« Further Paterson-blogging | Main | McCain's Mighty Understanding »

In defense of Scott McClellan

30 May 2008 01:05 pm

[Kathy G.]

With the publication of his bombshell book, Scott McClellan is getting it pretty hard from both sides. Predictably, many on the right are outraged at his alleged perfidy -- at Pandagon, Pam Spaulding does one of her periodic, always entertaining forays into the demented parallel universe that is Freeperville, and comes up with some beauts. The Freepers throw every name in the book at poor Scottie, calling him a "lowlife," "a backstabbing bum, and "a little worm;" he's also unfavorably compared to "a turd on a stick," and that's just for starters. They also offer such awesome political advice as "I wish W had chosen Ann Coulter to be his press secretary," and my personal fave, "One reason W is in trouble and legacy is in jeapordy IS the fact that he DID NOT SELL HIS VIEWS ENOUGH."  (Triple bonus points to the latter for the all caps and the spelling!).

With a few exceptions, the response on the left has not been a whole lot warmer. Ezra Klein refers to the book as

the tinny bleatings of a man who abetted a lying, disastrous presidency because it seemed like a good gig, but doesn't want his name maligned by the historians. . . This doesn't come close to clearing his name.

dnA at Too Sense is also having none of it:

McClellan has every reason to lie or twist events: making himself a sympathetic character helps him sell books and he wants to minimize the role he played in one of the most flagrant violations of the public trust by the office of the President in history.

At Daily Kos, Bill of Portland Maine had this to say:

If there was any justice in the world, Scott McClellan would have to travel to the home of every family member who lost a loved one in Iraq, get down on his knees, and beg forgiveness. But he won't. Instead, we get 341 pages of, Hey, I was just following orders.

The only thing that Scott McClellan should collect from his book is dust.

 

But unlike most liberal journalists and bloggers, I think McClellan deserves quite a bit of credit for going public with this, even at this late date. Writing this kind of book could not have been easy for him. He has undoubtedly lost friends. Many of his former colleagues will never speak to him again. If he'd written the kind of anodyne snoozer that Ari Fleischer did, then surely he'd be set for life on the wingnut welfare circuit. But now? Well, let's just say he'll never eat lunch in that town again. And it's not like the liberals are eager to embrace him with open arms, either.

But in coming clean, the man has performed a public service. Unlike Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the rest of those freaks, McClellan, for all his deep moral deficiencies, is not a sociopath. And yeah, that's defining deviancy down, for sure. But at least it's something. McClellan seems to feel genuine regret at what he did, and that's more than I thought we'd ever get out of any of the Bushies.

I think his book is valuable for two reasons. One is its potentially considerable merits as history. Future historians looking back at this administration are going to have a very frustrating time of it. The one thing the Republicans learned from Watergate is that it's essential to perfect the art of the cover-up, and surely the Bushies have that covered. Of course there will be no White House tapes, but it goes way beyond that. The Bush administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to restrict public access to presidential records.

And it's not likely that we'll learn much from other ex-Bush officials. I always said that one problem with this administration is that it will not produce any John Deans -- that the rot among the conservatives and the Republican party is now so total, profound, and all-encompassing that's there little likelihood that anyone will ever tell even a shred of the truth of what went on. But with McClellan coming forward, we'll at least get a bit more of the real story than we would have otherwise.

The other reason this book is a public service is not only what is being said, but who the person is saying it. That Bush's own former spokesman is spilling the beans does, I think, have great power to get through to some people who otherwise would still be substantially in denial about what this administration has done, and is continuing to do.

Among other things, I think his book will do serious damage to the myth of the liberal media. When we lefties talk about the so-called liberal media, those not of our tribe tend to yawn. But when McClellan exposes it for the Big Lie that it is? Well, that will get people's attention, bigtime. It won't put a stake through the heart of that pernicious myth, but it has to potential to open some people's eyes which would otherwise have remained firmly shut.

