McClennan writes a book

I don't know much about the book other than what I heard this morning on a talk show. But whatever the book says, I think it's considered very poor form to write a tell-all book while the President is still in office.

You do have to remember the McClellan was as good as fired from being Press Secretary. His predecessor, Ari Fleisher, and replacement, Tony Snow, were both outstanding Press Secretaries. Both of them could handle anything the press corps threw at them, but the press corps pretty much ate McClellan alive.

Now, that's not to say that there's no truth to his book. I don't know. It's always going to be a he-said-she-said kind of thing. But when a PR guy was asked about it (not affiliated with the Bush administration) he said it sure appears that this is payback. There have been Press Secretaries in the past who have quit because of their moral qualms with the administration (i.e. the PS for Ford who disagreed with Ford's pardoning of Nixon). He could have said something when he was in office, but he chose not to (if this is all true). That guilt isn't on anyone but him.

But you know this is going to be on the Bestseller list, and likely will be bought for a movie option, even if it's by an Independent film company. So he'll get plenty for spilling it, regardless of how true it is. And if it's not true, then McClellan will have to live with it. If it is true, there's a lot of people who have to live with a lot of blood on their hands. But we, the public, will probably never really know what happened.

if he wrote a book saying how great bush was, how many people would buy it?
your going to sale more being negtive.

its all about the money

There were plenty of books written about how great any number of Presidents were, but they were all published after they were out of office. And to make money, you have to have a book that has something to say. A book about how great a President Bush is/was would be very, very short, and not have enough to say.

Bush and Rove are getting what they have coming to them. I blame Rove for the infighting and stagnation. I blame him for the poisonous atmosphere. We needed people working together not infighting to move forward. Maybe he needs to tell the truth and someone came along offered some money and then...this. People in Washington are ambitious so I am not surprised.

What's interesting about the book is that the critics are not refuting the content, they are simply attacking McClennan himself. I caught the MSNBC interview with McClellan last night and it was followed up by an interview with Howard Dean (of Watergate fame). If they replay it, I suggest that you watch it. McClellan did the interview on what is considered a democratic program because the republican media won't touch it.

McClellan was a long term supporter of Bush. There were a few incidents that occurred while he was press secretary that really made him doubt his job. The final straw was when he asked Rove point blank if he knew about the Plane outing. Rove admitted that he gave Libby the nod to leak it to the press. I'm not a lawyer, but that entire incident borders on treason.

McClellan was not about to be fired. He was very much in the center of the white house staff. That is the spin that they are putting on the story so that he can be discredited. If you can't refute the facts, then attack the person offering the facts.

He talks about the Iraq war as an ongoing "campaign" within the white house. Bush made his mind up about Iraq shortly after 9/11 and didn't waiver his opinion. They then turned on their propaganda machine to sell it to the public. They used networks like Fox news to spread their propaganda. There's not a lot in the book that people haven't suspected for a long time. It's the first time that an insider has admitted it to be true.

If you think that this is just a disgruntled employee trying to get back at his former boss, think again. He talks about the problem in Washington being there long before Bush came to office. What was added with this president was the level of secrecy within the administration.

Howard Dean was the whistle blower with Watergate. He talked about the aftermath he experienced from that incident. Similarly, his facts couldn't be refuted so he was personally attacked. Dean at one point feared for his life. As he put it, Scott will find out who his true friends are.

Here's a link to the transcript and the interview. It's about an hour long but worth the watch:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24883051/

What "republican media" would that be? Fox? If so, from what I heard, McClennen won't go on Fox. To chicken I assume.

I always thought he quit rather than get fired also.

Just the rantings of an ex disgruntled employee IMO.

What "republican media" would that be? Fox? If so, from what I heard, McClennen won't go on Fox. To chicken I assume.

I always thought he quit rather than get fired also.

Just the rantings of an ex disgruntled employee IMO.

No, Fox won't have him. He's ratting on their benefactors. Think about it.

And if he's just ranting, why can't anyone refute what he's saying?

Some are. Ari Fleisher, who worked with him and has remained friends with him since his time as Press Secretary, definitely called him out on it. But since Ari is now a Fox News Contributor, no one else is covering it.

Here's my personal opinion on it. If you already believe what he says, then no matter what is said or done this is proof that your beliefs are correct since an insider confirmed them. If you don't already believe what he says, then he's cashing in or acting like a disgruntled ex-employee. I really don't think that his book is going to persuade many, if any, to change their opinion. But he WILL make a lot of money from it!

Thats just it....he'll make alot of money.

He's a traitor and a scumbag if you ask me....

It looks to me like he's someone who is just looking for his fifteen minutes of fame.

There's a lot of truth in that statement! I guess we can tell by our responses who sides with whom.

