So, if Scott McClellan was so hacked-off about the President's use of an "aggressive 'political propaganda campaign'" in his effort to "sell" the Iraq War (which started in 2003); and was so upset about the President's acting in a way that ensured that the use of force was the "only feasible option," how come Mr. McClellan didn't resign as White House Press Secretary until April of 2006 ?
9 comments:
I'm sure this is getting an awful lot of (one-sided) press today.
For Mr. McC, the streets are lit with torches and paved with gold. He's never going to work in a Republican administration again, but there probably won't be one for a very long time. But all the right-thinking websites will be glad to pump his book and gas on and on about how he "grew" in Washington. You'll see him soon in the Ner York Times or on CNN, MSNBC or maybe even Fox. There could even be a novel here. His agent's a happy camper.
Caroline is right.
Just because the Bush attack machine has gone into vengance mode on Mr.McC, that doesn't effect the truth or falsity of what he says. I have noticed that THOSE issues aren't being addressed much. Lots of (rather dubious) ties to "Darth" Soros, lots of comments about how much money Mr.McC is supposed to be making off this, etc. but nobody has come out and said "It's all a pack of lies".
To answer your question as to "Why didn't he quit sooner?" well I would say that it was because he WAS a loyalist. He didn't want to believe what he was seeing, he WANTED to believe in and trust the people he worked with and for... so he gave them the benefit of the doubt until such time as it became stunningly obvious what was going on.
I think a great many Republicans, and ex-Republicans did the same thing with Bush. I've been a loyal Republican since I first voted in 1982. I've been a precint chair and a volunteer and a small time donor... but when they stood there with a straight face and tried to convince me that Harriet Miers was THE person in the United States that was BEST qualified to be on the Supreme Court... it was obvious that these guys were just flat out LYING, and on an epic scale.
Mr.McC is right... Bush's mistake was when he decided to abandon respect for and devotion to the truth.
El Jefe
To change the subject.
In case You Missed it A memorial day article about WWI vets.
HT: Howl at Pluto
McClellan's post-modern alibi is that he was seeking the truth from his "perspective". When he was on the podium, he was regarded by the press as an earnest lightweight; now he's an insightful genius.
One hopes he's called by Wexler to testify under oath about the Plame affair and other matters.
It isn't, by the way, to judge his opinion by the political goals of his backers. Anyone who takes ANYTHING seriously in politics today, Left or Right, is a fool.
Hi EJ,
Rhod
It's probably voyeuristic to read someone's e-mails, but I love Bob Dole.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,360723,00.html
CC,
Somebody someplace was sure exhibitionistic given the speed with which that first-rate bit of wigging found its way into the press. That was surly one of the more scathing things written recently about anybody. Not, in my somewhat biased opinion, that it was undeserved.
I don't suppose we'll ever really know what was going on in Mr. McClellan's mind. One of Mr. McClellan's former subordinates writes in today's Washington Post about how different today's McClellan seems from the one he used to work for. Bob Novak says that McClellan's account of the Plame affair has more in common with the Democratic party line -- "mimics" it, he says -- than with what actually happened. I don't know. But it wouldn't shock me to find that this book has more to do with Mr. McClellan's unhappiness with being told he was through at the White House; or maybe with his Mom's ("Grandma" Strayhorn's) upsetment at not getting the backing of Bush or the Texas Republican machine to go after Rick Perry than it does with what happened while McClellan was press secretary.
In any case, he's burnt his boats with the Republicans. I can't think the Democrats would be happy to have him either. . .you never can tell who the next book will be pointed at.
Arrrrggghhh . . .balky Blogger !
Here is the link on Bolten's telling McClellan the jig was up:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/05/30/21261/
Novak chiding McClellan for Missing the Plame:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mcclellan_on_plame.html
Duffy asking ex boss if he was real, or if it was all about puff:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/01/AR2008060101922.html
Also, Hank, thanks for the WW I link. I want to say something on that, but it may get folded into another couple of WW I posts waiting for later in the summer.
Wow, not only is the linking defective, I "surely" (and not surly) cannot spell today !
Post a Comment