In short, I think McClellan's book is a very big deal.  His coming forward now does nothing to excuse his past misdeeds, but it should be applauded. And hopefully, his example will encourage others to do the same.

Share This

Comments (40)

You take what you can get. Most of us have looked the other way one way or the other. He wasn't really in a decision-making position anyway.

Couldn't agree more. And thanks for that great post on Jim Webb the other day.

I agree. The left should welcome him with open arms.

I think McClellan deserves quite a bit of credit for going public with this, even at this late date.

I agree entirely. Hell, I give Haldeman credit for The Haldeman Diaries. If you add to the data pool rather than piss in it, you ought to get a few points.

Well, you're defending his decision to write the book, but I don't see a lot of people on the "left" criticizing that per se. Rather, what they are criticizing is his prior service on behalf of the Administration, and opining that the book doesn't make up for that.

I think this is about right. At least McClellan was on TV every day for all those years as the face of the administration. It will be harder for the White House to dismiss him as a disgruntled low-level staffer -- it was a lie when they said that about Richard Clarke and Lawrence Wilkerson, but those men's faces and names weren't as widely known.

john cole @ balloon-juice, had a great post showing how some right wing blowhard called captain ed predicted that the left would be falling over themselves to embrace scott, followed
by numerous lefty bloggers slamming scott.

no reason to embrace mcclellan. simply point out that his book confirms facts that those of us paying attention have known about all along.

The reason for the fact that most people are, at best, ambivalent about McClellan's opus is because he's not revealing anything we really didn't know or haven't been saying for the past several years.

This isn't the bible where a shepherd rejoices more over the return of one lost sheep than he does about all the flock that never departed.

I appreciate that McClellan has accepted reality, but it's like celebrating an ex-con who "goes straight" -- it's not an accomplishment it's what you should have been doing in the first place.

I'm with Kathy G here. It took some guts to do what the guy did, even though he clearly wants to make money too. Is there something in between falling all over him with love, and shunning him? Yes, Kathy G's post.

Did Yglesias' blog really just quote Pandagon? Let's at least try to keep this place semi-respectable. There's not a millimeter's worth of difference between Pandagon and Freeperville. Two sides of the same coin.

Chris, you're such a paternalist. Why are you scared of vaginas?

If (or when) McCain loses and/or the Republicans get routed in the House and Senate races, I expect you will see an avalanche of vituperation from former Bushies about the idiocy and incompetence of this administration (with a strong dose of attempted self-exoneration, of course). McClellan's real sin is that he let loose before the election. The Republicans' attitude toward this is similar to their attitude about military adventures that are going badly -- you don't admit a failure of the mission while the troops are still in the field. Once the campaign is over, McClellan will have plenty of company.

I'm with the folks (Matt, et. al) that are defending Scott. Here's my take.

Scott had closely worked with Bush for more than a decade. We've heard from more than a few former supporters that there is a sort of cult-of-personality vibe to him. People hitched themselves to him, and he propelled them to the White House in various capacities. This had to be an exhilarating ride, one that each of these second-tier players had to consider a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Walking into that realm, especially in some sort of press role, you know that you will be compromised. It is part of the job, and all you have to defend it to yourself is that the ends justify the means. You believe in the man and you believe in his team. That's all you got, and it is based on that faith that you walk to that podium and take the hits every day.

He hit a breaking point and walked away. I'm sure we've all done that -- whether in a job or a relationship -- and we spend time stewing over what happened. We begin to see patterns we couldn't see while we were in the thick of things. One day, it all comes together.

For Scott, you can see that he's had to reconcile ten years of service, his sacrifice, and the sacrifice of all those people who have been touched by the Iraq war. And, he's realized that it was too great a price to pay. Now, he's doing what he can to discuss it, and I respect that. I don't deny his other motives (money, clearing his name), but there are a whole lot of other roads he could have taken, and he certainly chose the one less traveled.

