Books | Dick Cheney | George W. Bush | Karl Rove | News | Republican Party

Is Scott McClellan First of Bush White House to Tell the Truth?

Late yesterday, Politico published a motherlode of quotes from Scott McClellan's memoir What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong with Washington which was previewed back in November, and is set to be released this week.

McclellanInstead of the "largely affectionate portrait" and "a few swipes" which most expected, the book takes a more critical tone than anticipated, discussing how the Bush administration “veered terribly off course." Here's a bit:

“One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term. And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.”

On the Plame case: "I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later. Neither, I believe, did President Bush. He, too, had been deceived and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie."

Much more at Politico...

Karl Rove commented on the quotes, saying McClellan sounds "like a left-wing blogger." Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...

Previously
Scott McClellan Points Finger at Bush, Cheney Over False Iraq Info [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Don't you just love these people who were part of the problem, writing books years later bewailing the war, and the bush administrations ineptitude? Why didn't they say something when it could have saved lives? McClellan might have been deceived, but he definitely chose to let the lies live on for years! And in that time people died! Sorry Scott, no absolution here!

    Posted by: Reggie | May 28, 2008 9:51:04 AM


  2. Anything in it about "Jeff Gannon" (aka. hustler James D. Guckert) and his White House sleepovers?

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 28, 2008 10:07:11 AM


  3. "I had allowed myself to be deceived"

    That's a telling turn of phrase. Say what you will about McClellan (and there is plenty to say) but the above is not something most people are willing to admit about their own complicity in underhanded dealings: not just that they "were lied to" but that they themselves allowed the deceit to propagate.

    Posted by: NaughtyLola | May 28, 2008 10:17:47 AM


  4. Another Republican Collaborator develops a conscience after the fact, when it is too late. Shave their heads, they did it in France.

    Posted by: Roscoe | May 28, 2008 10:34:02 AM


  5. Yeah, but most of the country (including the "LIBERAL PRESS") let Bush & Cheney get away with this lie. People thought talk of impeachment was "liberal Democrats seeking revenge". Lying to the American people about going to war, and causing thousands of Americans to loose their lives is somewhat worse than lying about a blow job. What is impeachment for?

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 28, 2008 11:19:21 AM


  6. And in a month, this will be lost in the background cacophony of other noise.

    Scott was just doing his job while there; the mouthpiece for the Idiot and his minions. I am glad he fessed up the insurmountable garbage as morally conflicting with his soul. That, people, is the key; just how much Bushshit do his insiders have to eat before they've had enough.

    As for the "liberal Democrats seeking revenge"; when Pelosi "took impeachment off the table" two years ago, my faith in "liberal Democrats" ceased to exist. She killed the party power and let the fool continue to run amok. There is no such thing as a Liberal Democrat, not even an organized one.

    Posted by: Rad | May 28, 2008 11:34:24 AM


  7. He was a paid liar for Bush/Cheney and now he wants us to pay him for his book admitting he was a liar. F that.

    Posted by: dezboy | May 28, 2008 11:44:40 AM


  8. McClellan certainly isn't the first. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told the truth on the record to Ron Susskind for Susskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty." And that was before the 2004 election.

    Posted by: Rob | May 28, 2008 12:32:06 PM


  9. McClellan certainly isn't the first. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told the truth on the record to Ron Susskind for Susskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty." And that was before the 2004 election.

    Posted by: Rob | May 28, 2008 12:32:18 PM


  10. McClellan certainly isn't the first. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told the truth on the record to Ron Susskind for Susskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty." And that was before the 2004 election.

