I think they are courted
So Scott McClellan has written a tell-all book about the White House and cocaine and how he thinks - he being the Press Secretary - that the Iraq war was needless.
I think these former White House employees are courted by book editors and publishers. Before he left, McClellan was talking completely fondly of President Bush. And unless he got a bad pension package or something ...
And these sorts of things: "The Iraq war is a failure!" are what editors and publishers believe sell books. So, Scott said them. Maybe he even believes them. It's not an easy thing to stand up against a barrage of media pundits, reporters, and politicians who believe Iraq to be the worst decision we've ever made as a nation. I'd imagine that after a year or two in the real world, listening to that kool-aid instead of white house kool-aid, Scott changed his tune. Or changed his mind, if you'd rather. It's not illegal.
And can you imagine his credibility in his professional circles? He'd have none, simply because he worked in this White House under this administration. So, in order to be taken seriously, to be thought of as smarter than those "idiots in the white house" he jumps on the bandwagon and says they are idiots too.
In all honesty I don't think he thinks of it that way. I think he's spent 2 years outside of the cocoon of the white house. And in those 2 years he was barraged with meanness and vileness and people who thought his last 3 years of work were to play puppet to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. That would be hard to live with. That would be hard to work with.
But in his book he talks about the CIA leak and how secretive people were. I think this is pure fiction. Why? Because even the courts found there was no wrongdoing in that case. Plame's name was not leaked because she wasn't covert at the time. Her name was given by Armitage to Novak not maliciously (towards her anyway) but because Armitage didn't think she was under anonymity.
And while we're on that subject - does no one think that maybe some credence should be paid to the nepotism that was going on there? Shouldn't that be a story of equal importance to the non-story of the leak?
I really don't understand. Comments at Dallas Morning News read like a bathroom stall. Impeach Bush for lies. What lies? What really has Scott said except his own opinion? Which is an opinion spouted off by the President's opponents on a daily basis. The only thing that makes this different is that it's a former Bush insider saying it, so now they can say "A-ha! See! See! It's true! They are stupid head liars!"
But what did he lie about? That Rove and Libby didn't out Plame? According to Novak, who wrote the story that "outed" her, Armitage was the leak. So I don't get it.
Scott, in an email response to a question from WaPo wrote:
"Like many Americans, I am concerned about the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. I wanted to take readers inside the White House and provide them an open and honest look at how things went off course and what can be learned from it. Hopefully in some small way it will contribute to changing Washington for the better and move us beyond the hyper-partisan environment that has permeated Washington over the past 15 years."
I don't think this has anything to do with hyper-partisan enviornments. Unless hyper partisan refers to the media and the white house.
It's just sad. What a lonely, lonely world it will be for President Bush come January 27th. How many other books will appear from White House aides, interns, staff, etc in the days after the next President takes over. I know many of you are counting the days and saying good riddens. I sincerely hope that history will judge President Bush far kinder than his peers are judging him today. And in the years to come, when Presidents face trials as large and or greater than what he was faced with ... maybe we'll have a little of that compassion people are always talking about in regards to Africa and Sudan and poor people, maybe they'll save some for him.
I think these former White House employees are courted by book editors and publishers. Before he left, McClellan was talking completely fondly of President Bush. And unless he got a bad pension package or something ...
And these sorts of things: "The Iraq war is a failure!" are what editors and publishers believe sell books. So, Scott said them. Maybe he even believes them. It's not an easy thing to stand up against a barrage of media pundits, reporters, and politicians who believe Iraq to be the worst decision we've ever made as a nation. I'd imagine that after a year or two in the real world, listening to that kool-aid instead of white house kool-aid, Scott changed his tune. Or changed his mind, if you'd rather. It's not illegal.
And can you imagine his credibility in his professional circles? He'd have none, simply because he worked in this White House under this administration. So, in order to be taken seriously, to be thought of as smarter than those "idiots in the white house" he jumps on the bandwagon and says they are idiots too.
In all honesty I don't think he thinks of it that way. I think he's spent 2 years outside of the cocoon of the white house. And in those 2 years he was barraged with meanness and vileness and people who thought his last 3 years of work were to play puppet to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. That would be hard to live with. That would be hard to work with.
But in his book he talks about the CIA leak and how secretive people were. I think this is pure fiction. Why? Because even the courts found there was no wrongdoing in that case. Plame's name was not leaked because she wasn't covert at the time. Her name was given by Armitage to Novak not maliciously (towards her anyway) but because Armitage didn't think she was under anonymity.
And while we're on that subject - does no one think that maybe some credence should be paid to the nepotism that was going on there? Shouldn't that be a story of equal importance to the non-story of the leak?
I really don't understand. Comments at Dallas Morning News read like a bathroom stall. Impeach Bush for lies. What lies? What really has Scott said except his own opinion? Which is an opinion spouted off by the President's opponents on a daily basis. The only thing that makes this different is that it's a former Bush insider saying it, so now they can say "A-ha! See! See! It's true! They are stupid head liars!"
But what did he lie about? That Rove and Libby didn't out Plame? According to Novak, who wrote the story that "outed" her, Armitage was the leak. So I don't get it.
Scott, in an email response to a question from WaPo wrote:
"Like many Americans, I am concerned about the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. I wanted to take readers inside the White House and provide them an open and honest look at how things went off course and what can be learned from it. Hopefully in some small way it will contribute to changing Washington for the better and move us beyond the hyper-partisan environment that has permeated Washington over the past 15 years."
I don't think this has anything to do with hyper-partisan enviornments. Unless hyper partisan refers to the media and the white house.
It's just sad. What a lonely, lonely world it will be for President Bush come January 27th. How many other books will appear from White House aides, interns, staff, etc in the days after the next President takes over. I know many of you are counting the days and saying good riddens. I sincerely hope that history will judge President Bush far kinder than his peers are judging him today. And in the years to come, when Presidents face trials as large and or greater than what he was faced with ... maybe we'll have a little of that compassion people are always talking about in regards to Africa and Sudan and poor people, maybe they'll save some for him.
Comments