I suggest that we do a little less to criticize his role, and appreciate his belated honesty. None of us have had to make the choices he has had to make, and I really appreciate the risk.

WHILE THE FOURTH ESTATE WAS ASLEEP

A truth on human nature, and not from McClellan’s actions.

Not much will surprise us about this Administration. There is, however, more to be learned here from McClellan's actions or lack thereof.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/05/lesson-from-scott-mcclellan.html

The Washington Times has a --unconsciously -- hilarious article about how the theory making the rounds in Texas is that treachery is bred into Scott McClellan's genes.

(Imagine Steve Sailor with a cowboy hat.)

See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/30/texans-say-mcclellans-turn-started-at-home-with-mo/

Correction: Imagine Steve Sailor with a cowboy hat , a corn pone accent, and spitting a squirt of tobacco juice before giving his measured assessments.

I have mixed feelings. While it is good that he comes out with the truth, I think the righties are justified in calling him a lowlife. He was put in the position at the White House because he was perceived to be loyal, not because his talent warranted the position. He had to know the kinds of people he was getting involved with. Now, he isn't just a guy who spouted lies to get us into war, he's a disloyal guy who spouted those lies.

It would be different if he were an outsider hired for his talent. Such a person might not know what they were getting into. Such a person wouldn't have an obligation to be loyal. The dishonesty could be explained as a temporary moral dilemma solved badly rather than a career choice. Publishing a book about it would then be confession rather than self-serving back-stabbing.

His revelations are, from what I've heard, common knowledge. He's betraying his friends to make a buck. Even though I dislike those he's betraying, I respect him less for it. He's like a petty mobster betraying his boss just because he's on the way down.

Another side-splitting performance was turned in by Bob Dole. Who suggests Scott McClellan might actually be motivated by ..shudder.. the desire for money.

ha ha ha ha

Bob Dole , of course, took a vow of poverty during all those decades of Senatorial service and never compromised on any moral principles.

Bob Dole was acting in the national interest when he sabotaged health care reform in 1994 with the claim "There is no crisis in health care."

Which is true -- if you are a Senator showing up at Walter Reed with a wallet padded with pharmacecutial money laundered via Viagra commercials.

He's like a petty mobster betraying his boss just because he's on the way down.

You must be young, or flawless.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned one of McClellan's stated reasons for his change of heart, one that is richly ironic: his faith. When someone decides that God has told them homosexuality is evil, or some other right wing shibboleth, the Christian Right fawns all over it. But God forbid (sorry, I couldn't help it) that faith lead a person to any change of heart not sanctioned by Pat Robertson and company. The hypocrisy is rank; they should sincerely respect that this comes from his personal relationship with God, long sessions of prayer and a true meeting on the road to Damascus. Publicizing this hypocrisy may actually peel a few sincere believers away from the evil that is today's republican party.

While I personally don't believe in God, I believe that at its best religion is how people understand conscience. Personally I give McClellan the benefit of doubt. I think he is sincerely troubled by his conscience, and he is trying to do the right thing. I also believe that forgiveness is not divine, but it is healthy. It's good for the forgiver, the forgiven and all who witnesses it. In this case, it may also be good politics.

Make that: "...how RELIGIOUS people understand..."

Maybe its not God speaking to Scott McClellan.

Maybe it the ghosts of those 4000 dead soldiers.

Or maybe the voices of those live but badly crippled soldiers in San Antonio.

Maybe Kathy is just setting up the extreme ignorant views (Kos is always useful for that) in advance so that she can step in through the sensible middle. But what she says *is* perfectly sensible. To accept the Kos view of things you have to accept that any Republican who has ever supported Bush was necessarily on board with and suported Bush's policies. McClellan was in the echo chamber, feeding the press the best possible defense of the Bush administration's actions, and he finally realized that he wasn't buying it. He's paying no little cost for doing that and doing it publicly. Thankfully for those at Kos, they'll never have to worry that their team got it wrong.

