To Giudecca with you, Scott McClellan.

By docj Posted in Comments (58) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Scott McClellan, the man who was for nearly 3-years the ineffective, completely-in-over-his-head, Bambi-stuck-in-headlights press secretary for President George Bush, is allegedly about to toss his former boss under the bus.

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.

And we all know by now, because the media have beaten this drum every chance they can for 4-years now, said CIA operative is Valarie Plame - the world's least-covert super-secret spy who is also rumored to have a proclivity for bodice tearing in the service of her country.

In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday.

Well, we all know people selling books have never, ever been known to try to make the facts better fit their narrative than reality seems to bear out (COUGHmr-valarie-plameCOUGH), right?

To my mind, I've already spent more time on this story than it deserves - except to say the following, and I direct this to the principal of this piece, Mr. Scott McClellan:

Mr. McClellan, for nearly 3-years this President trusted you to go out, day after day, and spread the public relations message for the White House. For the better part of 3-years, when people like, well, me were calling for you to be replaced, you continued to step out on stage and fail before the world. That the White House press operation was a dismal, disgraceful, criminally incompetent failure during that time period therefore must at least in part be laid squarely at your feet.

An honorable man would simply fade away. Quietly.

But that's just not the American way anymore, is it.

That you would now take this opportunity to, apparently, toss your former boss under the bus so you can make a few bucks on a kiss-and-tell book speaks volumes about you, Mr. McClellan. And while I wish ill on no person - or at least, I try to wish no ill on anyone - I just want to take this opportunity to remind you there is a special place reserved for those who pass from this life as traitors to their benefactors (just keep scrolling down...), and I can only wonder, should you go through with this sort of treachery, if you will, in the end, be rewarded with the eternity you will so richly deserve.

And better-put than I could have said.

Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

McClellan's book has a Spring release date and already he's letting out teasers.
It's coming during the early fire of the general campaign season so it will get plenty of buzz.
The problem is that his incompetence at pr also makes him seem unpolished, and thus more sincere and believable.
Let's see what Tony Snow has to say in response to this. Tony's words will carry more weight than McClellan's.

Bush's greatest mistake was keeping this fool as press secretary for 3 years. Imagine had we had Tony Snow or Dana Perino in there for that time! Reid and Pelosi might well still be minority leaders (as many laughs as they've already given us, its just not worth it...)

I will agree with you about Tony Snow, but Perino ...?

Bush's greatest mistake was keeping this fool as press secretary for 3 years.

Oh, I bet we can find some bigger ones than that.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Gen. Powell's replacement.

Oh that John Bolton were Secty of State.
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

the one definitive test is to ask the question "Which one would I rather find myself in bed with?" In your case Becker, I hope that stach doesn't tickle too much.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

...I will step up and basically say that what he writes here would seem to be true.

After all, somebody told him that Rove and Libby weren't involved. But they were involved and they both testified as much. So what McClellan told reporters that day turned out to be the truth -- and there's no getting around that fact.

So, I suppose it's possible that he just got bad information from somebody who didn't know any better. But that seems a stretch to me.

I suppose it's also possible that he made it up out of thin air.

I really don't know. But I do know that he said they weren't involved. And I know they both testified otherwise.

What he told reporters that day turned out to *not* be the truth.

I was excited for a second, I thought we were talking Civil War :)

Molon Labe!

I wonder if Scott is a descendant of that failure of a general.

Wouldn't surprise me. ;)

Molon Labe!

"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand

It isn't like his approval rating can drop much lower. This is just a distraction from the lame demos and their failures.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken

Wow, this is the biggest pile of [expletive deleted] [that] I have ever read.

You Republicans are despicable [and] spineless, [as well as being] morally[] and intellectually depraved shells of [] American patriot[s]. [Pretty bad mismatch, there. Went with the simplest editing.]

You are** a disgrace to the men and wom[e]n* [who are] dying to afford you** the right to write this bile.

You make me ashamed to be a part of the same species [as all of you***].

