I don’t care what his motives are, I’m just glad that some more truth is coming about about these people. I do think it’s noteworthy that McClellan tries, to some degree, to defend the integrity of W as a guy who was not so much intentionally dishonest as lacking in “intellectual curiosity,” easily manipulated by his handlers, and self-deluding.
I saw that pig, Rove, on Klannity and Colmes last night, lying through his teeth and calling McClellan a “left wing blogger.” Rove just radiates evil every time I see him. So much smug arrogance in one chubby, middle aged psychopath.
There’s a joke which, I understand, they’ve been telling in the UK for years now: “George Washington was the president who could not tell a lie, Richard Nixon was the president who could not tell the truth, and George W. Bush is the president who cannot tell the difference.”
I was wondering the opposite; usually they wait “out of respect” until their guys are out of office to publish the potentially damaging goods. I remember hearing rumors that he had something in the works, but didn’t expect to see it til January 2009 at the earliest.
What’s so revelatory in McClellan’s book? All the excerpts I’ve seen have been pretty ho-hum. Bush used propaganda to sell the war! Scooter Libby may have not been telling the complete truth. I doubt even most of the current Administration’s supporters would quibble too much with these relavations. Did I miss the big reveal, or is just in the news because it’s McClellan saying them.
I guess it’s not so much that there’s anything we didn’t already know (though I guess the meeting between Rove and Libby to get their story straight on plame is new), as it’s confirmation from an insider.
One new thing was is his explanation of Bush’s core motive for invading Iraq (something which has been kind of hard to put a finger on, IMO). McClellan says that Bush thought only wartime Presidents can be remembered as “great,” and that he thought he needed a war to have a good legacy (he also thought that he would be the President who brought democracy to the ME).
McClellan is actually complaining that the media didn’t do enough to call him on his own bullshit. “Hey, I was shovelling shit by the truckful and they were chugging it down like it was free beer. If the spineless bastards had done their job and called my on my bullshit, maybe wouldn’t be in this fucking mess.”
It seems to me that people are doing the Bush administration’s work for them — castigate the author and make the question all about his deficiences. That way, his actual charges against the Bush machine will fade into the background.
The fact that his approach seems to have been “Bush didn’t know (or really care) about the truth and I was lied to” kind of makes me keep the beam of my suspicions on him and his motives/truthiness.
The fact of the book is more interesting than the facts in the book. The old loyalists are jumping ship and pointing fingers even while Bush frantically tries to paste together some sort of legacy out of the wreckage of his failed administration.
Possibly a hijack, but: Would somebody in McLellan’s position (or any Executive appointment position) be bound by a confidentiality oath? Ever since there were a couple of bestselling (and only moderately embarassing or dishy) memoirs written by members of the White House domestic staff those who serve as maids or footmen or even gardeners at the White House have to sign confidentiality agreements. (One White House chef had to get clearance before he could write a cook-book that mentioned which First Family members liked which dishes.) It would just seem obvious that spokespersons and Cabinet positions and agency directors, etc., would have to sign them as well. (I’m not talking about agreements that would make them keep quiet in the event of treason or other national security matters, but would make them not make millions by spilling the same beans after their tenure that they could have spilled for free when it could actually do some good.)
It’s amazing how many user “reviews” Wha’ Happened? has on Amazon for a book that’s not even released yet. I doubt that many people have read advance copies.
I can’t see Rove writing a book as it would incriminate himself, but perhaps he’d write a thinly veiled novel or an OJ-ish If I Was a Scumbucket Who Outted CIA Agents and Spread Rumors About McClain’s Black Children, Etc., Here’s How I’d Have Done It for the right price.
Yes, but treating it this way discards an important political tool. McCain can be attacked through this book — unless, of course, we do his work for him and discredit it.
McClellan’s getting ahead of the curve. Imagine how many “I Was Inside The Bunker” memoirs are going to hit the stands starting next year. It’ll be the biggest flood of legally-vetted confess-alls we’ve seen since the mid-seventies.
To me, the “Bush is an alright decent guy but just too gullible and naive and trusting” argument (which I don’t believe) is actually more damning than “misguided egomaniacal ideologue and incompetent with an infallibility complex” argument. I thought the same thing when the same argument was used to exonerate Reagan by various fallmen in the Arms-for-Hostages and later the S&L scandals- “He’s a nice guy, just had bad people around him”. It scares me a lot more to have an Augustus/Tiberius/Claudius who can’t see through Livia/Sejanus/Agrippina* than to have a ruthless but brilliant bastard who’s the power in both name and fact. I’d absolutely rather have Hillary, who’s known to be highly intelligent and evil, in charge than a weak avuncular “Of course you can be my viceroy in the Middle East, whatever that is…” befuddled do-gooder. (I’d rather have Obama than either of course, but that’s because I think he’s not yet evil but can smell it.)
*For the benefit of nitpickers, I’m referring to the characters from the Claudius novels by Graves and know very well they’re probably at odds with the historical figures.
ETA:
I’m expecting Libby’s and Rice’s to be the two most damning and the two biggest sellers.