    Posted by: Rob | May 28, 2008 12:32:20 PM


  11. McClellan's book is hardly the first to reveal information about what goes on in the White House. Published in 2004, one of the best books is Ron Suskind's "The Price Of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neil," which was published in 2004. O'Neil was the first Treasury secretary in the Bush Administration, and his outspokenness soon made him an outsider, and I think he was the first Cabinet member to resign. He provided the author extensive documentation (memos, minutes, schedules, etc.) of the workings of the White House which Suskind used to develop a chilling portrait of how key decisions are made in the Bush Administration: not by a careful consideration of issues' complexities but, rather, by an inside cabal of political advisors and ideologues who pre-script Cabinet meetings with the President. One big if not so surprising revelation: Saddam Hussein was targeted for removal not in the 9/11 aftermath but soon after Bush took office. (Yes, I've paraphrased from the summary on Amazon, but I did read the book and found it gripping.)

    Posted by: Michael J | May 28, 2008 12:39:08 PM


  12. This is why I think all the personal animosity towards Bush is an unhelpful distraction.

    A supposed "leader" who makes the decisions his advisers put before him based on the false information they have given him -- he's hardly more than a press agent himself.

    Posted by: thin mint | May 28, 2008 12:43:30 PM


  13. It's not too late for impeachment. It's so depressing how much these snakes have gotten away with and there's been nothing done about. Would anyone have ever thought years ago that our government could be this corrupt and we would all just sit and watch?

    Posted by: Paul | May 28, 2008 12:55:11 PM


  14. The Right Wing nut jobs on Fox are already crucifying Scott, when the gay "rumors" kick in how batshit crazy will Fox New go?

    Posted by: Mark | May 28, 2008 1:02:53 PM


  15. Sometimes I fantasize that there is a plan to make all of Bush's cabinet stand trial for war crimes after they are out of the White House and Bush no longer has the power of the pardon.

    But then I reflect that Halliburton is still in Iraq, oil has hit record prices, and the government is bankrupt. This administartion has indeed accomplished its goals.

    Posted by: Landon Bryce | May 28, 2008 1:05:34 PM


  16. Gay rumors? Are you suggesting SMc is gay?

    Posted by: anon | May 28, 2008 1:27:33 PM


  17. I strongly disagree with Thin Mint. Bush is responsible for what goes on in his Adminstration, and if he wanted to, he could have stopped the deceit to the public it has perpetrated. But he hasn't wanted to. He hasn't been concerned with separating fact from fiction because the truth is usually a lot more complex that his black-and-white, good-and-evil view of the world. It is Bush himself who has wanted, demanded and gotten meetings in which everything to be decided is to be rubber-stamped by the Cabinet. And it is Bush that has set the tone for how policy has been made in his Administration, where the primary concern generally has been to give itself more political power.

    Posted by: Michael J | May 28, 2008 1:31:49 PM


  18. As for the "liberal Democrats seeking revenge"; when Pelosi "took impeachment off the table" two years ago, my faith in "liberal Democrats" ceased to exist. She killed the party power and let the fool continue to run amok. There is no such thing as a Liberal Democrat, not even an organized one.

    Posted by: Rad | May 28, 2008 11:34:24 AM
    --------------------
    Which is why I have given to Cindy Sheehan's campaign to unseat Pelosi. She is a liar and a fraud, whose husband's company is profiting from the war.

    http://www.cindyforcongress.org/

    There are still liberal Democrats.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | May 28, 2008 2:17:26 PM


  19. You're right, PATRICK NYC, we forget about Pelosi's husband's business dealings.

    Are Kucinich & Feingold the only trustworthy Democrats left in Washington DC? (I cry in despair!) And neither one of them stands a chance as a vice-presidential runningmate.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 28, 2008 2:35:43 PM


  20. And with Sen Kennedy being sick we have one voice left. There has been some press about Robert's son running for his seat. Ted's son Patrick is from RI and seems a bit of a flake.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | May 28, 2008 2:56:57 PM


  21. Huffpo says that his book has hit #1 on Amazon

    The repubs should just be quiet. The more they come out and try to trash him the more publicity the book is getting.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 28, 2008 11:28:47 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Did Bravo Exec Out Sam Champion or Just Champion's Manners?« «