Scott McClellan's Book

[Pangloss]

I think it's interesting and I don't buy the right wing's "explanation" that George Soros is behind it. McClellan didn't have to do this -- nobody forced him. I don't object to the idea of economic incentive (the book is more attractive to buyers this way), but the personal cost is rather extreme for that kind of gain.

 

This is the main point that I think the right has going for it in this area. The quote below is from today's editorial position in the conservative Wall Street Journal.

 

The problem is that Mr. McClellan presents no major new detail to support his conclusions about Iraq, or even about the Administration's deliberations about how to sell the war. This may be because he was the deputy press secretary for domestic issues during the run-up to war and thus rarely attended war strategy sessions. His talking points are merely the well-trod claims that the Administration oversold the evidence about WMD and al Qaeda.

 

(source)

 

I think that's a valid point, and that renders McClellan's book to the level of simple opinion rather than anything that adds major substance to the center argument. Still, he was an important part of the Bush administration, and his book has to be viewed as significant.

 

I should stipulate that I haven't read this book yet, and I haven't decided yet if I will read it or not. I only manage maybe one non-fiction book per month, and my backlog is already very long. I'm considering it, though.

 

(Which reminds me, I need to update my library card. I'm getting kinda tired of spending money on books like this.)

[ecoli]

from what I understand, it's nothing new. I haven't read it, but why should I care about some guy's opinion? (who clearly has an agenda - publishing something controversial for the money).

[iNow]

Let me ask this, though... If it's "nothing new," then why have the spoke-people of the current administration been so bent on discrediting McClellan's credibility? All I heard about yesterday on the news was "he's just a disgruntled former employee." The book became the background story, McClellan's motivations brought to the fore. That always strikes me as rather odd.

 

I don't really have any feelings one way or the other, but the fact that he was "inside the closed circle" does give his story some weight, and I find the reaction we've seen to the book unusual if it's truly offering us "nothing new."

[swansont]

(Which reminds me, I need to update my library card. I'm getting kinda tired of spending money on books like this.)

 

Commie! This is what your economic stimulus check was for!

 

 

At this point, is this just more piling on, or does this lend credence to earlier works that were dismissed by the administration?

[ecoli]

Let me ask this, though... If it's "nothing new," then why have the spoke-people of the current administration been so bent on discrediting McClellan's credibility? All I heard about yesterday on the news was "he's just a disgruntled former employee." The book became the background story, McClellan's motivations brought to the fore. That always strikes me as rather odd.

Just because the newspeople keep repeating the whitehouse statement over and over doesn't mean the whitehouse was making a big deal about it.

 

All they said was that McClellan wasn't even at most of the meetings, and his book is full of conjecture.

 

The media is making it a bigger deal than it is, not necessarily the whitehouse.

 

I don't really have any feelings one way or the other, but the fact that he was "inside the closed circle"

How do we know this?

[doG]

For me his motivation is just too questionable to give much weight to his allegations. I'm inclined to think it lies somewhere between a total work of fiction and the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but exactly where it lies is anybody's guess.

[Phi for All]

exactly where it lies is anybody's guess.

He was the White House Press Secretary. The man knows how to lie with both lips tied behind his back. Barnes & Noble probably have his book on a turntable so it doesn't "spin" itself right out the door.

[ParanoiA]

Anybody read this letter from Dole yet? I think it hits the spot nicely.

 

Scott,

 

There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.

 

In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you. 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.

 

I have no intention of reading your "exposé" because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job. That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You're a hot ticket now but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?

 

BOB DOLE

[ecoli]

wow... that's inspiring.

[ParanoiA]

wow... that's inspiring.

 

Yeah, I love the whole bit about speaking up like a man. That's exactly what crosses my mind when these opportunists roast their old bosses.

[SH3RL0CK]

Eh, Bush is gone in less than a year. Everyone in this administration is going to be out of a job soon, McClellan's probably trying to make a quick buck now while he can and maybe set himself up for employment for the next 4-8 years.

 

Or maybe he just decided to get his revenge for wrongs, or perceived wrongs, done to him now, rather than a year from now (especially when the book sales and/or revenge would no doubt be less a year from now).

 

Doesn't strike me as a must-read book, theres lots of other books I'd rather read.

[Pangloss]

Let me ask this, though... If it's "nothing new," then why have the spoke-people of the current administration been so bent on discrediting McClellan's credibility? All I heard about yesterday on the news was "he's just a disgruntled former employee." The book became the background story, McClellan's motivations brought to the fore. That always strikes me as rather odd.

 

I don't really have any feelings one way or the other, but the fact that he was "inside the closed circle" does give his story some weight, and I find the reaction we've seen to the book unusual if it's truly offering us "nothing new."

 

Well I agree with what ecoli said in response to the above (they're going to react that way to that kind of back-stab regardless of whether it's anything new), but I agree that until some of us have actually either read the book or read an extensive report on the book it's impossible to say if there's anything new in it or not. I also agree that insight from members of the administration is relevent even if they don't actually offer new information. Their opinions as direct eyewitnesses are significant. In short, I think your point is valid.