[*There's apparently only one. No indication on what her name is.]

[**I know what it looks like, but this person apparently really did mean to write "You are" and "you," instead of "I am" and "me." Or even "We are all" and "us," which would have been a very interesting observation to make.]

[***Unless he was just whining at the author. You never know.]

[Personally, I'm just envious that this was apparently "the biggest pile of [expletive deleted]" that the poster ever had to read. Clearly not an English major. - Moe Lane]

This jerk has had it coming since Day One.

Guess he only reads kiss-and-tell type tomes - explains a great deal, actually.

Adios, cretin.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

in the White House. I knew there was a reason I never liked him, but now I understand that all along I intuited that beneath his mediocre stammering was a heart of lead.....

And didn't Armitage do the leak? Wasn't the rest all a "process crime" of the type lawyers and politicians concoct to justify the bad name they have around the world.

Fishing expeditions often end up with whoppers, and a clunker like McClellan is a reincarnation of his civil war loo-zer moral ancestor.

... dumbest White House Press Secretary bar none.

I seriously believe that there should be a bust of him given to every Republican White House Spokesman from here on in. Just so that every morning their resolve to never be like him is shored up.

What a useless POS.

there is never an end to squishy republicans who turn on their bosses. The problem with republican adminstrations is that they hire people like that in the first place, and they don't take the steps to stomp on a non-story like this right when it comes out.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

I'm sure Dean can move over a smidge to make room, though.

But let's not forget there are plenty of Dems who will be suffering right along side them. "Turning on your boss" is one of the few truly bipartisan, and most disgraceful, aspects of modern politics.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

was a secret agent,
and if her husband hadn't discussed her employment with a nationally syndicated columnist, and if they both didn't pose for Vanity Fair, and if the CIA, a scandal in itself, wasn't continually releasing secrets, which is OK under certain political circumstances, and if a viciously corrupt independent counsel hadn't sat on the identity of the real leaker for more than three years.

Oh well, if you wish to persist in your hatreds it helps to have a worm like Scott McClellan to feed the flames. Another Republican going the way of media adulation, however brief.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

is that he did not know what he did not know.
It is the publisher who is implying that there was deceit involved. The Kos Koolaid Kids, like the former member upthread, are the ones who are having virtual ecstasy from this. I look forward to seeing if Scott really is a traitor, or if his publisher is merely trying to do what media does.

But it really doesn't argue against the question: why write the book at all?

Especially since you know all it will do is provide aid and comfort.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

because he was there and has a story to tell. I doubt at this point if he is actually betraying any sort of trust.
My bet is that this fragmentary excerpt will prove to be yet another example of the lefties taking a sentence out of context and claiming it means something quite different from what it actually means. Let us not forget how Rush became the focus of the daily lefty 10 minute hate by way of their gift of using quotes to create lies. I have a sneaking suspicion this will not be very different.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

can add 'little backstabbing punk' to that impressive resume.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

McClellan could have made the cure for cancer sound like some evil plot. What a horrible excuse for press secretary. But, I blame the Bush admin for keeping him there for so long. He did tremendous damage for credibility. It was symptomatic of Bush's "take the high road" poor poor communication. I blame Bush Admin not taking on the blatant lies by the left and media on a daily basis for allowing these bad weeds to grow unfettered into the polarized nuts we have on th left today. Those bad weeds should have been hit w/ a squirt of roundup before their roots strengthened. Now it's a tougher job pulling them up one at a time.

This just tops the whole thing w/ McClellan now spouting off. What a p****y.

