Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McClellan on the Today Show

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan defended his tell-all memoir, "What Happened," on working inside the Bush White House on NBC's "Today" show this morning. Dan Eggen and Debbi Wilgoren report on the appearance, which can also be viewed, above.

By Web Politics Editor  |  May 29, 2008; 11:46 AM ET
Categories:  Today at The Post  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Shrugs Off Prospect of Continued Clinton Run
Next: Presidential Candidates May Miss Climate Vote

Comments

Further proof Bush is evil!

Posted by: Hillary | May 30, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Keep in mind that Benedict Arnold was a "supposedly loyal adviser" to General Washington, once upon a time too.

Posted by: JakeD | May 29, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Or, Metternich, choice # 3: a genuine effort to prevent another 9/11 on American soil by taking the fight to the terrorists?

Posted by: JakeD | May 29, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Aren't Press Secretaries kept out-of-the-loop intentionally? So that they do not spill sensitive info inadvertently?

I think of Pierre Salinger during the Cuban Missile Crisis: he knew squat. And that was the correct way to play it.

So, that McClellan was duped, should come as no surprise.

What I am still not certain of is this: are Bush and Cheney and their gaggle of neo-cons really this stupid (and ignorant of world history and cultures) or are they extreme Machiavellians who do not care how many tens of thousands die and how much utter destruction they've done to the American Economy (and thus, our National Security)?

Which is it for Bush/Cheney: incompetence, ignorance and stupidity of an order we've not seen in American History or an abject greed blended with a bloodlust into a satanic cocktail?

Posted by: Metternich | May 29, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"...his true goal in toppling Saddam Hussein was to boost democracy in the Middle East."

No, no, I'm OK--these are tears of laughter!

The US Commission on Civil Rights report on the irregularities of the 2000 Florida Presidential Election, and the Rolling Stone Magazine article "Was the 2004 Election Stolen," articulate how President Bush never actually won...

But, hey, what's wrong with inequality...?

I propose that the H1-B visa is pertinent here; why do the main-stream presidential candidates want to "give away" jobs to foreigners?

Oh right--that's what you're so pissed off about--the USA isn't producing enough skilled workers...

No, no--your off your rocker because our president was guilty of driving under the influence (not that we voted him in...).

Out of an annual average of 20,000 murders, 70% are committed by people who know each other (jealousy, ect.).

In other words, President Bush represents the nastier breed...

Who can say that "life" isn't a very "delicate thing"; consider how so many people are so very angry simply because they have to work long hours, while the "poor" spend their time loitering...

What if your job was given away to illegal aliens--with no penalty for the employer who gets caught...

Except there was that WalMart scandal... A couple executives were busted for special ordering illegals, who were then driven across the border...

In CA there were 13 death-row inmates exonerated by DNA testing...

Imagine being innocent and scheduled to fry... Imagine having "murdered" an innocent person... Oh, but that's all fine and dandy--because you decided so...

What about in Russia where officials of the "disbanded" KGB became an "Organized Crime Entity" to be reckoned with...

Sure, show some stuff, get rid of the criminal actor government officials (there is Ralph Nader (Public Citizen)), and offer technical training, ect. to those who aren't interested in a "Classical Education."

Posted by: Michael L. Wagner | May 29, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Why is she spending so much time trying to discredit and question the motivation of McClellan? She should have spent most of her brief time with him exploring his unique witness to the gross excesses and dissembling attitude of the Bush Presidency. She ought to move over to the Fox Network, where she belongs!

Posted by: Peter G | May 29, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"Before he wrote his own memoir, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was rather critical of those who did the same.

In fact, some of the same language now being used to trash McClellan he himself used to trash previous administration authors.

On the book critical of the Bush White House written in cooperation with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," McClellan said on January 12, 2004:

McCLELLAN: "It appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people."

McClellan also took issue with the book by former Bush White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," on March 22, 2004:

McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. ...

Q: Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors.

McCLELLAN: Yes, and that's just flat-out wrong. ...When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it's important that we set the record straight. And that's what we're doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/as-scottie-sowe.html

Posted by: JakeD | May 29, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I thought Dan Bartlett did a great job of rebutting Scott and pointed out that Scott NEVER expressed any of these "concerns" while he was still at the White House. Dan had lunch with Scott 6 months ago, and Scott didn't say anything about these "concerns" then either. After all that, Dan was gracious enough to say that Scott STILL is his friend.

Posted by: JakeD | May 29, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company