« Around The Campaign 2008 Sphere
John McCain and The League of Global Antagonism »



Dole v. McClellan

May 30th, 2008
By PETE ABEL, Managing Editor

Print Print

I wasn’t sure how to view news of McClellan’s tell-all book. Part of me understood why he waited. Part of me thought he was just being opportunistic. Apparently, former Presidential Candidate Bob Dole did not share my equivocation.

From Jonathan Martin’s report, Dole wrote the following (among other no-holds-barred language) to McClellan:

… if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job …

That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively … You’re a hot ticket now but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?

Regardless of how you feel about Bob Dole, he makes a great point. The definition of a real hero is one who stands up to a wrong at the time it’s committed, not later, and not for the purposes of personal profit. Sorry, Scottie, but like Bob, I’m not going to buy your book. I’m no Bush fan, either, but you simply should not be rewarded for this poisonous mix of cowardice-and-greed.



This entry was posted on Friday, May 30th, 2008 at 8:54 am and is filed under Scott McClellan, George W. Bush. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 18 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Is this the same Dole who, as RNC chairman, called Watergate a conspiracy by the McGovern campaign then 22 years later eulogized Nixon as "a great patriot who never gave up and who never gave in?"
    • ^
    • v
    Dole's argument is a good one, but it leads to a second question:
    Is being late better than never?
    If the answer is no, then most of today's political analysts and commentators would need to remove themselves from the arena.

    There is a lot of passing the buck going on.
    Congress blames Bush. Bush blames intelligence mistakes.
    The press blames Congress, and pressure from both the administration and the corporate owners of the media.

    I think McClellan is far from being a hero. He is just one of the armies of people looking for absolution late in the game. He is no better, but he is no worse.

    What I find interesting is the magnitude of the attacks on him by members of the administration and their supporters. It seems out of character in relation to how other storms have been weathered.. I wonder if it's just election fever or if there is something else to explain it.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think McClellan is trying to be a hero, he just wants to set the record straight about Plamegate, Iraq, the politicization of the WH agenda and other issues that still matter. As far as I remember, the last real hero that we had in government was Elliot Richardson way back in the '70's.

    McClellan may not come out looking spotless in all of this but then neither did Paul O' Neill, George Tenet, or the numerous generals and admirals who waited until retirement to speak out, or Colin Powell- who never has totally come clean with the public.

    Also, I think the fact that he was kicked to the curb by the WH, who used his bland, cheerfulness and naivete to their own maximum benefit, means that he owes them nada now.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree that McClellan should have spoken out sooner-- but what does that say about insiders like Dan Bartlett, Andy Card, Condi Rice and others who knew more than Scott knew and still have defended these policies and their maker?

    Is it better to be loyal to the end, and stay silent about obvious abuses of power? I really can't believe that others in the inner circle have had no misgivings about the Bush presidency.
    • ^
    • v
    Could simply be greed.
    • ^
    • v
    I think it's fine that McLellan spoke out -- and I agree with the better-late-than-never mantra. But he'll make a mint off the book -- and that raises questions, fair or not. His motives would be less suspect if he published it "free" -- on a blog, for instance. If that then led to a career in speaking engagements or punditry or lectures, fine. But at least separate the absolution from the money by a step. That's where I think Dole was coming from, and that moment of clarity is what convinced me this was probably the wrong way for McLellan to seek his absolution. Regardless, as I wrote in the post, I'm not a Bush fan. Confirming evidence that something's seriously wrong at 1600 Pennsylvania -- I have no problem with that. But that doesn't mean we should entirely ignore the method and manner by which that evidence was possibly exploited for personal gain. On that note, look, I'm not perfect. In my prior life there were plenty of clients I represented who made me a little queasy. And I never spoke up against them. But I did leave the job and joined a company where I could work directly for a team I do trust and who I don't have qualms about. So I'm not asking McLellan to be a saint -- but maybe practice a little decorum about how he seeks his redemption.
    • ^
    • v
    kritt11 I have some well-watered land a few miles west of me I'd like to sell you. I think you believe the media about "obvious abuses of power" and for that, you'd thrive in the 'Glades as some sort of lotus-eater. You swallow tendentious crap from the left-wing of the leftish press if you believe in Plamegate & the rest of the fake process crimes the lawyer-infested Dems dream up.

    1] I think he did it for money, but the book is no mine of revelations, just gossip about what he thought he heard in a conversation with Bush about drug use---what a little snitch! And of course, he doesn't know the context from being unable to hear the other side. I think irony might escape a double-digit IQ type like McClellan.

    2] If he thinks now that he's another John Dean & can get jobs with the committed hard-line Marxists in DC who run the DNC, he has to have fallen more than once from a turnip truck. They will spit this rube out of their mouths toute-de-suite.

    3] Of course, Scott's smarter daddy thought and wrote that LBJ arranged JFK's murder. Their turnip farm tradition brings the family to strange conclusions.
    • ^
    • v
    Hello- daveinboca- I have followed these issues quite closely for a long time (I actually live in Washington).

    I could say the same thing about your buying the Republican talking points on Plamegate hook line and sinker---but I'd rather avoid a contentious personal argument out of respect for Joe- who wants us to talk about the issues not how gullible the other person is to partisan propaganda.

    Let me just say that your post makes it obvious that you've had the radio tuned to Rush and Sean a little too often, who put out the red herrings about how Plame was not really covert, and how no one went after Armitage, so what crime really occurred???
    • ^
    • v
    BTW- Writing a tell-all book for profit always makes the writer a little suspect, but its far more important that we look at whether what Scott is saying fits with other information that has come out of this W.H. than whether he'll make any money saying it. He's a private citizen who can be sued for libel if he's making stuff up. Somehow, I doubt that he is.

    McClellan said the exact same things about Richard Clarke after he wrote "Against All Enemies" that Dana Perino and other cheerleaders are now saying about him. Clarke's reputation was ripped apart and his motives called into question. The distraction worked, as the media stopped focussing on what was in the book and whether or not it was true.
    • ^
    • v
    kritt11 Just because the specious Plamegate lies are repeated endlessly doesn't make them true. Armitage ended up revealing her identity, then it turned out she technically wasn't covert because she worked in Langley in non-covert jobs.

    And I lived in DC for twenty-plus years, learned a lot about how both parties lie & cheat to gain advantage. I have a dozen friends in Langley, I was an FSO, and your acceptance of the Dem version of Plamegate shows that you are a bit naif. BTW, even my Dem CIA buddies admit Plame wasn't covert when Novak wrote his article.

    Libby was nailed on a "process-crime" perjury conviction that was as specious and dubious as any I've seen since the seventies. And I worked as National Staff in two Democrat presidential campaigns, so I'll match you or anyone else on this board on experience or CV .

    Sadly, lawyers have taken over the Dem Party & now they're trying to take over all the judicial appointments they can. It's called stacking the deck. Lawyers do the backstairs seamy stuff better than anyone and the Dems are perfect at the insinuation and innuendo game.

    Also, Bob Dole is a great American who suffered a lot for his country. McClellan was a second-rate hack who hasn't done anything except repeat DNC talking points and received thirty pieces of silver for doing so. He's almost as bright as he looks.