Hello, you need to enable JavaScript to use this network.

Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.

We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate

Adam Jerome

Many Asking What Happened

Originally posted at The Jerome Report

If there is one thing that Washington D.C. loves it is a good tell-all. The pundits and press were welcomed to just such a prize with Scott McClellan’s new memoir. McClellan was the White House press secretary from 2003-2006. It is not surprising for Mr. McClellan to write a book after leaving his previous post as many have to so before him. The shock comes with what he had to say in 341 pages. The book lays out very harsh criticisms of the Bush administration including maintaining a constant campaign mode, misleading the public about the war, and the handling of the Valerie Plame case

The attacks are unusual on many fronts. McClellan was seen as being a loyal Bush devotee, going back to his days in Texas. Secondly, in his capacity as press secretary it has been said that his issues or problems with policy were never made known. This has been echoed by former aides to the President including former press secretary Ari Fleischer and key assistant Dan Bartlett. Fleischer reported no misgivings by McClellan when McClellan was his deputy. Others have stated that McClellan was not even in most meetings when policy matters were being discussed or if he was he did not make a contribution.

The question is why? Why, if McClellan had such a strong opposition to what was going on in the White House did he stay for three years? Karl Rove and others have pointed out that the words do not sound like those of McClellan. Some have speculated a publisher’s hand to make the story juicier. Certainly one would expect someone with such strong feelings would either voice them or leave. McClellan is now being questioned on this point. It has to do with the voracity of his words and the timing of this tome. It appears too many to be perhaps a disgruntled employee going for a money grab. If that is the case then this man with the undistinguished White House career can look forward to lonely days ahead. Of course the left is willing to welcome him with open arms.

As much as gossip is loved it is second to none for liberals when it involves a Republican turning on his own. The parade will begin as McClellan starts his book promotion tour. Such notable stops include a stint of Keith Olbermann’s show, the man with a psychotic hatred of President Bush who plays a human being on television. And so it will go as liberals try to wring every last drop out of McClellan until they no longer want him and turn to the next shiny object to come into their view.

Hypocrisy is not new to Washington. It almost appears to be policy for politicians to say one thing and do another. Perhaps that is where McClellan picked up the skill which he has apparently mastered. This is a man who had such a visceral disagreement with what was going on in the White House but never said a word publicly or privately and instead went right along dealing out “propaganda” as he put. His memory for events might prove troublesome as he appears to have forgotten his own feelings about tell-alls. It was he who had trouble with Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke’s books. He calls into question their use of opinion, personal views, and timing of the books, sound familiar Scott?

It is hard to say if any fallout will happen as a result of this book. Congressman Robert Wexler, a democrat from Florida, has asked that McClellan come and testify before his committee to discuss the issues raised in his book. Give a democrat an inch and they will take a mile. In the end, the story will eventually leave our consciousness like so many before and we will forget about Scott McClellan, the forgettable man who occupied the space in front of a podium, microphone, and said nothing.

Tags: congress, house, wexler, o'neill, robert, w., politics, memoir, scott, rove

4 Comments

Bill Comment by Bill on May 31, 2008 at 2:06pm
Very interesting post. I especially like how you distill the opposing reactions to the same event, with the reactions divided along party lines. It seems to me that what you describe is a sort of "half-full or half-empty" situation, where Republicans are skeptical of McClellan's claims and see him as self-serving, while Democrats are embracing him as a patriotic whistle-blower. Just like the optimist that sees the glass half-full and the pessimist that sees the exact same glass half-empty, our biases and dispositions (based on ideology, social or cultural influences, life experience, etc etc) often cause us to see what we want to see, and cause different people to draw radically different conclusions when examining the exact same information.

It is great for me especially, as an Olbermann watcher, to get this perspective from a real person as opposed to a political pundit. For more thoughts on this matter, I have posted an Op-Ed of my own, entitled "McClellan, Free Speech, and our National Discourse."
John S Comment by John S on June 1, 2008 at 9:18am
There is so much talk about why McClellan is saying this now, why didn't he say it before? Why did he stay, why didn't he leave?

Personally, what I would like to see is a discussion of the claims being made rather than a discussion of the person making the claims. That may be too much to ask for though, since Washington and the mainstream news media seems to follow the doctrine of "ad hominem" somewhat religiously.
Justin Comment by Justin on June 3, 2008 at 3:17pm
Good job, Adam. Thanks for getting the discussion going on this. I don't think that the media has done an adequate job in their coverage of the response to the book's release. Personally, I don't know where McClellan's motivation comes from. It does seem, however, that the line of attack aimed at him in the past week was similar to the points made when other "tell-all" books came out about the administration. I'm sure if we looked it up, we could also see the same talking points coming from the Clinton Administration when people like George Stephanopolous and Paul Begala came out with their own critiques of his White House. The effect of these criticisms about the author does seem to lead our focus away from the points made in the book, which I admit I haven't read, but would seem to be a better source of fodder.

I also posted a comment on Bill's later post, but it's for both of yours.
Phill Senters Comment by Phill Senters on June 17, 2008 at 2:37pm
Sounds like a lot of noise over nothing to me. I think it's just McClellan and the president having a personal row with each other as friends often do. Maybe this one went a little farther than most.-Again-my opinion--Phill

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate to add comments!

Join this network

RSS

Guide to We Op-Ed

Promotional

ShopPBS.Org

Let People Know

Spread the word. Get your own We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate badge for your website or MySpace page. (Get Code)

Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate brought to you by Weoped LLC © 2008 Report an Issue | Contact Us | Privacy | Terms of Service

Spread the word. Get your own We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate badge