Scott McClellan’s ‘Better Late than Never’
Scott McClellan joins a long list of disillusioned Bush administration top officials, senior advisers, and confidants that have decided to tell it all, to “come clean.”
Of course, there will be a torrent of Bush White House, and Bush sympathizers’, attacks on McClellan’s character and credibility–as have been in the past on those who have dared to tell the truth.
They will attack him for saying in his book what most Americans already knew: that his boss misled our nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq; that the decision to invade Iraq was a “serious strategic blunder” ; that top White House officials deceived him and the American people about the administration’s involvement in the leaking of the identity of C.I.A operative, Valerie Plame; etc., etc. But most of all they will attack him for saying that the Bush White House consciously made “a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.”
Of course, there will be many who will applaud McClellan for finally admitting to his complicity in one of the biggest failures of government truth, leadership and competence our country has ever experienced. They will use the adage “better late than never.”
And, of course, Scott McClellan will go on to make millions from his confessions and from his newly acquired fame–or infamy.
But I, for one, will not join the chorus of applause. I, for one, will not use the maxim better late than never. Because there is no “better late than never” when it comes to the damage done to our nation’s reputation, to our freedoms, and–most importantly–when it comes to the over 4,000 fallen American heroes in Iraq. Scott McClellan, along with Messrs. Powell, Tenet, and so many others had their chance, and blew it.
10 Responses to “Scott McClellan’s ‘Better Late than Never’”
Hear hear!
I agree there's no good excuse for going along with abuse of power in silence —then cashing in when you get the chance. It smacks of cowardice and greed. We no longer seem to be able to attract the Elliot Richardson's to government positions.
Still, I'll read McClellan's book and be glad that he wrote it. Americans, at the very least, deserve to finally know the truth. And maybe all of those who were proclaiming Rove and Cheney's innocence in Plamegate will finally shut up.
I agree but with the exception that I don't intend to read the book. I'm not a Bush fan but I find it extremely hypocritical when individuals leave a position where they have made good money and then assume a self-righteous stance for what they did. If it was such an inappropriate situation, ethics should have made you leave. I just can't contribute to the quick buck that the individual can make now. I may question a lot of policies and decisions but I don't condone someone making a quick buck from the back seat. Truth or not, he is no better than they are and I wouldn't trust him and his assessment any more than I trust theirs.
This whole thing is ugly. Oh, I've done a quick scan and there's the usual howling chorus of fresh (i.e., recent; it is stale and repetitive) Bush-bashing, with all the associated garbage, has already piled high. But what the guy did was ugly.
The issue here is that it looks ugly, not just hypocritical, but cynical, exploitive, self-serving, and downright ugly. It just looks like he wants to hop not merely on the Bush-bashing bandwagon (after being “loyal” for so long that nobody smart has any respect for him and is disinclined to believe much if any of what he says now about having “Seen the Light!”, etc.), but on the Iraq-war-controversy book-selling bandwagon while the Iraq-Bush-White House association remains material (pun intended).
At least Clarke came out early and as he has now said, he has the tire tracks on him (because it was when the war was popular and widely supported rather than now).
Me, too, says McClellan. I want my fat tell-all-book-contract dollars, too.
What exerpts I've read are addtionally revealing.
1. As someone else had said, some portions seem too intelligent to be coming from him (as Dem activists who didn't like McClellan would no doubt agree with if they were consistent and honest). My response was more general — was this book ghost-written?
2. Some of what he says is cliche' that leads to the “conclusion” (the two parties have to be more touchy-feely and get along and Solve The Nation's Big Problems) that makes more worldly people just roll their eyes (as we do whenever we encounter such fluff).
And back to the central issue,
3. *** WHY SO LATE??? *** (Hopping aboard the gravy train, releasing exerpts and making initial remarks to blow that whistle and get everyone excited. Nice marketing maneuver, Scotty.)
I don't even care about the arguable stuff like #4, sour grapes, #5, revenge at being stiffed on severance or on downgrading and a smaller federal pension, #6 revenge at being kicked off the team, #7, he was an opportunist who left the team too early and now is getting his book on the market almost too late, but before the Bush team is “retired” and the controversy that would fuel book sales has vanished, or any other speculative (never mind the fantastic) alternatives.
This was just ugly. I doubt that even the most Bush-admin-loathing astute Dem voter rates his action high in the “another rat who leaves the sinking ship decides to tell tales” department. Even if he had this all planned months before his departure, followed by work on the book, followed by the release prior to the party conventions nearer to the peak of electoral and political interest. $$$$$$$$$$$
“It smacks of cowardice and greed.”
Greed, avarice, covetousness, envy (of others in Washington selling books, of others selling books about current controversies, especially involving the Bush admin and Iraq), and a few other words would replace “cowardice” in my book (pun intended).
I wonder what's next, a teevee “political analyst” job for him on CNN or MSNBC, maybe?
“Still, I'll read McClellan's book and be glad that he wrote it. “
I doubt I will; the exerpts were laughable enough for me. But I did read O'Neill's book, admittedly, as well as Dean's book (“Worse than Watergate”) after buying them before I gave them to my rad-lib friend. (Buyer's privilege in this case!)
I won't pay a dime but I will likely read his story. It's still a matter of too little, too late, as its already been made apparent that Bush and co. pretty much have a clear exit to their waiting, terrorist-proof, getaway cars waiting to wisk them to their ranches.
He is trying to clear his conscience and and thats good for him but the thing is, he will always know he could have done better, resigned immediately and maybe even gotten his word out to the media. He could have helped avoid a lot of the mess we are in now.
But it takes a lot of cajones to do that to the displeasure of the presidency of the United States.
It doesn't seem that the book will add anything new. The Bush defenders willl deny everything, and we'll have the same he-said, he-said situation as before.
What with everyhting being a secret, I don't know if the whole truth will ever come out.
The covering my rear end syndrome is building up, tool
In response to McClellan's charge that the press was too acquiescent, Tom Brokaw responded on MSNBC with the usual 'if we knew then…..”
What nonsense. There were reporters on small newspapers who did ask the right questions, in spite of pressure from the government.
No one forces reporters to depend on WH press conferences,; There are other sources and documents to ferret out.
The major media just didn't do their job,
In Congress, I believe there wete a total of 28 votes against going to war.
McClellan was just one of the many sheep who remained willfullly ignorant then, and who who want to be washed clean of their sins now.
The awful question is: would we do any better today if the situation were repeated?
Personally, I doubt it. If anything, both the press and Congress are even less reliable now.
If you took the profit element out of the situation, it would be much more acceptable. Here you have a guy who was over his head in more ways than one. He came with Bush up from Texas and was surrounded in the WH by loyalists and believers. Only positivity was acceptable in that culture. I think he was part of the bubble that surrounded the president and his inner circle.
After being unceremoniously put out on his can, and realizing simultaneously that he had been the sacrificial lamb to Rove and Cheney's devious machinations, he began to realize what the rest of us have known all along. That the Iraq war was a war of choice that should never have been entered into. Forced democracy is a lose-lose proposition that only the most naive and utopian believe will work. McClellan's real sin is in getting rich and getting revenge in the same move.
Maybe the Republican power players wouldn't hire Scotty to a plush job at Fox(Karl Rove) for his loyalty. Could feeding his family be more important than Bush loyalty?