What To Think Of Mr. Scott McClellan?

by Rapunzel 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Rapunzel

  McClellan has recently published a book that is highly critical of Bush and his administration. McClellan's book has understandably created a furor within the current presidential administration, an administration that has valued loyalty above all else.

  McClellan was a long-time Bush loyalist, He started working for Bush when Bush was still govenor of Texas. McClellan helped Bush to enter the White House, and then followed Bush to Washington McClellan became a spokesman for Bush, defending the president on such issues as the war in Iraq. Now, he has done a total "about face." He has published a book in which he skewers Bush and attacks Bush's stances - especially on Iraq.

  I suppose that I could be considered a liberal. I think that the invasion of Iraq was an absolute debacle - most certainly one of the worst and most abysmal foreign-policy decisions in the history of the United States, and probably the world. In my mind, Bush's decision to invade Iraq equals Hitler's decision to attack Russia. I think that Bush neurotic and meglamaniac paranoia. So, based on what I have read so far from McClellan's tome, I have to say that I agree with him.

  But that is not what this post is about. My post is about McClellan and his credibility. I find it odd that someone who supported and defended Bush's policies should now suddenly have a complete "metanoia" - a paradigmatic change of mind/heart. Is this a case of McClellan suddenly being exposed to "amazing grace" and consequently "seeing the light"? Why didn't McClellan abandon Bush and speak out earlier? It has long been known that Bush's decision was a scandalous disaster on every level and from every [or almost every] perspective imaginable. Why did McClellan remain silent until now? Why did he choose the present moment to speak out?

  I really wonder what is going on with McClellan. I wonder what his motivation(s) is (are). Is the issue a political one? An ethical/moral one? A psychological one? Is McClellan motivated by his (guilty) conscious? Is he motivated by spite? Does he hold personal grudge against Bush? Does he see now as the perfect time to exact his revenge, now that Bush's popularity ratings percentage is approaching the single digits?

  That is what I wonder about - McClellan's credibility and his motivations for writing and publishing his book.
• 

  daniel-p

  I don't need verification by Mr. McCellan to believe that Bush has been one of the worst US presidents in history.
• 

  Rapunzel

  Sorry! Ijust realized that I posted this in the wrong category. I guess it should have been posted under "politics," right? Could it be moved and put under "politics"?
• 

  JK666

  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Now all we need is for Karl Rove and Dick Cheney to fall on their swords.

  JK
• 

  VoidEater

  In his own words:

  "My beliefs were different then. I believed the president when he talked about the grave and gathering danger from Iraq,"...

  In hindsight, McClellan says he came to view the war as a mistake by a president and advisers swept up in a grand plan of seeding democracy in the Middle East by overturning Saddam Hussein's regime. McClellan says Bush and his aides became so wrapped up in pushing the argument for war that they ignored intelligence that didn't fit the picture.

  McClellan said he grew "increasingly dismayed and disillusioned" during his final year as White House press secretary, and pinpointed the unfolding of the CIA leak case — and what it revealed about Bush's role in releasing classified information about Iraq to the press — as his tipping point.

  "I blame myself for putting myself in the position of going to the podium and passing along information I didn't know was false, but later learned that it was," McClellan said.

  Perhaps he just woke up.
• 

  jwblog

  That is what I wonder about - McClellan's credibility and his motivations for writing and publishing his book.

  How can you question someones credibility when there are statements made that are "TRUE".?
• 

  snowbird

  The handwriting is on the wall.

  The rats are abandoning the ship.

  How many more to stand tall

  And shoot straight from the hip?

  Sylvia
• 

  james_woods

  It will serve no purpose other than to maybe make him some money. Most people don't even remember or care about who Valerie Plame was, nor why she whined. Iraq happened, it is being well debated in the current presidential race without this.

  Sort of like taking out a halftime ad at the superbowl in order to bitch & moan about the referee's call in the previous year's game.

  Now, if it had been done say in 2004, then that might have been a story.
• 

  SixofNine

  My guess would be a combination of money, grudge, and conscience. Probably in varying amounts in varying order on varying days.

  A person cannot be a human and do that job, so becoming human again may take a while after quiting... and bear in mind that some people never see the need to become human again after having the job.
• 

  Rapunzel

  Hi jwblog - You should please re-read my original post, in which I make it clear [or, at least, I think that I make it clear] that I agree with McClellan's statements. I don't question McClellan in terms of factuality. From a factual perspective, he is correct. But in this sense, McClellan is saying absolutely nothing new. In my opinion, the Bush administation, and its policies are a horrendous perversion - an obscene and hateful travesty of law and common decency. I wonder if I can make myself any more clear.

  I suppose that where my suspicions lie are in respect to McClellan's motivations and his timing. If more people of power and influence had only spoken out sooner, and had halted Bush's policies, the lives of countless people perhaps - perhaps - could have been saved. It just seems strange to me that McClellan should speak out only now, as opposed to earlier. It seems strange to me that McClellan has waited untl now - when Bush's "lame duck" presidency is almost at its end - to speak out, whereas his speaking out earlier could have saved so much money and so much human life.

  As free moral agents, people choose not only if they have the will to speak out and fight injustice, they also choose when to do so. In other words, they choose both to act, and when to act. Speaking out valiantly against evil and tyranny after the fact, when the damage has already been done, is of precious little value (or, for that matter, valor). What's the old expression? It's like closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped.The sad truth about Iraq is...never mind...forget it.