 

----------

 

(merge notice: separate post below) (lol)

 

Regarding the larger issue, I think people are going to be surprised at the eventual judgement of history regarding Bush the Second. Two-termers don't really get the "failed" label, and to find a full two-term president that's actually judged by the history books as a failure you have to go all the way back to Ulyses S. Grant. The ABB crowd is just not going to get its way with the 'failed' label. But hey, I've been wrong before.

 

Mind you, Nixon was re-elected for a second term, but resigned very early in it. That would seem to be an exception to my statement above, but I don't believe it is. The position of the most extreme Nixon critics (ala Oliver Stone) is that Nixon was a bad president regardless of Watergate. But had Watergate not happened, I don't believe Nixon would not have gone down in the history books as a failed president. I say that not because I think those critics are wrong, but because every administration has critics and the central tenet of the "judgement of history" is that the negatives are weighed against the positives.

 

The exact same logic will be applied to the Bush administration. Michael Moore won't make that judgement, nor will Rush Limbaugh. The result will likely frustrate both of them. But the word "failure" won't be in there.

 

Commie! This is what your economic stimulus check was for!

 

Rofl.

 

He was the White House Press Secretary. The man knows how to lie with both lips tied behind his back. Barnes & Noble probably have his book on a turntable so it doesn't "spin" itself right out the door.

 

Perhaps he considered suggesting that the Bush administration caused 9/11' date=' then threaten to leave the country if a Republican is elected and live out his life in Europe. Oh wait, never mind, that's already been done.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[john5746]

Two-termers don't really get the "failed" label, and to find a full two-term president that's actually judged by the history books as a failure you have to go all the way back to Ulyses S. Grant. The ABB crowd is just not going to get its way with the 'failed' label. But hey, I've been wrong before.

 

Katrina alone will keep him from being considered a great President, IMO. I think more people will speak out after he leaves office, especially if we have a democrat for President. Obama is saying we shouldn't have gone to Iraq, McCain is saying we should have done it better. Bush is a failure either way.

[Pangloss]

Here's a little hypothetical for you all that I beleive demonstrates the problem of partisanship in judging presidencial legacy.

 

Would the Bush presidency be a "failure" if not for the war in Iraq?

 

I submit that the membership here would answer that question "yes" in an overwhelming majority.

 

I also submit that in that scenario -- no Iraq -- Bush exits the White House with a positive approval rating and an obvious positive judgement in the history books, with the word "failure" nowhere in sight.

 

If any doubt my speculation of a positive approval rating, bear in mind that Clinton exited with something like 60% approval, and the man was IMPEACHED. So I think I'm on quite solid ground with that. And yet there it is -- that is one cold splash of water in the face of the ABB crowd, the reality that Bush could have been considered by this country to have been a great president SOLELY leaving out Iraq.

 

Frankly that's the main reason I support Obama at the moment. He strikes me as the ONE politician who could possibly lead us in defusing and reducing that nonsense. I think the key to watch, by the way, is how badly he has to fight DEMOCRATS, especially in his first term. If he's having to fight them often, everyone should do everything in their power to support the man, even if it means agreeing with people you wouldn't normally agree with. That's the only way we're going to break this thing and return to some kind of normalcy. They say "politics makes for strange bedfellows", and I can already imagine that Obama will produce some of the strangest bedfellows in the history of politics.

 

I can imagine, for example, a President Obama with a 60% approval rating, while congress continues to enjoy its 20% "approval" rating. In fact that's how it's going to be immediately upon his entering office, more or less. Imagine what happens when he tells Democrats to pass his laws, and they say "hold on let me put in this earmark", and he says "oh really? well let's just ask the people what they think of that idea".

 

That's my two bits on it, anyway.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Pangloss

[swansont]

Here's a little hypothetical for you all that I beleive demonstrates the problem of partisanship in judging presidencial legacy.

 

Would the Bush presidency be a "failure" if not for the war in Iraq?

 

I submit that the membership here would answer that question "yes" in an overwhelming majority.

 

I also submit that in that scenario -- no Iraq -- Bush exits the White House with a positive approval rating and an obvious positive judgement in the history books, with the word "failure" nowhere in sight.

 

 

The war has so much baggage with it, since it has torture, corruption and amplifies the abuse of rights and economic issues. No Iraq means a huge amount of money not wasted, and that probably means the present economy isn't quite so bad. (I don't think it avoids the banking crisis, but maybe that doesn't hit so hard. Too many influences to know for sure)

 

Without that, the approval rating is much, much higher, I think. The left complains about human rights but with a lot less traction. There's still the mishandling of Katrina, botched education reform, many environmental issues, and more, so you're still not going to get the left to stamp a "good" rating on the presidency, but I think you avoid the "failure" tag.