Former Bush Aide: McClellan Is Getting Ripped For Telling The Truth

In response to his scathing memoir detailing the "propaganda"-filled run up to war and seedy political machinations behind the CIA leak case, Scott McClellan has received withering criticism from his former colleagues. A money grubbing, attention seeking, devoid-of-principles hack has been the description of choice; "this is not the Scotty we knew," the most popular quote.

One former Bush aide, however, is sticking up for McClellan, arguing that the former Bush press secretary is "getting savaged for saying what everyone knows to be true."

Mike Turk served as the eCampaign director for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. As such, his tenure corresponded with that of McClellan's. No longer connected to the administration, Turk is now one of the few (if any) voices with connections to that crowd who are saying, quite simply, that the book "What Happened" is steeped in little more than truth.

"After watching McClellan on Today this morning, I think the reception his book received exemplifies the point he was making," Turk told The Huffington Post in an email. "People had high hopes for President Bush to bring America together after his election and after the attacks on 9/11. They felt disillusioned by the Administration's adoption of the 'win at all costs' partisan mentality in this town. I think the bigger point of Scott's book comes from the lessons he learned while playing a part in the permanent campaign. It's an exploration of how that mindset can lead to some really bad choices."

Indeed, Turk notes, he himself has been on the receiving end of Bush-loyalist scorn. After the campaign and his tenure at the Republican National Committee, Turk criticized the party for not fully embracing technological advances. "As a result I'm already on the watch list for the GOP establishment for some of my own criticisms," he said.

Earlier in the day, Turk left a message defending McClellan on the online service Twitter, which was highlighted by Matt Stoller on the site OpenLeft.

And while he has only seen the major excerpts of the book, Turk predicted that, ultimately, McClellan would be looked at optimistically. He suggested the memoir may stand up better to history than the Bush administration itself.

"While Scott's going to weather a fierce storm for writing it, just as Matt Dowd did with his New York Times piece, I think it ultimately will be regarded as a very personal look into the modern political machinery that so many people are sick of," he said.

Comments

[PKSSK]

Scott McClellan may very well prove to be a major hero of our time for disclosing the truths behind this administrations illegal war in Iraq, especially calling out the media and their failure to dig and push the hard questions. His truths and description of the media's failure may be the gift that will prevent world war IIII with Iran. If we all hold the media and government accountable then Scott's book will not have been written in vain.

I see it as a gift and, hopefully, we will see more hero's stepping up.

[takeamericanback08]

Thanks Scott McCellan...you are a true patriot

[SwingingFromCenter]

Congratulations on being bamboozled. Well done, well done.

[andvoodoo2]

Sigh. They are so easy. Next, they'll be convinced we should go to war...

[BillN]

Thank you, TAB08 - for not being a republican robot, Fox News lemming, and for being able to actually think and speak for yourself without consulting talking points.

I'm with you, in that it is refreshing to see at least one former Bush insider listen to the inner voices of his conscience and, better late than never, actually reveal the truth. I know Robert Wexler is very interested in these revelations.

Someday when the politically-motivated grow up - especially on the right - they will realize that it's more important to be an American first, and leave their party affiliation at the door when it comes to the better good of the country – which belongs to ALL of us.

Now, let's all sit back and watch as the Bush administration exercises its legal options and files a strongly-worded libel suit against Scott McClellan, seeing as how they are all so sure he's wrong and "just in it for the money."

[JTyroler]

"A money grubbing, attention seeking, devoid-of-principles hack..."

Well, that would explain why he was in the Bush Administration in the first place. I do find it interesting that everyone in the Bush Administration has pretty much said the same thing. I guess they don't want to stray too far from the talking points memo.

Of course, this isn't the Scotty they knew - the Scotty they knew would have said what people told him to say.

[kasinca]

Thank God for Keith Olbermann!

[SaskiaStars]

Amen!

[jazzman]

Ironic when your biggest sin is when you decide to tell the truth. It seems that the media, including the NYTimes, can no longer relate to that activity.

[nonconformist2]

Here is a utube clip of a CNN correspondent actually admitting that the press dropped the ball in the lead up to the Iraq war. Most of them spout the party line. She'll probably get "reassigned" to Outer Mongolia for daring to admit the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZrrfW1alos

[BenjitheWolfdog]

Here is my post of November 22, 2007, I think I pretty much got it right.

