McClellan, Right and Wrong

I haven't read Scott McClellan's book yet but, like a lot of people, I'm looking forward to it.

Somewhat infamously, I covered the Bush White House from 2003 to 2006 for Time magazine and got caught up in the C.I.A.-leak case, something that was also a signal moment in McClellan's tenure as White House press secretary. For those who need a refresher course in the leak case, I had two sources discuss Valerie Plame's identity as a C.I.A. employee with me—Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. When I called Rove on July 11, 2003, and asked about Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose New York Times op-ed "What I Didn't Find in Africa" had electrified Washington, Rove brought up the fact that Wilson's wife worked at "the agency." The next day I asked Libby about that and he confirmed it.

A story I co-authored that appeared on Time.com—a few days after conservative columnist Robert Novak had outed Plame—called "A War on Wilson?" noted that the White House was launching a counteroffensive against Wilson's op-ed. Wilson's piece criticized Bush for claiming in his 2003 State of the Union Address that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa to develop nuclear weapons.

That charge became one of the causes for the war. The piece led to my being subpoenaed as a witness in the leak case—something both me and Time Inc., which was the owner of my notes and emails, fought mightily in the courts to avoid. Eventually Libby and Rove gave me permission to talk and I, like every reporter touched by this case from Tim Russert to Robert Novak to Bob Woodward to Judith Miller, wound up speaking under oath.

I rehash all of this because McClellan famously defended Rove and Libby, saying they had no role in the leak case. He had gone to them and they had, to put it charitably, misled him. McClellan, not exactly a silver-tongued orator, assured the press that they played no role. A defter press secretary would have made a small but crucial distinction by saying: "They tell me they played no role." McClellan, in his book titled What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, now laments that he watched his credibility disappear after it emerged in 2005 that Rove had been my primary source.

I feel badly for McClellan—Libby and Rove hung him out. Now, he not only bashes them in his new book, but he notes seeing them holding an unusual meeting shortly after the case broke, which McClellan speculates was a chance to get their stories straight. Maybe. I don't see how we'll ever know. I think it's doubtful that the Special Counsel in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, who remains the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, would reinterview Libby, who was convicted on four felony counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, one of which dealt, in part, with his conversation with me. Since Bush commuted Libby's sentence, what's left for Fitzy to do? Restart a new case based on this thin reed of an allegation? As for Rove, he made five grand jury appearances and was reportedly on the verge of an indictment when the prosecutor declined to pursue. I doubt McClellan has given him enough to reignite his case.

What's the larger thing we should take away from What Happened? In a way, both McClellan and his critics are right. Certainly everything McClellan says about the rush to war and the incompetence of the administration has held up over time. He now finds himself with the nearly three-quarters of Americans who disapprove of the president's job performance. But the Bushies do have a point when they note that McClellan did not raise these objections while he was in the White House. There is something unsettling when a George Stephanopoulos or Scott McClellan rides a presidential candidate and then a White House to fame, and then dumps a critical memoir out there.

I have no stomach for Bush hagiography. Karen Hughes' book was exceeded only by Ari Fleischer's in its slovenly kiss of Bush. But there's probably some middle ground between knee-jerk praise and self-serving disclosure. Plus there's a resignation issue. If McClellan was this agitated, didn't he have a duty to quit? It's a fair question being posed.

Those who have left administrations in anger have produced the best memoirs. Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's tale was written by journalist Ron Suskind as a reported book, but it was O'Neill's story. My favorite presidential memoir is the late Donald Regan's, For the Record. Regan had been the head of Merrill Lynch and was tapped by Ronald Reagan to be his Treasury Secretary. He amassed an impressive record, including guiding the 1986 Tax Reform Act through Congress. Then he switched jobs with James Baker, who took over Treasury as Regan became White House chief of staff. He ran afoul of Nancy Reagan and her astrologer—whose role in the sainted Reagan White House was astonishing—and took the rap, unfairly, for the Iran-Contra affair. Regan was asked to quit quietly. The former Marine did so loudly and dished out one of the juiciest memoirs ever.

For more go here.

Comments

[raker]

NPR's conservative hosts Neil Conan and Scott Simon are trivializing McClellan's book by calling it a "tell-all.­" Sounds like the kind of thing Debbie Reynolds might write and not confirmation that our President is a criminal.

