 |
McClellan Interview With Olbermann: “Bush Let Me Down” |
 |
Keith Olbermann interviewed Scott McClellan tonight on the Countdown. McClellan explained that he felt led down and disillusioned by President Bush. He hoped that Bush would live up to his promise to unite people and restore honor and integrity to the White House, and now believes that Bush governed in “permanent campaign” mode, which McClellan says is particularly ill-suited to a time of war.
McClellan says it took a while for him to become disillusioned. After 9/11, he wanted to give the President the benefit of the doubt and he put his trust in Bush and his team. There were two key events, after the war, that were turning points for McClellan: (1) when Rove and Libby lied to him about their involvement in outing Valerie Wilson (Plame) and (2) when Bush told him that he declassified information in the context of the Wilson scandal.
As McClellan observes, no one is really refuting his substantive points re: the use of propaganda to sell the war in Iraq, the President’s failure after Katrina, and the Valerie Wilson chicanery that hit him particularly hard. As I have pointed out before, this has nothing to do with McClellan per se, and the attempts to discredit him personally (which we’ve seen before with other critics of the administration) are beside the point. Here is a central question the media should ask: how did a man who believed in Bush, who worked for Bush for years, who trusted him, become so disillusioned? You can’t dispute the way McClellan feels, and it is a searing indictment that this one time true believer now says Bush failed to fulfill his campaign promises to unite America and restore honor and integrity to the White House. Many Americans feels the same way of course, but it says a lot that McClellan has reached these conclusions.
My turning point on Bush (voted for him twice) was when he hung Brown out to dry on Katrina forecasting. Then I saw the tape smuggled out of the Texas ranch that clearly conveyed that Brown did his job and it was Bush who screwed up and then set Brown up as a scapegoat.
Then it was the cascade of issues from oil man to invoking the Lord’s name in his speeches. I clearly remember Colonel McCaffery(sp) of Vietnam fame (now deceased) saying these “suits” in the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice) have never been to war and are using as gun fodder our young servicemen and servicewomen. Ironically he said this on Fox News, and was never on again.
Everything I have read that Mcclellan says rings as truth. “The wheels of justice turn slowly,” and George W. is getting his.
thanks for the post Brian. I am impressed, so far, that the media seems to be taking McClellan seriously. the White House is doing its best to make this about McClellan, and I hope this won’t distract people from the real issues
The “he’s lost his best friends” response by media goons validates McClellan’s story and serves the american public a big plate of “FU we’ll continue to do what we want when we want regardless.” They’re pulling it off shamelessly.
well, I hope not. The media seems to think this is a big story and hopefully there can be focus on the real story—not on the distraction of personal attacks against McClellan
I guess its hard to refute the TRUTH isn’t it. LOL, I love it when a politician gets caught with his pants down. LOL
JJ
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
McClellan struck me as rather naive in the interview and I guess in the way he is presenting his book. Did Bush really change that much from his time as the governor of Texas? Was Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” work really so bipartisan? Did he really run a noble campaign against Gore in 2000? Why would someone like McClellan want to be part of that group in the first place?
I also think his permanent campaign thoughts were interesting. What does he (or anyone) propose to change that? Was it ok for the campaigns to be nasty but once elected the administration should get back to the business of governing? How do politician separate the two?
What are Bush & Co. going to say when (not if, hopefully) Colin Powell backs up everything McClellan has written?
we don’t even need Powell–most of this is already established–the McClellan story doesn’t have much news–it does have the benefit of getting the media to focus on outrages that were dismissed in the past, and it is remarkable to see a one-time true believer so disillusioned. speaks volumes about the Bush admin’s failures–Bush said he’d united country and he couldn’t even unite his own staff
the word “naive” definitely came to my mind as well…I think the context changed a lot for Bush when he left TX and perhaps McClellan didn’t understand that would change? A TX Democrat is much different than other Democrats–TX Dems are much more conservative, so it’s easier for an R Gov to appear “bipartisan”. also, I am told that Governors in TX don’t have a ton of power or a ton to do (for one thing, the legislature is rarely in session—they’re out of session all year at the moment), so that may also have given McClellan a warped view as to Bush’s abilities to govern. One thing that frustrated me about McClellan’s interview is that he lumped in D and R alike, alleging that everyone is to blame for the nastiness. I don’t think the Dems are angels or perfect in any way, but I think the really nasty partisanship in the last 20 years (Willie Horton, the Clinton impeachment, Bush’s politics of fear) have come mainly from the Republican side.
As others have said: he’s just profiting off this. Heck, he’s got maybe 6 months left in office if he sticks it out. If he “sells Bush out”, he gets a best-seller, gets on tv, etc.
Dear Scott “press whore” McClelland: either you’re not only NOT the brightest tool in the shed - you aren’t even sharp enough to be a tool, or you just timed this to get the most press coverage. If you had any brains, you would have seen through Bush 3-4 years ago and would have quit then..
McClellan is not the story–it really doesn’t matter if he’s disgruntled, out for $ etc. what matters is the ways in which the Bush admin screwed up re: Iraq, Katrina, Valerie Wilson etc
I was kind of mad at Scott at first because some of the things he said didn’t ring true (like saying the Clinton administration was one of “permanent campaign”). But that’s petty compared to what he’s revealing now, and I think this book should open a real investigation into the conduct of the Bush administration. McClellan is the third person from the inner-circle to write about being in the Bush circle, and each one of them, DiIulio, Clark, and now Scott, have said almost the exact same thing.
agreed–ad actually there are evn more former insiders who have spoken out-see also Paul O’Neill, Lawerence Wilkerson, Matthew Dodd (maybe more I’m missing)
Well, fine, I am glad that McClellan is now sharing his insights. But think how many lives and dollars could have been saved if people like him had not allowed themselves to become such easy pawns. Clearly, if he is intelligent enough to see through the deception now, he was intelligent enough all along. But he was venal enough to take the bait that the Republican high echelons offer - “we are better than the regular people, we are blessed, we know some special secret and you can be one of us too, you no longer have to be bound by ordinary facts and information, we are like the gods and angels.” Perhaps Scott’s penance is enough to save him. Bush and the rest seem intent on advancing to even deeper circles of hell. I am not a religious person. But the allegories do seem to apply here. Men who believe they are higher and superior do fall.
quite true–he could have done way better. but he could also do worse–he could be like Dan Bartlett or Ari Fleischer, who still mouth the Bush talking points. I hate cliches, but better late than never has some relevance to me in this context