Here is an interview with Ari Fleischer. Other than stating that McLellan wasn't press secretary prior to the war and would not have some of the knowledge that went into the book, there was a bit of "disgruntled employee" implications. I find it interesting that at one point he stated Scott wouldn't have knowledge, and towards the end stated that Scott prepared his briefings for him during this period. Which way is it Ari?

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ar...ook/3195225685

My spouse has an interesting take on this book; the media is emphasizing entirely the wrong bit. (Important caveat: neither he nor I have read the book.)

McClellan wasn't a policy insider. A whole lot of policy outsiders have serious problems with the Bush administration's Iraq policy. There is nothing interesting here. Sure, maybe it's a little tacky, but it's not from a policy insider and it's not groundbreaking.

What is a big deal is that McClellan complains about the media making his job too easy for him. As the press secretary, he says it was too easy for him to steer the message and deflect questions about the Iraq war. This isn't someone complaining that his job was too hard or even really that the Bush administration didn't treat him correctly. Sure, he's saying that the Bush administration did a bad thing, but he's not in a particularly knowledgeable or relevant position to talk about policy creation and importance. He's in a very knowledgeable and relevant position about the way the White House reporters covered news out of the White House and he says they did a bad job.

Just read somewhere that the publishing company that published the book is owned by liberal billionaire George Soros....and also that McClellan didn't write the majority of the book, that liberals did and he just lent his name to the project. (don't know how much of this is true...).

Like I said before, MCClellan is a scumbag....

That's the exact same argument that is used to discredit the anti-global warming `studies' done that are financed by huge oil companies. And those arguments are pretty universally rejected. What makes you think that kind of approach is more credible here?

Who did he betray? I want a transparent administration. After all the government works for us. I want to see what our employees are up to.
In attacking him like they are they are proving his point that they smear anyone who goes against them.

But if you use that logic then it would support the liberal contention that Fox is biased because it is owned by Conservative Rupert Murdoch.
Or that Clinton's accusation that there had been a right wing conspiracy against her husband.

I think he wanted to stick it them and make money at the same time. The argument about a disgruntled employee means that no one who leaves or is fired unjustly should be believed. That is a diversionary tactic.
Clinton used it during his Lewensky mess to deflect from the core issues and facts.

The man's name is McClellan.

And a few important points:

1. The publisher admits they told him they had no interest in publishing a book that was positive about Bush.

2. Rupert Murdoch is more or less supporting Obama.

3. Fox News has just been found to be the most unbiased reporting on ALL of the candidates. In fact, this is so obvious that people in Hillary's campaign are saying they made a serious mistake in not attending the debate that was to be held by Fox, and by not appearing there more often.

That George Soros wants to control the world, that man is scary. Notice how he tries to stay in the background. There is something very wrong about that man.

McClellan is a traitor, if he was so morally compromised by the Bush administration he should have got out. What a hypocrite.

Oh, you are wrong my friend, Fox DOES want him. And guess what, McClellen has decided to appear on Fox. He will be on Bill O'Reilly this Monday night.
Watch it.


At least he has more guts than Obama who is to scared to go on Bill O'Reilly.

But that is exactly what he did when he quit his job (he was not fired), and which is why he felt compelled to write the book.

If you read thru his interview, he's not just attacking the Bush administration, but politics in Washington in general. He uses the Bush administration as an example, as they have exaggerated an existing problem with their "compartmentalization" and secrecy.

Is he a traitor? That might be too strong a word but I understand why you would call him that. His acts are not treasonous, unlike what Rove and Libby did with Plane. Is he a hypocrite? Only in the sense that he didn't always support the media reports he was responsible for delivering.

Traitor:
1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2 : one who commits treason

Hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

McClellan *was* fired. In spring 2006 Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told McClellan his days as press secretary were over. He was allowed to "resign" 6 days later. McClellan writes about this in his book.

Rove and Libby had nothing to do with "outing" Valerie Plame. Richard Armitage was responsible for that. Libby's trial was a travesty of justice. But that's a subject for another thread.

McClellan fits the definition. His book says a lot more about *him* than about the Bush administration. McClellan's book is no bombshell. It's the same old stuff that's been done to death already in countless left-wing blogs.

"Rove and Libby had nothing to do with "outing" Valerie Plame. Richard Armitage was responsible for that. Libby's trial was a travesty of justice. But that's a subject for another thread."

They had something to do with it they just weren't the first people who said it. Those are two different issues.
The Republican Special Prosecutor is to blame if anyone believes that there was a miscarriage of justice.
What most people don't realize is that the Vice President's circle and Bush's circle were not on the best of terms with each other. They act independently of each other very often.
I am no fan of The current Administration at all but it does seem like Libby was the patsy or fall guy for someone else. Although those letters to Judith Miller were very strange and didn't help his case in the least.

Well I buying the book for fathers day for my dad and I will try to read it before I give it to him. Both myself and my dad are anti-Bush people anyhow.

Last week the WSJ (which has started to show changes in its articles since the buy-out) had several interesting pieces on this book,