This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Scott McClellan: too little, too late? — Brooklynian

Scott McClellan: too little, too late?

sevenoneeighty
sevenoneeighty
edited November -1 in The Lounge / Random Stuff
So I have been watching the media frenzy over his new book and the accusations he is leveling. I cant make up my mind if this guy is a disgruntled creep or a noble patriot or somewhere in between... ( I am leaning towards a very late Patriot...)

Where was this guy years ago when we needed someone from the inside to confirm what everyone already figured out but couldn't prove? Why now?
Why not 4 years ago before the re-election of Bush?

Some of the accusations are pretty bad - he stops short of calling the entire administration liars, but that is a moot point.

We have all heard this stuff before since 2003 from many sources.
What makes this different of course is that this is coming from the inside and from the official "mouthpiece" of the administration.

Comments

  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    screw Scott McClellan. He is an opportunist and an enabler and this is not enough to forgive him for the central role he played THE crime of the new century (the Iraq War).

    Anyone who calls out Bush/Cheney's lies, deceit and crimes is doing the right thing. But as for Scott, his repuation will continue to reside in history's dustbin. It took almost no courage whatsoever to come out and say this after the President has established himself as the least popular president in the history of public opinion polling.

    I'll let my man Erza Klein take it from here:

    MCCLELLAN.

    "The White House would prefer that I not talk openly about my experiences... I have a higher loyalty than my loyalty necessary to my past work. That's a loyalty to the truth -- Scott McClellan.
    There are no revelations in Scott McClellan's new book. No fresh information, no new insights. Just the tinny bleatings of a man who abetted a lying, disastrous presidency because it seemed like a good gig, but doesn't want his name maligned by the historians. But truthtelling is powerful and redemptive when it's hard, as it was for Richard Clarke, who broke with the administration when it was powerful and popular. They smeared his name, of course, Implied that he was lying. They asked, "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." Those words, of course, were Scott McClellan's.

    George W. Bush is now the most unpopular president since the advent of modern polling. His disapproval rating passed 70 percent last week, higher than any leader before him. It has been 40 months since a majority of the country supported his presidency. And now, now Scott McClellan tells of us of his dedication to the truth, and his disgust with the propaganda used to sell the war. But he was there. He was there in 2000, when Bush ran for president, He was there in 2002, when the war was sold. He was there in 2004, when the president sought reelection. And through all of it, he was an eager soldier. History will do with him as it will. This doesn't come close to clearing his name.

    Posted by Ezra Klein on May 29, 2008 11:04 AM | Permalink
  • daver
    daver
    Boygabriel wrote: screw Scott McClellan. He is an opportunist and an enabler and this is not enough to forgive him for the central role he played THE crime of the new century (the Iraq War).

    Anyone who calls out Bush/Cheney's lies, deceit and crimes is doing the right thing. But as for Scott, his repuation will continue to reside in history's dustbin. It took almost no courage whatsoever to come out and say this after the President has established himself as the least popular president in the history of public opinion polling.
    True, it would have been interesting for him to have come out and say it during the time that the President established himself as the most popular president in the history of public opinion polling.

    Yah, like _that_ would happen...
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    daver wrote: True, it would have been interesting for him to have come out and say it during the time that the President established himself as the most popular president in the history of public opinion polling.
    you mean just prior to, and during, the campaign of lies and trumped up reasons for invading Iraq? I wouldn't call that interesting so much as morally imperative.

    Blood is on all of these people's hands, and a select few have truly atoned for it. In fact I'm not sure I can think of a single one.
  • daver
    daver
    Boygabriel wrote: [quote=daver]True, it would have been interesting for him to have come out and say it during the time that the President established himself as the most popular president in the history of public opinion polling.
    you mean just prior to, and during, the campaign of lies and trumped up reasons for invading Iraq? I wouldn't call that interesting so much as morally imperative.

    Blood is on all of these people's hands, and a select few have truly atoned for it. In fact I'm not sure I can think of a single one.
    A bit dramatic, much? Not that I don't agree with the sentiment, but I haven't heard anything about this book that supports your statement. But I have yet to read it for myself. The NY Times reported that McClellan thought invading Iraq was a "serious strategic blunder." Well, whoop-de-doo. He said that Bush operated in campaign mode for the first term. Sur-fucking-prize. Blah blah blah Bush was oblivious blah blah blah Libby and Rove are liars blah blah blah he thinks maybe Cheney is a liar too blah blah. Surprise. I'm not finding a lot of there there in this book.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    I don't quite follow what you're saying, besides that "blood on their hands" is too dramatic for you.

    The spokesman for President Bush is one of many enablers in committing the crime of invading Iraq. I think we probably agree on that, give or take some vocabulary. This book doesn't do much for me in terms of atonement. That's my response to the original post.
  • daver
    daver
    I haven't seen anything that says that McClellan says that Bush trumped up lies in order to invade Iraq. Just that he (McClellan) personally thought it was mistake.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    If that's the case then McClellan is even more guilty than I originally thought.
  • witch-king
    witch-king
    for someone on the bush team, which fetishises total loyalty, he's showing exemplary courage by speak out. if he had had the fortitude to speak out earlier, he would not have been employable in the bush white house. in contrast, colin powell deserves unending ridicule since he 'sold' the case for war much more directly than did the press secys.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    how much courage does it really take to throw bush under a bus and attempt to distance yourself from this debacle of a presidency?
  • livetotravel
    livetotravel
    This is just a huge guilt-ridden mea culpa. Where in the hell was he at the time? Maybe he could have helped support Sen Robert Bryd's call for more examination of the "facts" and prevented thousands of deaths. Fuck McClellan! I hope he and his group of cloned Bush cultists rot in hell.
  • gyrlapple
    gyrlapple
    Scott McClellan on Jon Stewart show tonight....should be exciting. They have Fred Schneider (B52s) singing parts of the book
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    Flexichick wrote: Scott McClellan on Jon Stewart show tonight....should be exciting. They have Fred Schneider (B52s) singing parts of the book
    Hilarious so far. I'll post the clip tomorrow when they put it online.
  • eleanorb12
    eleanorb12
    Man, this is good. JS not letting him off the hook
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    DAILY SHOW CLIPS

    Fred Schneider reading from Scott McClellan's book:


    Scott McClellen Interview Part 1:


    Scott McClellan Interview Part 2:
  • daver
    daver
    Interesting, thanks much for the vids. I'll read the book when it hits the library, but I'm not expecting any rocking relevations. McClellan is still soft pedaling the whole thing. Surprise. There is no smoking gun there, just a lot of well, they left this out and went with this instead. Well, duh.

    Fred Schneider was a great touch though.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    daver wrote: There is no smoking gun there, just a lot of well, they left this out and went with this instead. Well, duh.
    There's never going to be a smoking gun. We're never going to get Cheney on tape saying, "I put that lying hack Ahmad Chalabi in charge because he promised me access to Iraq's oil."

    In my opinion we already have enough evidence. They cooked the books. They neutered the critics. They mounted a powerful and focused campaign to manipulate the media, the armed forces and government, all in an effort to start an illegal war of aggression that's resulted in 10,000s of dead Iraqis and Americans, and (help) lay waste to an entire country, all while making America less secure, the Middle East far less stable, and Iran far more powerful.

    Meanwhile Afghanistan never got the attention it deserved, and our Armed Forces are stretched to the breaking point, with 130,000+ troops mired in Iraq and unavailable to deal with a real threat to our security, should it arise.

    This is literally one of THE crimes of the new century.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories