Paul Mirengoff asks when Doug Feith's book will get similar attention from the MSM to that lavished on Scott McClellan, who after all was not as directly involved in the great policymaking battles of the Bush Administration as Feith. As John Hinderaker notes in an addendum to Mirengoff's post, "facts have been notably absent from the press accounts I've seen of [McClellan's] book" - which is why historians will be much more interested in Feith's extensively documented account than in McClellan's subjective impressions. Reporters who pride themselves on writing the first draft of history might try looking at the two books in that light, rather than just playing up the one that confirms their comfortable prejudices.
I must respectfully disagree with the characterization of Scottie as "robotic," though he was certainly repetitious. What made him such a hapless figure was the obvious difficulty he had in staying on message. Not that he veered from it, exactly, but he just hewed to it with naked desperation, unable to perform the kind of ruthless parrying that marked the tenures of Ari Fleischer and Tony Snow. Towards the end, he often looked on the verge of tears. If he was a robot, he was a sad one.