Scott has never struck me as the sharpest crayon in the box but he does realize Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby hung him out to dry. Look at the expression on his face when David Gregory took him to task when it was clear that he had misled the press corps about White House involvement in the Valerie Plame outing. He was seething inside as he should have been. My take on Scotty is that he still has alot of loyality to G.W. Bush, though bruised, he believes that it wasn't Bush that let him down but rather those around him such as Cheney, Rove and Libby. Those are the ones Scotty blames for his being hung out to dry before the nation. Scotty has a conscience, unfortunately he didn't listen to it. Being close to power clouded his judgement but in the end the conflicts within him took their toll and he finally had to leave. He is no hero, but rather a poor pathitic soul who made a deal with the devil and paid the price when it came due. He, and many others, should have stood up to these men, they didn't and that will always be their burden. Late at night when they are alone with their thoughts, they will know that many innocent people died because they didn't have the character and honesty to do the right thing.

[andvoodoo2]

Apparently, no one bothered to tell McClellan that when you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.

[osage]

I'm watching Scott McClellan being interviewed on MSNBC by Keith Olbermann. I think it would a very good idea for MSNBC to offer Scott a job as a political analyst ala Karl Rove on FOX News. Wouldn't that be a great irony in that so many ex-Bushies are still selling Bush and his policies on MSNBC, CNN and FOX right now? Isn't it about time an ex-Bush administation insider that is no longer drinking the red kool-aid offer his unbiased political insight into the workings of Bush's presidency.

[PeaceDepartment]

I'm watching it, too-- isn't Bush's admission to him that he was complicit in outing Valerie Plame a crime-- much worse than Watergate or the coverup? Why is this being treated like just a passing comment? Someone help me out here-- McClellan said he testified to that same effect-- where is the indictment of Bush? Did I miss something on this?

[Chillinout]

Wait until after November, I think all this will come out in the form of Congressional action.

[osage]

I know that Scott McClellan has written and stated that Bush admitted declassifying NIE report information, but I'm not certain if that information included Valerie Plame's employment status. Perhaps it did, but I haven't read or heard that point specifically being made by Scott McClellan. I could have missed that.

[Chillinout]

I have been wondering about the timing of this book and I have come up with a theory. McClellan sees the same thing happening with Iran, and knowing what he knows, he wants to stop another foreign policy disaster.

[nonconformist2]

I agree. Keith Olbermann asked him point blank if he thought that the Bush administration doing the same thing in the lead up to war with Iran. He responded that he isn't there so he can't say for sure, but he admitted that the American people should be "suspicious" of claims made by the current Administration press secretary about Iran.

[Meok]

Scott's MOTIVATION:
We heard that Scott wanted to stay in the job at the W.H. a little more but they didn't let him stay. We heard from Scott himself that he is speaking the truth now because he was raised on certain "principles". We also heard his critics claim that it was all for the money...

But I have a theory (Note: I did not read all the posts, so forgive me if someone has already had the same thought):

My theory is that Scott fears that after 2009 legal actions might be brought against a number of people who worked in the Bush administration (Remember, Senator Obama said that he would consider legal action if he saw egregious violations of the law. Other lawsuits might be filed by many sources).

So I am speculating that Scott McClellan (probably after talking to his Attorney) is trying to come "clean" (although he only tells us carefully chosen facts) and is positioning himself in a way that would make him easier to "cut a deal" and testify against the "bigger fish" such as Karl Rove if such legal actions were to take place.

McClellan was a staunch defender of the Bush Administration that I do not believe for a second that money or a crisis of conscience are behind the publication of the book.
Just speculating...

[maxdenn]

President Obama is coming to town soon. And he's already said he's going to look into any criminal actions done by this prez and his bunch. Hurry November.

[rockyroad]

Grins!

Obama was here today. He promised to review every one of Bush's executive orders to derermine whether they were legal, could withstand Constitutional muster . . . what a breath of fresh air.

Go Barak!

