think that documents released during the Clinton administration that discussed their viewpoints on Iraq at that time would be more valid than a Soros-backed book written by Scott McClellan two years after he left the administration, esp. now that we know the book is quite different from McClellan's original proposal.

You characterized www.sinsofthehusband.com as spin and propaganda. I challenge or any of your fellow moonbats to point to any item on the site that is not true.

viet-vet1970

Riiight Armandhammer, we should get our information from a partisan website founded solely to spread spin and propaganda.

Arminius

Jim's "Bush lied" narrative is contradicted by the Clinton administration's own documents. See www.sinsofthehusband.com

Jim

It appears McClellan, whether he did it for the money or not, has been backed up by the Senate Intelligence Committee. This would seem to directly contradict McCain's assertion that "every intelligence agency in the world" had come to the same conclusion about Iraq. Among the committee's findings:

- Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

- Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

- Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

- Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

- The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

- The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2b.pdf

Engineer

Katman
Oh well, I thought your post was funny. Many of our fellow blogers on the left seem to be suffering from advanced cases of HDS. But what's to be done? Pistols at 10 paces are illegal and I'm too old for anything else.

YourBSSucks

KatWoman sounds pretty positive in his POV. Too bad he can't hear what it sounds like to others.

As well as the others who castigate McC now for telling the truth but probably held every word that he stated as P-Sec as gospel, just like they do with George Douche.

katman

I'll second the motion and agree whole heartedly. How can the previous 'nobody' assert that "never before..."? What Internet source could he be using?

'Always & never' are two words that expose one's ignorance everytime. My late Father used to say, "Only fool's are postive". When I asked, "Are you sure?" He would say, "Yes, I'm positive".

I am deaf to 'always' & 'never' statements.

Marctnts

I would say that the staffers of most recent administrations have placed the majority of their loyalty with president, not country. I by no means think that Bush is a saint. He has had a lot of problems, and made a lot of mistakes. However, to paint him as a devil unlike any other recent presidents seems naive.

As to McClellan's motive, MONEY MONEY MONEY. Whether or not eveidence will surface proving him a liar has yet to be seen, but it seems obvious that the almighty dollar is the answer to the questions of "When" and "Why".

Stifled Freedom

What I mean is never before has White House staff been more loyal to the adminstration and thier salaries than they are loyal to thier country.,

katman

HMMMM! That's incisive. It really gets to the heart of the matter. Let me make certain I understand your point. The White House Press Secretary is there to "protect the President and gets paid six figures." Do you think that practice originated before or after Lincoln? Granted the six figures must have come afterwards.

Stifled Freedom

Once part of the administration, these guys all become pawns in bigger political game to protect the President.....and thier 6-figure salaries.

solomon

If McClellan wrote this book for any other reason than money he is a fool. It is the American way to capitalize given the opportunity.

I wouldn't waste a cent or a second on this book, but I would wager it has equal portions of truth, exaggeration and excuses.

katman

To any of you myopic readers who think McClellan wrote his book for any other reason than money, I have some prime swampland in Florida for sale.

KATMAN

Arminius

Mr. Brown hit the nail on the head. McClellan originally submitted a book proposal that was very critical of the media. However, once George Soros started waving around a few million dollars under his nose, McClellan changed his tune.

Soros clearly wants to hurt the president. He knows that there are plenty of moonbats, such as Robert W. Johnson of Olathe, who would also prefer to see the president suffer than the nation succeed.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright