Public enemy number …

Well former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan sure has stirred up a shiz-storm with the release of his memoir titled What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.

Starting yesterday afternoon, and extending on into today’s morning talking head parade, it has been a non-stop deluge of White House surrogates chiding McClellan; painting him as a turncoat. They rolled out all the big guns too – including his predecessor Ari Fleischer, former Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett, and none other than Karl Rove himself!

I don’t think the White House has ordered an assault like this since Normandy! 😆

While McClellan contends that he is answering to “a loyalty to the truth” by coming out with his side of the story (on Iraq, the Valerie Plame scandal, etc.), his critics insist it’s “total crap” and merely the vengeful aspirations of a scorned former White House employee trying to sell a few books.

So what do you think? Is McClellan a turncoat? Or does the all-out assault by White House surrogates indicate that he might be hitting a little too close to the nerve?

We may soon find out as Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) is calling for McClellan to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee.


6 thoughts on “Public enemy number …

  1. I would assume he knows a lot of stuff they wouldnt want him to talk about. I am also sure he will talk about said things as long as he can make a buck off it and will shut like a clam in front of a congressional hearing.
    As I am sure I dont have to remind you either anyone can write a book and misplace details to embellish the story to sell million of copies to Obama loving Hilary haters, but that doesnt mean its the whole story either.

    …. The whole story is probably a lot worse 🙂

  2. he is to republicans what matt walsh is to patriots fans…except this guy actually has stuff!

    as far as being a “turn-coat”, i’d say no, he’s probably someone who has a splinters worth of a conscience (a rarity in washington), and therefore felt completely and utterly obligated to talk. anyone with a shred of dignity would. though, if you have more than a shred you’d never have been on the inside with that brood of vipers in the first place.

  3. there is so much to talk about here.
    for instance, can you/should you/would you be completely forthright and honest at every turn with every detail while running a country? while running a campaign? while in a war?
    wouldn’t you, too, have “propaganda” to promote something such as a war?
    i find it interesting that so many people are willing to point the finger at the Bush administration as if to say “I would never stretch the truth. I would never lie. I would always be truthful and honest and let all the details be known at all times, even if it hurt me or the government or the civilians.”
    All that to say that it’s easy to point the finger but difficult to lead.

  4. Why not both?

    It’s not like he came forward with details before he got a book deal. “Loyalty to the truth” is a personal spin which gets him through the firestorm of criticism from former colleagues and friends.

    That doesn’t mean that his details and thoughts aren’t valid though, or that they are the whole picture.

    Another piece of reality.

  5. in a sense i agree with jim, but more about how people can be so partisan with how they view an administration. for example, i have “liberal” friends who think bill clinton was some kind of superhero. what?!?! and friends who idolize reagan and vilify clinton. i’m sorry, but i see way more in common between the two then different. if this war had gone on as it almost did under clinton (1998), you’d hear all this anti-war talk from many conservatives. they’d have found all types of reasons to attack him and his administration. and many of the people attacking bush right now would be silent. it’s sickening. and very hypocritical, but only people on the outside seem to see that, b/c it never ends. partisan politics is just plain ridiculous, and kind of ironic considering how little changes (often times, i admit that a new administration couldn’t be worse! well, hopefully not) between republican president to democratic president, and the same with congress & the senate (2006 the dems win! yet, the war continues…hmmmm). i am literally a broken record with this, but the two party duopoly sucks. 3rd parties & independents can’t get anywhere b/c they can’t raise money b/c the american people settle for tweedle dee & tweedle dum, the constant “lesser of two evils”. and so, the song & dance goes on and we the people lose.

  6. Reading the excerpts I did, it doesn’t sound like he really says anything all that shocking except that decisions weren’t made as objectively as they should be and the administration had a habit of deceiving themselves and therefore the American people. He makes it sound like they were humans dealing with one crisis after another and choosing to be careful with what they talked about/not assess facts with their proper weight instead of just being totally candid and forthright. He also puts a lot of blame on the advisors for not doing a good job objectively advising Bush.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s