McClellan ...Patriot or Turncoat?

[Mo_Gearhead]

Scott McClellan was the White House press secretary from May 2003 to April 2006,

His new book apparently takes Bush (and others) to task on many levels; too much secrecy, a less than honest selling of the war, a lack of personal candor and an unwillingness to admit mistakes.

His many colleagues are said to be scratching their heads over the book, wondering where is the Scott McClellan they knew and worked alongside?

I haven’t read the book (and probably will not), but on this mornings Today show he sure came across as someone that became disillusioned with how Washington ‘works’. (He spent time with Gov. Bush/Texas prior). Some of his comments (on Today) sure echo what many of us feel is indeed the Washington ‘state of affairs’; ie: Get elected, (work to get re-elected!) and ignore what the people that put you there really want to see done.

So …is McClellan just another book selling, opportunistic, money hungry has-been? Or another disillusioned patriot, cast aside for his candor when the truth stings those in power?

[Mule]

Whore. His book will sell 10x as much now.

[Jim Richards]

If one or two guys came out critical of the POTUS, I might think sour grapes or opportunism. But, there's been enough *****ing by former members of the administration and military officers that I think they are giving us confirmation of what many of us have suspected for years.

[Hawktel]

I think his characterizations are most likely correct. I also think that trying to pretend any administration is lily white, and good hearted is folly.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Mule

Whore. His book will sell 10x as much now.

+1000. He is just after the money. Hope he enjoys it as he will need it later on in life.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

If one or two guys came out critical of the POTUS, I might think sour grapes or opportunism. But, there's been enough *****ing by former members of the administration and military officers that I think they are giving us confirmation of what many of us have suspected for years.

+1. It's not like this is a shocker.

[The Gaijin]

Why didn't he quit way before he did? He is trying to sell book and secure his position in the media world.

[URY914]

He probably couldn't sleep at night and needed to get it off his chest. Of course it will sell and make him millions.

[rouxroux]

And now the libs want to drag him before Congress to see if he "sings like a bird" under oath. I hope he enjoys the small amount of $ he sold his soul for. Let's see what comes out when he's grilled.

[MRM]

There is nothing unpatriotic about pointing out mistakes. Admitting mistakes is what makes it possible for our policies to evolve and improve to meet real world circumstances. In WWII the Truman Commission made its name, and contributed imesurably to the war effort by holding hearings and investigating fraud waste and abuse - all of which were embarassing to the powers that were, but which were sapping the war effort.

I see nothing different here. It is no secret that the Bush administration has a hard time admitting mistakes, and equates probing questions with disloyalty. The failure to admit mistakes and conduct a self-examination to correct deficiencies had bogged down all of the Administration's policies, and our war effort in particular. Our Iraq war effort would be infinitely better off had someone asked the hard questions before we went in, so that we had a good invasion and occupation strategy, and then continued to ask hard questions when it became clear that the current strategy wasn't working. We're four years behind where we should have been because the administration wouldn't admit they made a mistake by not going in with more troops, disbanding the Iraqi army with no place for them to go, by not securing the former arms caches, etc., etc., etc.

One reason the south had so much better leadership than the North in the Civil War was that Northern generals had a policital base that gave them their position. They could prove to be inept military comanders, but they could keep their job because they had political connections. Lincoln could do only so much with the army he had. The south had only one requirement for its generals: fighting ability. Leaders who won battles were promoted, those that didn't weren't.

We've gotten ourselves into a similar situation here. Anyone who questions the current administration's tactics or strategy has their patriotosm called into question, even when they support the president's goals and objectives. Only those who loyally parot the administration line get promoted, and those are the people who can explain convincingly seven ways to Sunday why the war is going at least as well as was planned and better than we could expect. Bush had to have the surge shoved down his throat after three years of denial when it became so self-evident that his limited war in Iraq was failing that he could pretend no longer.

I see nothing wrong with McClellan's book. We can all learn from it and from the lessons learned we will have a stronger country.

[widgeon13]

He's pissed he got fired and he's selling the book the only way it will sell, full of BS!

Literary license, yes that's the term.

I'm sure he wanted to get it down on paper before his memory was dulled by the drugs.

