Let's Beat Up On Scott McLellan Some More

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in | | | Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Because, Heaven knows, he keeps giving us reason to:

Scott McClellan's most explosive charges about the Iraq war are based not on any new evidence but rather on his reading of books and magazine articles after leaving the White House and on a period of "reflection."

On morning talk shows this morning, Mr. McClellan repeated a statement from his book: that he charges President Bush with a misleading the country into war based on reading a book by reporter Bob Woodward.

Mr. McClellan said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he realized Mr. Bush had in late 2001 made up his mind to invade Iraq "when the president did interviews with Bob Woodward for his book."

[. . .]

During the interview, the 40-year old former Bush administration press secretary defended his portrait of Mr. Bush as "too stubborn to change and grow," but also admitted he should have voiced his doubts and questions about the march to war in 2002 and 2003.

There's more. Read on . . .

Mr. McClellan made no effort, however, to bolster the sourcing for the most serious charge in his book, that the president based the case for war on possible weapons of mass destruction only to hide his true motivation: the introduction of "coercive democracy" in the Middle East.

This charge has been given great authority because of Mr. McClellan's former status as a White House insider.

But a close reading of his book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washingtons Culture of Corruption," shows that he reveals no new information about the presidents motives.

[. . .]

Reed Dickens, one of Mr. McClellans former deputies, said he found his former boss' book "pathetic in substance."

"He didn't have any damning evidence or quotes or conversation. I was flipping through the book, waiting to find something damning, and there wasn't really anything," Mr. Dickens said Friday night on "Larry King Live."

Dan Bartlett, the president's former counselor, has also repeatedly said on TV that there are no new facts presented in the book.

Conservative blogger Paul Mirengoff on Thursday noted that Mr. McClellan's book "is devoid of footnotes, endnotes, and supporting documentation."

Mr. Mirengoff, a Washington attorney who writes for the Powerline blog, says Mr. McClellan's book is a sharp contrast to former Pentagon official and war architect Douglas J. Feith's book "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism."

Mr. Feith's book "provides detailed accounts of key meetings based on contemporaneous notes," wrote Mr. Mirengoff. "And it includes more than 30 pages of original source material plus almost 90 pages of endnotes. Readers can thus determine for themselves whether the author is providing a reliable account or merely settling scores and/or trying to make a buck."

And here I thought that books are supposed to be original, interesting and that they should provide something new and fresh to the public discourse.

"Crooks And Liars"Comments (3) »
Let's Beat Up On Scott McLellan Some More 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

On morning talk shows this morning, Mr. McClellan repeated a statement from his book: that he charges President Bush with a misleading the country into war based on reading a book by reporter Bob Woodward.

Mr. McClellan said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he realized Mr. Bush had in late 2001 made up his mind to invade Iraq "when the president did interviews with Bob Woodward for his book."

That's the sillest thing I have ever seen.

Join The Revolution!
BigGator5.net
John McCain for 2008!

Like the finest bovine scat...

Wow by kchand

Great article.

--------------------
Vista really sucks!

Rot in hell you pathetic waste of breath. You might have stopped at having been a miserable failure as White House press secretary (without a doubt GWB's biggest mistake was keeping you on for so long, if not hiring you in the first place), before you proved yourself to be a miserable failure as a human being too.

I used to cringe, watching McClelland barely able to string two sentences together.

Quite a few complaints were received as the site below would not add Scott McClelland to the list of traitors or patriots. The liberals wanted to vote him a patriot really bad. So, we introduced up or down voting for a new category called 'undecided'. Now you can vote as to whether McClelland is a patriot or a traitor. So far, liberals are calling him a patriot. There are others we aren't so sure about and they are listed under 'undecided' as well.

Celebrating Patriots and Exposing Traitors At http://www.countryaboveself.com. Wonkette Blinked. Viva Liberal Slayer.

His book is published through Soros' company.

I still hold that he is hoping for a job in the next Administration, and he's betting that the next President has a D after their name.

However, like a mating black widow, once the DNC is done using you, they tend to eat you.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

No WAY he was looking for a job in "the next administration."

He was just cashing out his shares in the Bush brand while the price was still good and the distribution available. If we get
a Democrat as president, there is no way the soiled and used
mouthpiece of Republican president would have any place in it,
except perhaps a moonbat spittoon.

Seriously, what could he possibly bring to a job? Since when
is kissing-and-telling a good thing to put on your resume?

I still think he's hoping for a job in a Dem administration or, at least, a position on a cable nes etwork.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


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