Scott McClellan Changes Name to Sherlock
Well, that should be the headline, because when you hear about his new book, the reaction has to be "no shit." MSNBC reports:
"The Iraq war was not necessary," [McClellan] concludes. "Waging an unnecessary war is a grave mistake."
Alas, even in this book he's still lying. It was a graves mistake--over 4,000 now. We'll spot him all the dead Iraqis, as we know trying to figure out their casualty rate is just too much work.
Speaking of that, it's great that he opts to follow Bush and his "disarming personality" only to realize Bush possesses a "lack of inquisitiveness" (if one possesses a lack). Seems those two phrases both add up to "empty-headed" to me, but then I never worked in the high pressure White House. After all, as Dana Perino, current lying sack of shit, uh, Press Secretary, put it: "The book, as reported by the press, has been described to the President. I do not expect a comment from him on it — he has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers." Why read when a book can be "described" to you?
I guess I have to read the book myself to find out what MSNBC and McClellan are talking about in this line, though: "his administration early on possessed 'seeds of greatness.'" Was stealing an election greatness? Barreling through huge tax cuts for the wealthy at a time when the economy began to tank (but nowhere near how it has since)? Having a 50% approval rating 8 months after his election? Ignoring all the warnings that 9/11 was about to happen? Using 9/11 as a way to expand executive power, approve torture, and turn America further into a police state?
Perhaps most telling is this quote in the MSNBC article:
Said former top aide Karl Rove, in an interview with Fox News Channel, "If he had these moral qualms, he should have spoken up about them."
After all, there's little room for morals in the Bush-Cheney White House. Rove knows all about that. It's like that line from Paper Moon I'm sure I've quoted before, when Ryan O'Neal tells Tatum he has scruples, then asks her, "You know what scruples are?" She replies, "I'm not sure, but if you have them, I can bet they once belonged to someone else."
Sure enough, here's Scotty, "When words I uttered, believing them to be true, were exposed as false, I was constrained by my duties and loyalty to the president and unable to comment." Loyalty to the president? What about the Constitution, the country, the soldiers dying in vain? What about his Christian faith?
His god better be a mighty forgiving one. I'm no god, and I'm pissed as hell.
"The Iraq war was not necessary," [McClellan] concludes. "Waging an unnecessary war is a grave mistake."
Alas, even in this book he's still lying. It was a graves mistake--over 4,000 now. We'll spot him all the dead Iraqis, as we know trying to figure out their casualty rate is just too much work.
Speaking of that, it's great that he opts to follow Bush and his "disarming personality" only to realize Bush possesses a "lack of inquisitiveness" (if one possesses a lack). Seems those two phrases both add up to "empty-headed" to me, but then I never worked in the high pressure White House. After all, as Dana Perino, current lying sack of shit, uh, Press Secretary, put it: "The book, as reported by the press, has been described to the President. I do not expect a comment from him on it — he has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers." Why read when a book can be "described" to you?
I guess I have to read the book myself to find out what MSNBC and McClellan are talking about in this line, though: "his administration early on possessed 'seeds of greatness.'" Was stealing an election greatness? Barreling through huge tax cuts for the wealthy at a time when the economy began to tank (but nowhere near how it has since)? Having a 50% approval rating 8 months after his election? Ignoring all the warnings that 9/11 was about to happen? Using 9/11 as a way to expand executive power, approve torture, and turn America further into a police state?
Perhaps most telling is this quote in the MSNBC article:
Said former top aide Karl Rove, in an interview with Fox News Channel, "If he had these moral qualms, he should have spoken up about them."
After all, there's little room for morals in the Bush-Cheney White House. Rove knows all about that. It's like that line from Paper Moon I'm sure I've quoted before, when Ryan O'Neal tells Tatum he has scruples, then asks her, "You know what scruples are?" She replies, "I'm not sure, but if you have them, I can bet they once belonged to someone else."
Sure enough, here's Scotty, "When words I uttered, believing them to be true, were exposed as false, I was constrained by my duties and loyalty to the president and unable to comment." Loyalty to the president? What about the Constitution, the country, the soldiers dying in vain? What about his Christian faith?
His god better be a mighty forgiving one. I'm no god, and I'm pissed as hell.
posted by George at 11:20 AM
5 Comments:
It seems the general feeling on the Left regarding these kinds of books is "Why didn't you say anything when you were there?" kind of thing (Tenet is a good example). I don't necessarily disagree with this criticism, but on the other hand, isn't this better than him not saying these things at all?
It's too late to remove Bush from office, but I love the fact that everyone who comes out of this horrible administration writes a book saying how awful it was. At this point, does it even work for Bush to simply say that the guy is disgruntled? We need to make sure that the future holds this man accountable (so there are no more like him), and I think a book like this helps.
Actually I disagree that Scotty should have left the administration when he found his moral code compromised.
Moles are always useful.
We truly need the reports of those who kept their moral qualms to themselves, and who remained on the "inside" to experience firsthand the many crimes this group of moral degenerates committed.
Read what Mr. Furious had to say about it. I agree with him completely.
Pastyface Rove's comment shows two things. First, that we know that people who disagreed ith the Administration got fired, so no, Scott didn't say anything of course.
But worse, it shows how craven Scott really was. He sure coulda said plenty, or quit before he became complicit in this shit. So too little too late, Scott. I hope your book flops.
But the problem is he wasn't a mole (as if he was a spy from the left in the Bush administration). He was just another schmuck being quiet to make his buck then and make a bigger buck now. Which makes him a bigger schmuck.
This book deosn't help, I'm afraid. Did Clarke's for 2004? It just makes everyone more cyncial and less likely to vote or think politics can work.
And perhaps that cynicism is the truth.
Excellent post, George. I agree with this completely except for one point: you are a god.
Post a Comment
<< Home