He's a Casper Milktoast anyway for not standing up in the first place and quitting, if in fact their is some legit material. I don't believe for a second he actually wrote the book, it was written by some lefty and his name is on it.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by MRM

There is nothing unpatriotic about pointing out mistakes. Admitting mistakes is what makes it possible for our policies to evolve and improve to meet real world circumstances. In WWII the Truman Commission made its name, and contributed imesurably to the war effort by holding hearings and investigating fraud waste and abuse - all of which were embarassing to the powers that were, but which were sapping the war effort.

I see nothing different here. It is no secret that the Bush administration has a hard time admitting mistakes, and equates probing questions with disloyalty. The failure to admit mistakes and conduct a self-examination to correct deficiencies had bogged down all of the Administration's policies, and our war effort in particular. Our Iraq war effort would be infinitely better off had someone asked the hard questions before we went in, so that we had a good invasion and occupation strategy, and then continued to ask hard questions when it became clear that the current strategy wasn't working. We're four years behind where we should have been because the administration wouldn't admit they made a mistake by not going in with more troops, disbanding the Iraqi army with no place for them to go, by not securing the former arms caches, etc., etc., etc.

One reason the south had so much better leadership than the North in the Civil War was that Northern generals had a policital base that gave them their position. They could prove to be inept military comanders, but they could keep their job because they had political connections. Lincoln could do only so much with the army he had. The south had only one requirement for its generals: fighting ability. Leaders who won battles were promoted, those that didn't weren't.

We've gotten ourselves into a similar situation here. Anyone who questions the current administration's tactics or strategy has their patriotosm called into question, even when they support the president's goals and objectives. Only those who loyally parot the administration line get promoted, and those are the people who can explain convincingly seven ways to Sunday why the war is going at least as well as was planned and better than we could expect. Bush had to have the surge shoved down his throat after three years of denial when it became so self-evident that his limited war in Iraq was failing that he could pretend no longer.

I see nothing wrong with McClellan's book. We can all learn from it and from the lessons learned we will have a stronger country.

Excellent post! Between Mclellan, Colin Powell, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, et al, the pattern of our current "leadership" and their net results speak for themselves. All were "marginalized" imo for "questioning" the POTUS (or his policies) much like anyone here on PPOT is immediately labeled a LIB, Dem, etc. Some of you guys are so blinded by your political affiliation that it taints your perspective imo. I'm a Republican, but hate to admit it anymore, and the Dems are no better .

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Patriot. And not just because I happen to personally despise the Bush administration - I'd feel the same way to any person shining light on ANY presidential administration (without compromising bona fide classified information or anything like that of course).

To be frank though, he's really not saying anything that we didn't already know. Bush pushed for a war in Iraq come hell or high water? No big surprise there. The "smoking gun" story there will probably come out decades from now (that the administration deliberately falsified intelligence data to make the case for war on high-level administration officials' direct orders), but this is only saying "yea, he spun it a certain way to get his war". No schit. Everyone's been saying this since "Mission Accomplished". Non-story.

On the other stuff - the patterns of deliberate secrecy, hiding behind "executive privilege" to avoid furnishing FOIA and subpoena documents, the Valerie Plame affair, etc. it's all already well-known and documented. So the Bush administration is corrupt and rotten to its core. Big whoop. That's about as much "news" as saying "the sky is blue". We know it already.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Patriot.

Why is this not a surprising comment?

If he was a patriot then he should have done this long ago, not now being a gold digger.

At least you are predictable Jeff...

[silverc4s]

He was an average assistant press secy, a clueless bumbler as press secretary, never should have been promoted (see Peter Principle), and now is acting out of petulance like the true ******* that he is.

In the long term, what he has to say about the Bush Administration is just about as important as our views here...

But overall, TURNCOAT. Who would now ever want him to work for them in any position of confidence???

[K. Roman]

The side your choosing is just as predictable.

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

Why is this not a surprising comment?

If he was a patriot then he should have done this long ago, not now being a gold digger.

At least you are predictable Jeff...

[kstar]

IMO, he came into the job with little knowledge of "politics" and was shocked and surprised how the sausage making process actually works.

He might have had a similar reaction working in any administration.

Where he ends up looking bad is keeping his mouth shut for years and doing a job that he now claims he was disgusted by.

FWIW.

[widgeon13]

Most likely, Scotty had a plastic pocket protector for his shirt pocket when he was in HS.

What else does one do after being a White House PS, write a book.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

[kang]

Originally Posted by IROC

+1. It's not like this is a shocker.

Agreed. It's not like he's saying anything we didn't already know.