Scott McClellan's New Memoir Blasting Bush—Appropriate?

Shoot the messenger?

Shall we now arrange to execute the messenger?

Scott McClellan carried water for the Bush Administration in its campaign to lead us to war, but regards his participation as wrong. His written confession should be applauded. It takes a lot more courage to admit mistakes than to spend a lifetime trying to excuse or cover them up.

As for Dana Perino's labeling Scott "disgruntled," I'd like to imagine how happy any of us would be if our boss lied to us and caused us to lie to other so shamelessly. Scott has every reason to be disgruntled.

His book is a bold act of patriotic duty. If the Congress doesn't seize on what he's written as the basis of a full inquiry into the behavior of the Bush administration to lead us into an unnecessary and costly war, then the American people should hold our legislators in contempt of their Congressional responsibility.

If we impeached a president for lying about having sex with a woman not his wife, then I think we can impeach a president for duping his country into a useless war.

In answer to your leading question: Yes, patriotism and telling the truth are exquisitely appropriate.

Scott McClellan

Opportunist.............money. Why else would someone do something like this.

Credibility here???????????????Why did he not speak up while there????

Sad. He will sell a lot of books on mere curiosity.

McClellan

It would have been nice if McClellan had blown the whistle sooner. It's good that he did this, but none of this is news any more. How can anyone who followed any sources of news on anything from Iraq to Katrina to the veritable lobotomization of American science and education have imagined that Bush has ever rubbed two thoughts together long enough to fake a spark of intelligence?

We can't have "leaders" like Bush any more, unless we want to turn into the kind of failed state that we've been encouraged to have nightmares about (that is, when it happens to someone else.)

Real easy to pass judgement

It's interesting to see how many people belittle the book because McClellan didn't speak up "when it mattered". I'd like to know how many of them kept silent or "toed the company line" at their own place of work for fear of losing their own jobs, despite knowing or feeling deep down that something wrong was happening and that they should speak up?

Whether or not he's doing this to clean his soul or to get paid isn't really the issue. The issue is that someone who knew of some of the inner workings of the Bush admin is speaking out now.

While we should take what McClellan says with a "grain of salt", we shouldn't allow what he says to be deemed irrelevant by this administration or by anyone else.

Appropriate? No. Opportunistic? Yes.

I believe in traits like candor, honesty and loyalty. Candor when it is safe and convenient isn't trustworthy. Loyalty to someone who has been good to you is also not something I easily dismiss.

If Scott had spoken out while working for the President, his words would have a lot more weight. As it is now, it just looks like a mixture of sour grapes and worship of the almighty dollar. Bleh.

The Real News

The real news here is that the Bush "Code of Silence" has been betrayed by a former White House mouthpiece and is starting to crumble. Hopefully, more officials and ex-officials will be encouraged and inspired to make amends to the American public and reveal the truth.

For example, many of McClellan's "badly misguided" spin surrounded the Valerie Plame outing - a CIA covert operative specializing in nuclear weapons, particularly in Iran. Bush & Company hurt our national security badly for personal political gain and retribution against Joe Wilson. More whistle blowers are called for.

The sooner the better

He should have spoken up then. People have done the same in infinitely less important situations. Imagine the blessing it might have been.

But better late than never. We are facing an election in which the Republican candidate continues to perpetuate the enormous lie that withdrawal from this disaster is "surrender." To whom? Al Qaeda? No, it's safely tucked into its mountain home in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with no reason whatsoever to try to take over a vast foreign land where it has little actual presence. The Iraqi Shiites, natural friends of Iran? As soon as we toppled Saddam, their rule became inevitable. It's just a matter of time, time being bought with American lives and money, for no actual advantage to anyone other than the liars who got is unto that situation and who simply want to escape the blame they will deserve when it happens.

Given that so many people are still utterly bamboozled by the Republicans about what is going on in Iraq, any Republican truth-telling on the subject is highly appropriate whenever and however we can get it.

Appropriate?

Only our American Corporate media would ask such a dumb question. Is it appropriate for you to sell this garbage as news? That's the real question that you should be asking.

Scott McClellan's New Memoir Blasting Bush—Appropriate?

Appropriate or not, consider that this guy is trying to sell books while the topic is still marketable. Who would read it in ten years? However, whining about your ex-boss for profit is always in bad taste.

Too late

This expose might have been useful back in 2004 when it could have saved us from another four years of incompetence and deception. But I do not blame him, as the atmosphere at that time made it impossible for any reason to prevail. Coming now it serves little purpose except to allow McClellan to wash some of the blood off his own hands.