White House Dismisses Anti-Bush Book Writer McClellan As “Disgruntled” Former Employee
The White House has now responded to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s memoir that’s critical of President George Bush, the White House, Karl Rove — and the news media — by using the typical phrase employers use to try and discredit employees who step forward with complaints: he’s a disgruntled employee.
“Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad — this is not the Scott we knew.”
More from Perino: “The book, as reported by the press, has been described to the president. I do not expect a comment from him on it — he has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers.”
So he’s disgruntled (which means unhappy, which must mean that happy employees are gruntled..).
And a “former staffer” which indicates he really doesn’t matter anymore.
The problem for the White House is that there is now a large volume of media material documenting the fact that the Bush administration has a credibility gap problem for traceable reasons.
Meanwhile, be sure to read Glenn Greenwald’s column on McClellan’s take on how the news media rather than being a “liberal news media” often seemed like a news stenography pool and wasn’t asking enough tough and challenging questions.
See our earlier post about the campaign now underway to discredit McClellan and his book.
Comments to “White House Dismisses Anti-Bush Book Writer McClellan As “Disgruntled” Former Employee”
[...] ignoring the reality of what he’s saying, especially about Iraq, will no doubt be enough, but it’s unlikely to work for the rest of the public: So he’s disguntled (which means unhappy, which must mean happy employees are [...]
Yawn. Not about the post- thanks for it, Joe. But yawn about the Bush administration's actions… Any chance of holding the general election early?
As far as Scott's revelations- we all know what has been going on with the Bush adminstration- but it's important to get some sort of documents in place (since Bush burned all those e-mails) so historians have a trail and can piece together the actions of the Bush administration.
I'm not saying that Scott is all correct (I don't know and I haven't read the book). But Scott was an eye witness and his book is a good document to help piece together the Bush record. And his stories will (or will not) back up claims others have made (or claims which have yet to occur). As a group books like this will go far to document the Bush years. Each book will have a different slant, but altogether they will give a good picture.
At least they're consistent! I wonder if the 28%ers ever catch on to this oft-repeated refrain, or if they still fall for it hook, line and sinker.
When he was the WH Press Secretary, McClellan always appeared to have as much independence of spirit as a Bush family lapdog—so I highly doubt his book came out of pique alone. Maybe, just maybe, Scotty wanted to set the record straight as did George Tenet, Paul O' Neill and so many others.
BTW, I think Bush's long-held hopes of a Churchillian legacy are fading with each juicy tell-all. In fifty years historians will finally unearth the slimy dealings that his administration has so adeptly covered up, and he will be placed where he belongs—at the very bottom of the presidential heap.
[...] Joe Gandelman over at TMV says it as good as I can: [...]
“how the news media rather than being a 'liberal news media' often seemed like a news stenography pool and wasn’t asking enough tough and challenging questions”
Who told him what nonsense to say or ghost-wrote his book, Norman Solomon or Noam Chomsky? [snicker]
* * *
“Bush's long-held hopes of a Churchillian legacy”
He'll draw signs and frowns in the years to come, that's all. Not much fame at all, no “legacy” in the substantial sense that word normally conveys, much less “Churchillian” (no more than Guiliani after 9/11). In the low half somewhere of the bell curve among Presidents. Not at the low tail but well below or behind the mean (or median if you want to view the distribution and “ranking” another way).
Yeah, that stenography pool that consistently tilted every interpretation against the Bush Administration.
By the way, Jimmy Carter was lower than 28% for a time after only FOUR years—-he's still the worst. Bush will be rehabilitated in the future by historians, Jimmy Carter wasn't and never will be. Truman was down to 22% before he decided not to run in '52—then his ratings shot up to around 30%!