| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Ex-Bush spokesman Scott McClellan: President used 'propaganda' to push war |
| 2008-05-28 |
| The spokesman who defended President Bush's policies through Hurricane Katrina and the early years of the Iraq war is now blasting his former employers, saying the Bush administration became mired in propaganda and political spin and at times played loose with the truth. In excerpts from a 341-page book to be released Monday, Scott McClellan writes on Iraq that Bush "and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war." "[I]n this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security," McClellan wrote. McClellan also sharply criticizes the administration on its handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. "One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency," he wrote. "Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term." Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House would not comment Tuesday because they haven't seen the book. Frances Townsend, former Homeland Security adviser to Bush, said advisers to the president should speak up when they have policy concerns. "Scott never did that on any of these issues as best I can remember or as best as I know from any of my White House colleagues," said Townsend, now a CNN contributor. "For him to do this now strikes me as self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional." Scott, it would be easier if you just beat your face on an oak tree or something. Fox News contributor and former White House adviser Karl Rove said on that network Tuesday that the excerpts from the book he's read sound more like they were written by a "left-wing blogger" than his former colleague. In a brief phone conversation with CNN Tuesday evening, McClellan made clear that he stands behind the accuracy of his book. McClellan said he cannot give on-the-record quotes yet because of an agreement with his publisher. Early in the book, which CNN obtained late Tuesday, McClellan wrote that he believes he told untruths on Bush's behalf in the case of CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose identity was leaked to the media. Rove and fellow White House advisers Elliot Abrams and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were accused of leaking the name of Plame -- whose husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, had gone public with charges the Bush administration had "twisted" facts to justify the war in Iraq. Libby was convicted last year of lying to a grand jury and federal agents investigating the leak. Bush commuted his 30-month prison term, calling it excessive. At the time, McClellan called the three "good individuals" and said he spoke to them before telling reporters they were not involved. "I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood," he wrote. "It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively." McClellan wrote he didn't realize what he said was untrue until reporters began digging up details of the case almost two years later. A former spokesman for Bush when he was governor of Texas, McClellan was named White House press secretary in 2003, replacing Ari Fleischer. McClellan had previously been a deputy press secretary and was the traveling spokesman for the Bush campaign during the 2000 election. He announced he was resigning in April 2006 at a news conference with Bush. "One of these days, he and I are going to be rocking in chairs in Texas talking about the good old days of his time as the press secretary," Bush said at that conference. "And I can assure you, I will feel the same way then that I feel now, that I can say to Scott, job well done." You can buy Scott's book on Amazon, of course. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #21 McCain had a good point when he said he's speak before Congress every week and answer questions and defend his policies the way the Prime Minister does. I'm not sure Bush could but a President should be able to rather than hide behind Press Secretaries. This would force the Congress to do their job and question things and unlike the media they would be held accountable for rude questions as most of these sessions would be covered and then turned into campaign commercials by both sides. I hope McCain brings up the idea and in some way forces the Democrats to accept it because it would help our Democracy. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-05-28 23:30 |
| #20 Coulter and Morgan are both entertainers. Good ones, but entertainers. To really blow open the doors, John Bolton. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-05-28 21:39 |
| #19 The guy always looked like he was gonna piss his drawers. He had that deer in the headlights look that just tossed the power baton over the dias and into the hands of the press corps. Now he is whining. Wotta surprise. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-05-28 21:31 |
| #18 I have always been critical of the WH press secretary for not putting the press corps in their place from the beging. The started out looking weak and went backwards from their. McCain should hire someone like Ann Coulter or Melanie Morgan when he |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2008-05-28 21:21 |
| #17 Thanks for the compliments, friends. An unusual experience for me, but I could grow to like it. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-05-28 18:20 |