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

Above and beyond trying to sell a book. Like, I don't know, maybe his family is mad because they perceive the Bush family didn't do anything to help his Mother, Ms. Strayhorn, in her gubernatorial aspirations to unseat fellow Republican, the moderately popular (because he's a Republican!) Rick Perry. Thereby "forcing" Ms. Strayhorn to join Kinky as an "Independent" which saw her political career ended about the same time her son left the White House? No, couldn't be sour grapes on top of trying to sell a book?

but plausible. I think it was more that he was tired and his boss was ready for him to move on.
Strayhorn had the Governor bug for years and discredited herself long before the election last year. The only that really matters in this is the truth. If Scott is doing what I think (and I know him not all), I think the media quote is something where he talks about how he tried to be truthful, and in this case he did not have full info. I hope it is not where he is fabricating big WH conspiracies to censor truth etc.
If he is making the latter case, he had best have something better than 3rd hand bs on Plame. A lot of people have worked with Bush over the last >6 yearsm, and none of the informed writers talk about Bush as a manipulative liar. Scott had best have a lot of very specific info to credibly sell the case otherwise, political split or not.

This piddly Plame story just became the smoking gun. It "proves" everything the opposition likes to believe about Bush and Co.


We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

It's not like the people who are going to take this seriously are people that you have to take particularly seriously.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

... we forget the rest of the world who don't live at the extreme edges. I had ironically enough just finished debunking a lot of talking points about l'affaire Plame with a liberal friend. This sort of blows a hole in what I had been saying.

I have also spent a good deal of time with liberal friends on the issue of Bush as an honest man (arguing that he is).

This reads as an insider confession to a calculated lie. Not news to a Kossack, but possibly a big deal to a thoughtful lefty.

We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

OK, that's a fib: I can only do the one.

Anyway, I'm sure that this can and will keep until April, when we can see what McClellan actually wrote in full. Not to mention why he didn't go to Fitzgerald with whatever info he had, or why Fitzgerald didn't act on whatever info McClellan gave him, and so on...

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I don't think of Bush as a liar. Like most of us, I've been having the "Bush Lied!" arguments nonstop since 2003. This is a setback in that discussion, I think.

One of things I most admire about GWB is that I feel like he stands by his guns, and is NOT a liar. To me, anyway, this is the first solid evidence that "Bush Lied!!" willfully about something. I guess it saddened me a bit. Call me naive if you like.

You're right, though, this is the beginning of the story and not the end.

We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

I never thought that Bush was a "liar" in regards to the WMD claims, because everybody, and I mean EVERBODY, thought that Saddam had them. However, I gotta admit, this doesn't look good.

I think that Libertarian Hawk also made some good points in that not everything McClellan said, in the snippet from his book, is news. For instance, we know that Rove and Libby told McClellan that they weren't involved in the leak case, and then they testified that they were involved. We also heard that Cheney might have been involved with the leak, during the Libby trial. The only thing about this that's really "news" is whether or not President Bush was involved.

On a side note, if I were in McClellan's shoes, and these people (Libby and Rove) told me that they weren't involved with the leak case--I then told the American people that they weren't involved--and then it turns out they (Libby and Rove)were involved, I might be a little mad at them for making me look like a liar. I'm not trying to defend McClellan, because none of us really know what's going on yet--I'm just trying to be fair. I'm just saying, that I could see why he might be mad at some people--namely Libby and Rove. And, it's entirely possible that Bush was not involved and that McClellan holds an unfair grudge against him and his whole administration. Not to mention, it's also entirely possible that the snippet from McClellan's book was taken out of context.

On another side note, Ari Fleischer was the press secretary during the actual leak. McClellan's first day was the day after the Novak column broke. Therefore, I'm just going to wait and with hold judgement from all parties until the facts shake out. Just my two cents. Y'all have a nice day.

"To me, anyway, this is the first solid evidence that "Bush Lied!!" "

Perhaps you should reconsider it after pondering what the term "solid evidence" should entail.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

If we're in a recession by April, the public will be eager to think of worse of Bush and McClellan won't need much evidence for his assertions.
OTOH, if we're doing well, no one will care.

....if you are a former Bush administration official, all it takes is for you to write a book critical of the administration in some way. I guarantee that you will be booked on every single news talk show and will receive glowing press in the drive-by media - even if these same people trashed you when you worked for Bush.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit” a fairly new phenomenon that we can all do without.