Were we ever so naive that we believed the lies and obfuscations of the press? Have they always been our worst enemy, the enemy of democracy, as they are today? Worst of all is NPR because they do their propagandizing under a cloak of integrity and even liberalism. Neither is true.

[Jsens3]

It is always a question of credibility when a trusted employee is fired and turns on his employer for financial gain. McClellan was not some sap or dupe; he was in a high administrative position. He was either lying then or he is lying now. Either way, he is a liar - we just don't know when that was. If there could be a trial in a law court the sides could call witnesses to dispute or corroborate what McClellan has written. That probably won't happen. So, we have another "kiss and tell" book making some waves, but little else.

[realpolitic]

Yes, your statement is the standard Republican nonsense. McClellan would have likely been better off financially if he would have stayed loyal to the Bushies. He was not paid an extraordinary amount for his book. I think he wrote it to clear his conscience. Bush's wealthy friends would have always hired McClellan to compensate him for his loyal silence.

To say, he is a liar is silly. We already know his account of the Valerie Plame outing is true. Scooter Libby was convicted for lying and Karl Rove was identified as twice leaking her name to journalists, although he initially said he was not involved.

Many objective books written by journalists have backed McClellan's account that the administration rushed to war and any dissent was buried. For example, General Shinseki was fired for saying to Congress that we would need several hundred thousand troops to fight the war. Administration economist Larry Lindsey was fired for saying the war would cost perhaps $200 billion dollars. It has cost several times that to date.

McClellan tells the truth in his book, but still does not doubt the motivations of the president. His arguments amount to saying the president was ill-served by advisers. In my opinion. McClellan did not go far enough because Bush never wanted to hear anything other than cheerleading his policies and having those around him portray him as some great warrior. McClellan gives Bush too much credit and not too little.

[research]

"It is always a question of credibility when a trusted employee is fired and turns on his employer"

McClellan was a bad liar, we could tell. Good for McClellan.

You just don't want to face the truth of your beloved BushCo war Criminals.

[realpolitic]

Very true! They are in such denial that it all could turn out so bad.

[JennyJay]

McClellan DIDN'T QUIT when he suspected trouble on the home front , , , , because he, like all human beings in a safe, comfy environment went staight into DENIAL. . . . That is what human folks do. . . lIke it or not. . . The truth is PAINFUL, and humans are wired to avoid pain. Stop expecting him to be super-human, its not right, and it is NOT FAIR. I admire him greatly, GREATLY, no matter how
long it took him to get to this place.

[realpolitic]

McClellan probably really admired Bush for some reason and was ready to stretch the truth for him until the truth could be stretched no more. He admits his role in Hurrican Katrina was simply to deflect criticism from the administration and toward the state and local governments. However, this administration is so corrupt and incompetent the enormity of his lies likely began to weigh on him, until he had to come forward. Anyone with any decency must come forward with the truth eventually. It is similar to the conversion former George H. W. Bush advisor Lee Atwater had on his death bed. He recognized what he did wrong and wanted to atone for it.

[jbatch]

You say:

There is something unsettling when a George Stephanopoulos or Scott McClellan rides a presidential candidate and then a White House to fame, and then dumps a critical memoir out there."

And you also ask why McClellan din't resign.

He's asnwered that quesion, and it seems a plausible answer -- in the bubble, things cannot be seen as clearly -- we've all watched people defer to the office of the presidency -- to give it the benefit of the doubt long after it no longer deserved it. Indeed, it is a bit ironic to hear a memeber of the MSM, which basically functioned as little more than cheerleaders and enablers to Bush in the run-up to Iraq, criticize McClellan for not resigning.

As for unsettling? Well, McClellan had to know that this book would neutralize whatever bennies he got from being part of the Bush White House (which carries about as much cachet as deckhand on the Titanic, by the way).

No, I think this was an act of courage by a guy who was pissed off at his treatment, sure - but even more angry that he'd allowed himself to be part of this incompetent and immoral gang of thugs.

[laocoon]

Actually everyone I know has always immediately resigned from each position as soon as they felt what they were asked to do was at all questionable. Ever time and at once!!!!! We can surely take it that Mr. Cooper agrees 100% with every thing his employer has done during his tenure.

