What Happened to Scott McClellan
When they invited him to join the campaign, it was almost a matter of necessity. Scott McClellan seemed a perfect choice. He was marginally innocuous, and perceived, as was the future president, to not be much of an extemporaneous thinker or speaker. Scott was perfect for the delivery of messages. The plan was to limit the number of meetings he attended and give him only the information he needed to placate reporters. He had already done this kind of work with a state officeholder and in earlier Texas campaigns.
Scott's role, when he went to work for the Bush presidential campaign in Austin, was to keep reporters away from Karen Hughes, Karl Rove, Joe Allbaugh, Dan Bartlett and anyone else who might know the actual inner workings. Persistent reporters, working on difficult deadlines but constantly told no by the inner circle of advisers, ultimately, had to settle for talking to Scott McClellan.
And it was frustrating.
I interviewed him dozens of times and discovered that never has anyone said so little with so many words. He was the master of the declarative sentence that declared nothing. Obviously, he knew nothing. His job was to know nothing but sound like he knew much. The Karl and Karen show loved having Scott handle all the reporters of lesser publications and broadcasts. Generally, he was kept away from the national media because people like Rove and Hughes and Allbaugh and Bartlett needed that exposure to build their own narratives.
Scott handled his tasks exceedingly well in Austin and beyond and his ability to obfuscate made him the perfect candidate to be the White House spokesperson. Regardless of how the Bush administration is presently denouncing McClellan, they found him to be ideal as a communications tool. There was something imminently believable about his frumpy style and his unblinking trust in the people for whom he worked. He was given his talking points and did not stray from them because he had no idea where he might wander.
But the Bush team misjudged Scott McClellan as badly as they have misjudged everything. While they were brandishing about Mr. Bush's pedigree as proof he had the credentials to be president, they were busily ignoring the background of people like McClellan. He was considerably more than a loyal, empty vessel skilled at pouring out well-chosen words.
His grandfather, Paige Keeton, was the dean of the University of Texas Law School and once had the vision to write to George H. W. Bush that he was "sure there was a place in the world for young George Bush but the UT law school was not that place." Scott's mother, when I met her for the first time in 1979, was the Democratic mayor of the progressive city of Austin. Although her political ambitions led her astray and caused two further changes of party to run for other statewide offices, no one has ever said she was anything other than of rigorous intellect and determination. The same was said of Scott's father, Barr McClellan, who has written two controversial books and was an attorney for the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Power Commission, serving under LBJ. Scott's brother Mark was a commissioner on the Food and Drug Administration and a member of Bush's council of economic advisers.
Not a bad gene pool for someone the Bush team did not expect to think independently
McClellan was, frankly, too smart to be used for too long. And he knew he was being used. Scott was complicit in all of the disinformation provided to the American public. While he may try to characterize his experience as a transformation, those who know him have a difficult time believing he was oblivious to the lies he was garnishing with rhetoric. He was probably not involved in many of the important meetings where messages were developed to build the political case but he knew who was in those gatherings and could reach his own conclusions.
And now he is harvesting the anger of the right for speaking the truth, finally.
Robert Novak is haranguing Scott for a mis-characterization of the Plame leak story and not acknowledging that the source for Novak's original piece was Richard Armitage. Neither McClellan, nor anyone else, however, has denied that part of the report. What Scott has suggested, and others, including myself and Wayne Slater have reported, was that it is not likely Armitage acted independently. Evidence and past behavior indicates the plan was likely hatched by Rove, and Armitage, who had separation from the administration but was a true believer with the right background and connections, would be a perfect person to launch the story. Rove has executed such ministrations perfectly in Texas and elsewhere. Besides, even if Rove were not involved in the leak's promulgation, McClellan was witness to Rove and Libby going behind closed doors to talk while they were under federal investigation. To suggest this was daily political chit chat, as Rove has done, is insulting.
Scott McClellan has finally served his country. And well. If only his conscience had reared its little head a few years earlier.