Horray for group blogging at MY. It seems the trolls have gone on vacation, too.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, Don, but those amount to the same thing, being haunted by the evil he participated in.

Well I'm sure McClellan will do pretty well for himself on the lecture circuit.

Only McClellan really knows his motivation. But, regardless of events in the past, what happens if one day you really do wake up and say to yourself "What have I done?"? What are you supposed to do then? If that's what happened to him, maybe this is the best he can do at this point.

Let's not forget McClellan's point that the media is really at fault here. I remember when I had to tune in to John Stewart of Bill Maher to find a dissenting voice about the war. No one, absolutely no one, had the nuts to dissent.

Let's not forget McClellan's point that the media is really at fault here. I remember when I had to tune in to John Stewart of Bill Maher to find a dissenting voice about the war. No one, absolutely no one, had the nuts to dissent.

Thank you Matt. I had the same reaction to Ezra Klein's piece; mean-spirited.

McClellan is not a hero, but doing what he has done is not easy either.

I was surprised to find that I agreed with Clemons at TPMCafe -- this is an important marker in the struggle to define the "Bush legacy" and the future of "conservatism."

I disagree, though, when Clemons writes that we should applaud McClellan's courage. BlueStreak's comment makes sense to me -- and if it's true, at best McClellan deserves our pity.

Tomtom: "Thank you, Matt."

What part of - [Kathy G.] - preceding the post didn't you get?

Folks, pay attention. We have multiple bloggers posting here this week.

Man, I would love to see R.S. Hack and Gary Farber in the same comments thread sometime.

Who's Gary Farber?

I just Googled and all I get is some guy blogging at Amygdalagf?

A quick look at the front page shows it's, well, eclectic...

I agree with Kathy G's post. But I think the frustration around McClellan is the same as around the Iraq War. Why don't the people who were right all along get any attention? There's all this attention paid to people with a proven history of bad judgement, meanwhile the people who got it right are dismissed as biased. It's quite maddening.

That said, McClellan is a political windfall and we should take advantage of it.

Who's Gary Farber?

Spend a little time in the comments at Obsidian Wings and you'll get a sense. (I've seen him here on rare occasions also.) He has a well-deserved reputation for having a low tolerance for errors (sometimes minor, sometimes not) of fact, grammar, logic, or etiquette on the part of other commenters, and seems willing to engage in sometimes fairly acrimonious exchanges about them for as long as the unfortunate target of his disapproval is willing to keep typing.

He is definitely not a troll, though. Insightful, intelligent, soulful. Just kind of exasperating, sometimes. Your comment at 8:06 made me think of him, and that it would be entertaining if the two of you got into it somehow.

McClellan has good reason to be upset with the Bush political machine. Like many Americans he accepted the Republican propaganda at a time when we needed true intelligent leadership and no one wanted to be branded unpatriotic or not supporting the troops. Unfortunately by the time left his credibility as a journalist had sank to the level of Baghdad Bob as the US forces took Baghdad.

Kathy -

Thank you. Your most important point:

"The Bush administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to restrict public access to presidential records."

So yes, it is a very good thing to have McClellan's first-hand account and interviews (and the attendant reactions from various Bush supporters). Better yet would be a series of in-depth interviews to nail down as much historical information as possible before it evaporates.

Interviews by US Attorney Fitzgerald: best yet.

"And it's not likely that we'll learn much from other ex-Bush officials."

I bet Feith's book will cause retaliation from other Bushies leading to a "look what so-and-so said" free for all that spills enough beans for generations of historians.

I hope this book opens the eyes of the United States citizens. This may keep this administration from tricking the American people into going to war with Iran.

I hope this book opens the eyes of the United States citizens. This may keep this administration from tricking the American people into going to war with Iran.


Comments closed June 13, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.