[realpolitic]

Great point!! It is very easy to say someone else should have resigned. With a resignation, there would be no book because he would have no inside informatiion.

[leftLibertarian]

There is no doubt that the lot of them: Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al are criminals.

The question remains: With the volumes of evidence to send them all to trial and prison, why haven't the docile Democrats done anything? Does this mean that they are soft on these criminals?

[realpolitic]

Pau O'Neill's book on his tenure in the Bush administration was excellent, as was Richard Clark's. By the way, Karl Rove is still lying about the Valerie Plame affair on Fox News insisting it was Richard Armitage who made the initial leak. Well, this fact is true Rove forgets of the orchestrated leaks he made to Matt Cooper and Richard Novak. Oh, if only Prosecutor Fitzerald would have indicted Rove. What a happy day that would have been.

[BARRISTER]

Mr.Cooper:
Forget bout what Scott says; what you say in this blog is sufficient evidence to put both Rove AND Libby in Jail.
What the hell was fitzgerald thinking?? Coverup??

[realpolitic]

Fitzerald was much too easy on Rove and Cheney! Rove was on the way to an indictment, but changed his testimony.

[sawdustinhershoes]

Hi! Real. Good to see you in your usual fine form. I agree Obama will be our next prez. I'll see you out there.

[blueinannarbor]

Perhaps the most salient point about McClellan's book and the ensuing right wing ranting is that he apparently isn't saying anything new. For all practical purposes, he could have strung together the litany of op-ed pieces that have accused the Bushies of lying us into an unnecessary war; described the president as intelligent enough to be president, but intellectually uncurious; cited examples of Cheney's deviousness, etc.

The truly pathetic thing about this has been how completely debased the Bushies look and sound in their shrill counter-offensive to information most everyone knew or suspected was true already.

I understand the History Channel is developing a series called "Shameless Shills: the story of flunkies, losers, screwballs, and dweebs in politics". Advanced information says that the Bush team plays a prominent role in the project. We'll see Dan Bartlett try to look like he has a chin, Karl Rove try to look undoughy, Dick Cheney try to look like something other than a gargoyle, and of course they will all fail miserably. Must see TV.

[gregjones]

THE MEDIA CONNED AMERICA !!! It is amazing watching the media squirm from the truth that they were all major accomplices in the Bush Regime's deception campaign regarding the entire Iraq invasion. From the over 6 so-called military experts who appeared over 4500 times on cable news lying to the American public (who were paid by Pentagon to lie), to the many former Bush staffers who had been telling us that we had been lied to (O'Neil, Richard Clark and now McClellan) with very little if any coverage on cable news, anyone who watched cable news regularly could see the non-stop 3rd World style media manipulation. Bottom line....TH­E MEDIA HAS BETRAYED AMERICA ! Even now, as the media works tirelessly to discredit McClellan, you can see the wheels of deception turning in CYA lockstep. Media folks that we trusted are revealing themselves to be complicit through their desire to join the Regime's discredit campaign. David Gregory, Chuckie T, Anderson, Wolf and even Andrea Mitchell is asking the question why is Scotty speaking out now, without reviewing the fact that her own husband Alan Greenspan waited until he left the Regime to expose that we invaded Iraq FOR THE OIL ! (as he wrote in his memoir). The real story behind McClellan's book is not just how the Bush Regime has betrayed and deceived America...­.but how THE MEDIA was the #1 chief accomplice. America should demand an investigation of the media ! HEADS SHOULD ROLL !!!!

B4B

[twofish]

They're still doing it. The coverage of this story is focused on the hurt feelings of the right wingers at McClellan's "betrayal.­" Not a word on the media's betrayal of their truth-telling function in a democracy.

[elbzee]

Damn straight twofish! Same thing as with the pentagon's retired analysts. It's amusing to watch the media tiptoe through the land mine issues that implicate them so wholly. I have only once heard anyone (Tim Russert) acknowledge complicity faintly. Emphasis on faintly. Has any network made any report or statement of complacency?

[RobinLandseadel]

Nearly everybody with tenure at NBC/MSNBC squirmed as they either spoke to or spoke about Little Scottie Big Boy. Something's up. maybe Mr. Cooper can fill us in on the NBC connection, I smell power brokerage at the OIL!!! level here, seems like Scottie's most direct hit so far, though no one's really brought that one up so far.