Follow James Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/moorethink
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Of all the "EX" Bush people, Scott McClellan is the only one whom I believe. Possibly it was only because he was deliberately kept in the dark by Bush/Cheney, but I sense a deep streak of conscience in Scott that is missing is every other Bush participant! This entire debacle is a result of the Program for the Next American Century. ( PNAC). Anyone not familiar with it, please google it. It will explain everything you ever needed to know about the the neocons, and as a bonus, it explains where Dan Quale came from. Scott certainly did the right thing by writing this book. We are slowly putting the pieces together. It's such a bitter outrage that someone like Colin Powell couldn't have stopped this insanity in it's tracks. Those are the group of people who certainly deserve every single sleepless night they've had. Hopefully there is a higher being who will demand an answer as to why they allowed this to happen at all!
Bottom line: I think Scott truly cares about the American people. Bush and Cheney have always been for themselves. Scott's problem was that he was young and looked up to Bush. It took him awhile to see Bush for what he really is. It is a sad case when the young and idealistic are taken advantage of by older, hypocritical opportunists.
Frankly Me McClellan seems to be trying to save what is left of his paltry reputation, to bad he kept his mouth shut while thousands of Americans and many more Iraqis died in a wasted and pointless effort. If I believed in such things there should surely be room in some level of hell for all these scumbags.
Okay, he was once a foreman of harmful machinery. But I'm naive enough to believe in Dickensian conversions. Perhaps, after a dark sojourn, Scott has realized that mankind is his business.
Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.
Why is it that we allow a White House spokesman at all? Do we really believe that the President is just too damned busy to spend an hour with the press? Yes? Well, how about if he hadn't spent all those weeks on vacation? If the British prime minister has to get up in front of parliament then we should also make the President talk to us at times other than when he wants to "bully pulpit" some agenda.
Nobody remembers when Scott was passionately against Richard Clarke's tell all circa 2004.
Richard Clarke was on cspan yesterday morning.
He said that Scott has personally apologized to him about that, and that he forgives him and accepts the apology.
TO.Traitor
This idea that if Scott McClellan spoke up earlier we would not have gone to war, is down right laughable. Scott McClellan was thirty five when he was appointed press secretary, a young man, and held the job for almost three years. I don’t remember articles by the press stating how incompetent McClellan was, why now? McClellan said what Bush & Co. told him to say. That was his job, and he did it well. You don’t go off point. That's the point!
There were plenty of false facts floating around for the press, they didn’t need McClellan to sift them out. Here is one of many examples of how the liberal media failed us.
The New York Time’s Thomas L. Friedman writing on March 13, 2003, seven days before the Iraq invasion. "Removing Mr. Hussein—with his obsession to obtain weapons of mass destruction—ending his tyranny and helping to nurture a more progressive Iraq that could spur reform across the Arab-Muslim world are the best long-term responses to bin Ladenism."
In total lock step with Bush & Co.
If you want to get on the bus that McClellan was naïve , stupid, out of the loop,
that he caused this war by not speaking up!
Get on.
But that bus isn’t leaving the depot. No gas/truth.
JD, you're right on the money about McCellen and the press. I thought Friedman had shit for brains 10 years before that statement, but that statement just confirmed it.
What bothers me about his book is that I cannot buy that Bush's rush to war was to instill democracy in the middle east. It was a war profiteering motive, clear and simple.
del8300
ie7
McClellan has actually done the nation a service. Why? Because buried in his book is the first solid clear piece of testimony that President Bush was directly behind revealing Valerie Plame Wilson's covert status. The damage to our intelligence ability solely to punish Joseph Wilson can be deemed as meeting the legal definition of High Treason--yet another High Crime and Misdemeanor that Bush has committed but Congress won't act on to impeach him. I realize, however, that impeachment has even less chance of success with this Senate than Clinton's had--over garbage.
Seeing Bush forced to resign, though, would be awfully sweet even if it was weeks before his successor is inaugurated. However, once Bush and Cheney are out, the criminal investigations and prosecution can begin--and hopefully President Obama won't see any reason to pardon them.