When people can get a big payday for telling their story, and that payday can become a boatload of cash if you're willing to turn up the sensationalism volume . . . or even spin the facts a bit to better suit a more lucrative target audience . . . it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the truth from crass opportunism.

Scott McClellan was a catastrophic albatross for three years. His tell-all should be embraced with the same warmth and legitimacy as any other writer of pulp fiction.

"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

I for one am very impressed with the ability of lefties from Gore to Michael Moore to Clinton to Dan rather to the general MSM to take things out of context, deliberately misquote, fabricate evidence, etc.
I am willing to withold condemnation of Scott until he actually either gives interviews or they print whole excerpts.
I will not be at all surprised if this is not simply yet another in the long depressing list of lefty hacks lying about what Republicans say or do.
If Scott knew anything of first hand direct knowledge, he was under orders to divulge it to the Fitzmas investigation. I do not even think he was called into speak with the Grand Jury.
I am not trying to defend Scott. I am pointing out how we get very bad info from the MSM, react to it, and then find out they were just lying.
Think of Katrina, the war, Plame, Rush and the real soldiers, AGW, the case against Saddam, Abu Ghraib, Gtmo., the economy, Rahtergate, Kerry's military lies, numerous coverups of lefty bad behavior, etc.

...the publisher is releasing excerpts to create a pre-release buzz. The fact that at least one of those excerpts plays right into the Left's "Known Facts" tells me that Scotty isn't opposed to using senationalism to make a buck. No doubt he will eventually explain how the context proves something entirely different, but it will be too late by then.

The media will run with its first impression since it supports their view of "reality". They won't bother to correct the context when McClellan backpedals in a week or two.

"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

We do not know if Scott even approved the excerpt or if it is even accurate.
His silence could be read either way, but to me it implies he is not comfortable with it but is being told to be silent or give up his advance.

The media took and ran with excerpts from that book, when, if the whole passage was looked at, it was just as critical of the modern leftists as it was of the GOP, if not more so... but that stuff kinda got flushed down the memory hole.

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

Me thinks we are all missing something here. Can't people consider options before jumping at the obvious opposite? The press jumped on it so quickly as it gave them what they wanted. Now they find out they have been 'had'. Why? What would the reason be? Ask questions! Don't jump to conclusions.

Proudly Supporting Patriots At

I am not ready to jump all over Scott McClellan yet. He was put in a pickle by the assurances he gave the WHPC. So he does no doubt feel he owes an explanation because he is himself a man who values his integrity. I expect he will not be accusing President Bush of lying to him, because I doubt that is the truth. Cmp.:

Fleischer, Snow, and Perino were/are no more effective. The administration is a PR nightmare; putting lipstick (in the form of a smooth talker) on that pig does nothing to change that.

That being said, McC was by far the worst of that crowd. As one friend, who was at the time a Communications Director for a GOP Congressman, told me: "You just look at him and think, no matter what he's talking about, he's lying. He's just not believable -- on anything."

I would rather have Tony, Ari, or Dana representing me -- over Scott -- but personally, I never found Scott to be unbelievable and certainly never viewed him as a liar. Rather, as a good guy who was not particularly inspiring. So while agreeing on that substance with you, I disagree with your "friend"'s perception.

I never believed a word the dude said either.

So I was the last guy on my block to give up on Santa Claus. Still, I fear cynicism more than naivete. But obviously I need to listen to judgments like yourz.

I never thought Scott McClellan was anything other than an incompetent. Useless and utterly unsuited for the job, yes ... but a liar, no.

He gave the impression that he was deliberately given the minimum amount of information possible (i.e. left out of the loop) so that he would not [expletive] things up any further than he usually would.

It's the best explanation for why he had so many "blink and stammer" moments.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I caught some of this the other day on Hardball and in the actual reading of the quoted text I didn't get the connection thats being trumpeted. Methinks there is some context missing and this is just some gotcha crap from the MSM.

But hey, I'm married and a father of five, so I'm usually "wrong".

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service