Think of all Tim Russert knows and won't talk about.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5033875/

[txbyrd]

I remember the build up to the war in Iraq.

I sat, night after night, watching the news and drinking herbal tea.

OK, I was drinking beer.

But I sat there, with MILLIONS of others, thinking "this doesn't make sense... this doesn't add up..."

Now journalists come out with praise or mixed reviews of McClellan who just confirms what most everyone figured out a long time ago.

Where were you and the rest of the mainstream media?

[realpolitic]

The mainstream media must have been drinking herbal tea.

[sawdustinhershoes]

They were drinking the Devil's tea.

[sawdustinhershoes]

For some reason, I couldn't reply to you're post below. I agree that when our political process and the press fail us there is no where else to turn.

However, our political process was corrupted by savy criminals. I hope that enough people vote for Obama such that the republican efforts to continue election fraud are simply overwhelmed.

I honestly believe that the internet and PBS and NPR saved us this time, Real. Things like MoveOn and blogs and Frontline and NOW. I cannot explain how alone I felt, especially since I live in Texas, until I saw a reference to MoveOn and looked it up.

It's nice to find intelligent like-minded people, Real. I too enjoy your company.

[karela]

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth whether about the president or anyone else."
Theodore Roosevelt

4,100 young Americans are unnecessarily dead. Another 30,000 and more live their lives without arms, legs, hearing, vision and with other wounds. Thousands will suffer long with PTSD and depression as record numbers of our soldiers commit suicide. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children have died unwarranted deaths because their country did not take part in 9/11 and their government did not have weapons of mass destruction. There are those in the White House who used propaganda and manipulation to persuade America to do this thing that we would not knowingly have done. There are those who say we must continue the killing and the dying because America never surrenders---even when we're the ones responsible. There are those who must be held accountable or we will repeat these mistakes. It is insane to call the one who tells us the truth unpatriotic while calling the ones who lied to us patriotic. Responsibility must be taken. Everything this country was built on demands it.

[gvc]

"4,100 young Americans are unnecessarily dead."

Along with at least 100 times as many Iraqi civilians.

[Uselessboy]

THIS comment stream should quickly become QUITE the pot-kettle fest.

[marinemomof3]

I would be the last to defend McClellan but this comes to mind.

Sometimes when you are too close to the situation, It is very hard to "see".

I think after months of REFLECTION, and not sleeping at night, this is
his contrition to cleanse himself.

Don't sleep too well Scottie, I don't! Not until sometime in September when mine are home.

[Zeusthunderbolt]

It is rather amusing to find a journalist attacking Mcclellan for a delayed awakening of conciousness. most of them have yet to admit why they failed as Journalists to ask the tough questions. Or why their concious is still asleep.

[UnbiasView]

Scott may be right on the money or he could be doing it for the money.

He tried to dodge the question tonight about going in front of congress, I tend to believe a guy more if he puts his freedom on the line more than if he writes a book for profit.

If you get a Mark McGuire type testimony he is probably lying.

[sawdustinhershoes]

Drink much of the Kool Aid? Why would he lie. His whole future is screwed by these revelations. Do you understand that you are believing Bush's and Rove's talking points?

Here, I'll help you. If you see or hear anything on Fox, it's lies. If anyone past or present from Bush's administration speaks to support Bush's actions as prez, then they are a liar.

It's simple. Got it?

[realpolitic]

Well, Fox news would say that the opinions expressed by UnbiasView must be unbiased since the very word "unbiased" is in his name. It works that way with McCain too, since he is on the "straight talk express" then of course whatever he says is "straight talk."

[realpolitic]

It is funny, Sawdust, now that you mention Fox. O'Reilly is trying so hard to smear McClellan. He is saying everything from the fact that the editor wrote the book and embellished it, to the fact that McClellan may be crazy, to there is no news contained in it. O'Reilly can not handle that his hero Bush is a criminal and really so is Fox and O'Reilly.

[laocoon]

McGuire did not testify he effectively took the 5th and was allowed to do it without making it explicit. the others who testified that they never had used steroids lied-- if McClellan takes the 5th he is asserting a basis for believing he may be incriminating himself by answering. That is not lying.