Fnally have a post that gets to the crux of the matter. All that blather from experienced newsies who had no insight into the lies Bush and company were peddling to Scottie.. Get real! And now we see the the one person who could have solved the "Iraq is processing stuff for a nuke" question. Valarie Plame who was outed by the criminal cabal in the White House. Only the Lord knows how many of our clandestine contacts made by Plame were killed due to that hate filled, treasonous disclosure. Not a single patriot in the bunch, Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Scooter (of all the silly names btw). They need to be marched to the Hague for their war crimes. And McCain is trying his best to suck up to the Bushies so expect another GW in the white House. If he is elected. God help America. We will have another philanderer ala his cadet and post Vietnam Prison days as well as a war monger. Remember the hateful things he called his wife in public. Imagine that filthy outburst during an official visit to Japan, etc. My prescription, "God bless Obama".
I think Ford pardoned Nixon for all crimes past and future.
That being so -
Bush still Pres pardons Chaney, Rove and their cast of thousands for all crimes past and future.
Then Bush resignes.
Chaney, as President, pardons Bush.
Question if a President has the power to pardon does a President have the power to revoke a pardon granted by a previous President?
Great post...
McClellan seemed clearly as uncomfortable in his deceit during those press briefings as I was frustrated in hearing them. Unlike all those who sent him out there to do their disingenuous bidding, he wasn't as good in the lying game as he perhaps wanted to be.
He always struck me as a VERY BAD liar.
And acted like he couldn't believe the hacks in the room were buying the lies.
I think McClellen's timing is fine. A few years earlier and the story would have been buried like all the others. At this time in our country, the vast majority of Americans see this administration and the Republican party for what it is, and McClellens revelations (now) only confirm suspiscions people have held and pushed those on the fense off. As Richard Clarke said when asked if his book was intended to influence the '04 election, "Of course it was"! That's the point.
His timing is great.....
FOOL ME ONCE..... BUT YA AINT GONNA FOOL ME AGAIN! I think the release of the book SANK any trumped up IRAN nonsense..
Great post. I'd like to believe that McClellan'sstory amounts to an act of personal redemption, but a lingering question remains: Why didn't the Bush administration oppose its publication? The fact that this question remains largely unanswered keeps doubt alive in regards to McClellan's sincerity.
How would they oppose it's publication?
Listening to Scottie these days makes me think he wouldn't care much what anyone still in the Administration thinks.
And they wouldn't want to do anything to raise the profile of the book and give it more publicity.
Why does anyone assume that since McClellan is critical of the Bush regime, he works against their interests?
When someone robs the bank, local citizens decide bank robbery shouldn't be tolerated. Then, someone from the gang that robbed the bank emerges to declare that he, too, regrets his participation in the robbery. He says everyone should stop robbing banks. He claims that most gang members are really good guys misled by their good intentions.
What does the gang gain by this scheme?
First, they co-opt the central message of a crusading new sheriff. Second, they suggest that criminal activity is actually simple politics. Third, they lay the groundwork to argue later prosecution for their original robbery as political reprisal. Fourth, they offer the loyal underling's "repudiation" of their tactics as proof of their good intentions without accepting responsibility for those actions (Jon Stewart hit this point very effectivel
The Rovian theory of politics as war doesn't prevent them from offering a truce just before battle. McClellan is a small sacrifice.
Hess didn't get a ceasefire for Hitler nor should Scotty get one from Bush's opponents.
(btw, I lived in Texas for several years. The state is so conservative that a mainstream Democrat is equivalent to a Republican in the rest of the country. Carole Keeton-McC
A very thoughtful and trenchant insight, wiltmellow!
"Carole Keeton-McC
Carole is into politics and divorce because that is all she knows how to do. She is widely hated by Texans for her disloyalties and political "personality changes", and her very unpleasant personality. Scotty's mom wasn't exactly Donna Reed, so he is probably as screwed up as mom.
As opposed to Dean Keeton, deceased, who is widely respected by most everyone in Texas law and Texas politics.
he wants to rewrite history to save his you know what.
like rats leaving a sinking ship
and this rat will make a lot of money
oh dont you just love america
money for being a traitor to your country
when is powells book coming out another traitor bush used to perfection
americans love to rush to war
iran next and americans will line up to go to war for israel
oh the price of living in a dumbed down no child left behind society
remember when the folks in europe told us you cannot force a democracy on a country
and we knew best now they are laughing at us for our ignorance.
McClellan was used the way other people who trusted the cabal in the White House were used. I remember reading "Blind Ambition" and thinking that John Dean was like a cipher...b
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