| #16 It'll be interesting to contrast media coverage of McClellan's book with what amounts to the noncoverage of Feith's. |
| Posted by: doc 2008-05-28 18:16 |
| #15 McClellan? McClellan? Wasn't that the name of a mediocre general during Civil War, who ran against Lincoln in 1864 and who had between his partisans, many people whose acts bordered treason or were deep in it? |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-05-28 18:01 |
| #14 Excellent Glenmore. Excellent indeed. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-05-28 17:30 |
| #13 Glenmore, I think your comment wins today's grand prize for "right on" analysis. I particularly agree with your statement on reaching out to the tribal leaders. Sadly for our troops and treasure, the enemy needed to experience the fatigue of war/horror of AQI before being open to a US-led alternative. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-05-28 15:57 |
| #12 Who was Scott McClellan prior to being WH Press Secretary? I'd never heard of the cat, and I wasn't exactly blown away by his way in front of the press corps. |
| Posted by: Grenter Protector of the Geats4975 2008-05-28 15:08 |
| #11 Well said, Glenmore. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-05-28 13:11 |
| #10 One CANNOT be completely candid and open in war, or in diplomacy. One must be incredibly naive to expect such. In my opinion we went to war in Iraq for all the reasons stated, plus one overriding unstated reason - because it was the only place where we COULD 'legally' expand the war against Islamofascism. Fighting them in Iraq was and is far more practical than doing so in Afghanistan (logistics, population characteristics). And while it was not ALL about the oil, it was about the oil. Not just Iraqi oil, but that of the whole Gulf region. And not specifically for our own supply, but for stability of the world supply - it's a fungible commodity, and besides, all major economies are interconnected anyway. Whether Scott thinks so or not, Bush was probably right to take us to war in Iraq, and to do so in a less-than-candid and open way. In the PROSECUTION of the war there were certainly shortcomings (what's the saying? In war, the enemy also has a vote?) And although in hindsight we may think the solution would have been X-Y-Z, we'll never really know, because that was not the path taken, and so the obstacles which certainly would have arisen cannot be known. For instance, many are claiming we should not have disbanded the Iraqi Army - but if they had stayed intact might there have been a much stronger Shia-Sunni civil war? Or that we should have reached out to the tribes sooner - but would they have received us before feeling the horrors of Al Quaeda rule? The one thing I actually have confidence in is that our leaders who made all these difficult decisions did so to the best of their (considerable) ability and with the best interests of the country at heart. They, like everyone else, were imperfect, but certainly not incompetent buffoons and crooks. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-05-28 12:38 |
| #9 Yet another Harriet Meyers moment for Bush. Scott was no doubt an attempt to reach out, kind of like Christy Todd Whitmann. Can you say RINO ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2008-05-28 11:41 |
| #8 So how many pieces of silver does a book deal go for these days? About the weight of your soul, Excalibur. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2008-05-28 11:18 |
| #7 So how many pieces of silver does a book deal go for these days? |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2008-05-28 10:33 |
| #6 I would have to argue that a WH communications guy is "in the loop". In fact, they are most often left out of the loop, precisely so they won't have a slip of the tongue. If they attend meetings, the conclusion of the meeting is based on their *opinion*, even if it is not the consensus or decision reached by the group or the leader. You don't want that. Instead, after the meeting, they are given the *summary* of the meeting to rewrite into a press briefing. If classified information is given at the meeting, you especially don't want them there. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-05-28 09:27 |
| #5 Propaganda is white, gray, or black. Black is pure fabrication, lies. Gray is a mix of truth and lies or uncertainties. White is truth. Nothing wrong with using truth in propaganda. Of course there is still perception, as non-Donks look at the Swifties as dealing in white propaganda while koolaid drinking Donk have to believe that it was all black propaganda. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-05-28 08:30 |
| #4 I completely agree CrazyFool. He always looked pale, sweaty and nervious. Not quite Presidential material.... |
| Posted by: Guillibaldo Thogum8821 2008-05-28 08:29 |
| #3 Or he trying to sell a book he wrote. Ole Scott was one of the worse white house spokesmen I've seen. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-05-28 08:21 |
| #2 he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers One of whom was you, idiot. No trouble "speaking truth to power" now that Bush is almost out the door and you've got a book to sell, huh? Sell it to the kos kiddies, you wanker. |
| Posted by: Spot 2008-05-28 08:19 |
| #1 Sounds like he is betting on a huge dhimocrat victory. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-05-28 07:45 |