[Sparty1]

I told my husband that the way they (the media) continually ask why didn't he voice his concerns while press secretary is like he as a director for a telecom company calling up the ceo and letting him have a piece of his mind. Even though the boss wants to go a different way, he should tell the ceo that he's wrong and that his way is right.

[mebble]

Mr. McClellan:

- better late than never;
- thank you for writing the book;
- stand tough.

[CompliantMedia]

What is up with MSNBC? Are they caving to the pressure that they are the "Pro Obama" cable channel?

I just watched David Gregory's program. He had four panelists discussing Scott McClellan's book. Much to my surprise, three of the four were clearly at odds with Scott McClellan. Only one panelist (Rachel Maddow) was on the opposing side.

Ms. Maddow made note of this when she said (paraphrasing), "I feel all alone here."

Earlier in the day they let Bush surrogates ramble on about the motives and timing of the book while harping on why McClellan did not raise these issues while he was still the Press Secretary.

Why did no one from MSNBC (and the Today Show) ask people like Dan Bartlett what facts in the book are wrong? That is the key issue - NOT motive or timing or which meetings Scott did not attend.

[research]

Yeah, those "Unbiased" Fake Noise folks:

"Bartlett worked on Bush's first successful campaign for Governor of Texas in 1994."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bartlett

Did you think we wouldn't look it up?

[frappe]

I think the MSM is truly embarrassed by McClellan's charges. They know that they played along like dutiful, deferential, little propagandists on behalf of the Bush administration and their "war on terror". During the entire run-up to the war, and several years into the war, they did everything that the Bush administration wanted and, in the process, failed the American people at their central task -- of keeping the players honest -- of fulfilling their role as an important component to our Constitutional system of "checks and balances". And still they are compounding the original mistake in judgment by trying to change the focus away from the central issues raised by McClellan's book. It just goes to show that they still haven't learned their lessons.

[SeekerOne]

I just read Jason Linkins piece which also explains NBC's defensiveness:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/29/cnns-yellin-on-run-up-to_n_104058.html

[SeekerOne]

Scott criticized the media for allowing Bush & Co to get away with their propaganda campaign. Gregory doesn't like that.

[Snowball]

Without in-depth analysis of McClellan's claims, I can't help but wonder if the public is being played here. It seems to me that McClellan is being more truthy than truthful and is framing the facts in a manner that shifts culpability for deliberate malfeasance from Bush and Cheney onto nebulous advisers and what McClellan thinks are political realities. McClellan appears to be trying to characterize Bush and Cheney as hapless, but well intentioned, victims of circumstance and bad advice.

It could be that McClellan's book is intended to soften the public image of Bush and Cheney while standing as the definitive explanation for the catastrophic policies of the administration. We are asked to believe that Bush and Cheney did not willfully deceive the public or engage in illegal actions for political purposes without justification. Further, the federal response to Katrina is portrayed as incompetence rather than the result of the deliberate dismantling of FEMA by right wing ideologues. By attacking McClellan and criticizing his book, the Bush regime and its followers act to legitimize McClellan's portrayal of events in the minds of the media and public.

In other words, this might be a softened up and redacted version of events that the Bush regime wants us to believe.

[racetoinfinity]

The most idiotic thing McCLellan has said, that I've heard, was on "The Today Show" this morning, when he said that Shrub was highly intelligent, and quite intelligent enough for the job, but that he operated "from the gut".

The first part of his statement is patently absurd.

But kudos to Scott for writing the book. He is still deceived, however, if he thinks the motives for the war were idealistic democratic nation building, rather than exorbitant war profiteering, oil, and U.S. power hegemony and defense of Israel hegemony in the region. They're quite happy to have Iraq remain in a state of chaos, (with all the resultant horrendous suffering to the citizens); it keeps Iraq oil off the market, squeezing the supply and boosting prices and their oil company profits, making them rich beyond their wildest dreams.

[foodtube]

You have to have some intelligence to fool the American public into voting for you twice. I think Bush's idiocy is an act (a clever one) tailored to fit the intelligence level of many Americans (at least those voting for him). He went to Harvard and Yale; can you buy Ivy Leauge degrees with pure money? I don't think so. But yes, in a sense, he is a complete moron (for all the obvious reasons of his decision making and evil intentions).