Former press secretary's book bashes Bush

[Praxius]

U.S. President Bush walks with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan at the White House in Washington after McClellan announced that he is stepping down as White House press secretary on April 29, 2006.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080528/mclellan_bush_080528/20080528?hub=World

WASHINGTON -- Former White House Press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that President Bush relied on an aggressive "political propaganda campaign" instead of the truth to sell the Iraq war, according to published reports Wednesday.

The Bush White House made "a decision to turn away from candour and honesty when those qualities were most needed'' -- a time when the nation was on the brink of war, McClellan writes in the book entitled "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception.''

The way Bush managed the Iraq issue "almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option,'' the book contends, according to accounts in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

"In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage,'' McClellan writes.

White House aides seemed stunned by the scathing tone of the book, and Bush press secretary Dana Perino issued a statement that was highly critical of their former colleague.

"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House,'' she said. "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad -- this is not the Scott we knew.''

Perino said the reports on the book had been described to Bush, and that she did not expect him to comment.

"He has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers,'' she said.

McClellan called the Iraq war a "serious strategic blunder,'' a surprisingly harsh assessment from the man who was at that time the loyal public voice of the White House.

"The Iraq war was not necessary,'' he concludes.

McClellan concedes that some of his own words from the podium in the White House briefing room turned out to be "badly misguided.''

But he says he was sincere at the time.

"I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be,'' McClellan writes.

He also blames the media whose questions he fielded, calling them "complicit enablers'' in the White House campaign to manipulate public opinion toward the need for war.

The book is scheduled to go on sale June 1.

Quotes from the book were reported Tuesday night by the website Politico, which said it found McClellan's memoir on sale early at a bookstore.

McClellan draws a portrait of his former boss as smart, charming and politically skilled, but unwilling to admit mistakes and susceptible to his own spin.

Bush "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment,'' McClellan writes.

He also faults Bush for a "lack of inquisitiveness.''

A little more to throw on top of the Bush Fire.

 

[I think not]

I ordered this book. I suspect I won't really learn anything new about him, but sounds promising nonetheless.

 

[talloola]

I heard this last night on the news, the administration and their followers are allready
trashing him for 'not knowing' what he is talking about.
I used to watch the press gatherings when he was up at the podium, and they have to
say 'whatever' is good for the president, so the answers that are given to the press have
no particular meaning at all.
He apparantly has been thinking about this for a long time, and he is very brave to
put it in a book, could be trouble for him personally.
Good luck to him, he might need it.

 

[Praxius]

I heard this last night on the news, the administration and their followers are allready
trashing him for 'not knowing' what he is talking about.
I used to watch the press gatherings when he was up at the podium, and they have to
say 'whatever' is good for the president, so the answers that are given to the press have
no particular meaning at all.
He apparantly has been thinking about this for a long time, and he is very brave to
put it in a book, could be trouble for him personally.
Good luck to him, he might need it.

Trashing him out for not knowing what he's talking about? If he doesn't know what he's talking about, then nobody in the administration has a friggin clue what they're talking about.... which is even worse.

Everything so far that I've seen seems to line right up along with known facts and recorded media interviews/reports with direct quotes and comments from those he worked with, including Bush himself.... It was blaitent Bush wanted only one approach to his wars, his way.... and he over-stepped his decision making compared to the given facts and information provided to seek a propaganda direct approach to the whole thing, regardless if there were lies or not.... and to me, that should be enough reason for the US public to put his ass on trial and hang him if found guilty.

And the more and more of his former members of his government open up and spill the beans on the "Behind the Curtains" situations, the worse and worse it's looking for Bush..... I mean it's already been one big cluster-fu*k of a screw up on Bush's behalf..... but every minute that goes by, his legacy just gets worse and worse.

Perhaps Bush is hoping to have so many screw ups and blunders that it'll reset his score back to zero when he first took office.... kinda like Clay Shooter on the NES. I could play that for hours until the score reset back to zero.... the only difference was I was playing the game right and getting points..... Bush is trying to Ferris Bueller it by putting it in reverse to roll back the numbers..... only to drive it out the window and into the woods.... daddy's gonna be pissed.

 

[Colpy]

Trashing him out for not knowing what he's talking about? If he doesn't know what he's talking about, then nobody in the administration has a friggin clue what they're talking about.... which is even worse.

Everything so far that I've seen seems to line right up along with known facts and recorded media interviews/reports with direct quotes and comments from those he worked with, including Bush himself.... It was blaitent Bush wanted only one approach to his wars, his way.... and he over-stepped his decision making compared to the given facts and information provided to seek a propaganda direct approach to the whole thing, regardless if there were lies or not.... and to me, that should be enough reason for the US public to put his ass on trial and hang him if found guilty.

And the more and more of his former members of his government open up and spill the beans on the "Behind the Curtains" situations, the worse and worse it's looking for Bush..... I mean it's already been one big cluster-fu*k of a screw up on Bush's behalf..... but every minute that goes by, his legacy just gets worse and worse.

Perhaps Bush is hoping to have so many screw ups and blunders that it'll reset his score back to zero when he first took office.... kinda like Clay Shooter on the NES. I could play that for hours until the score reset back to zero.... the only difference was I was playing the game right and getting points..... Bush is trying to Ferris Bueller it by putting it in reverse to roll back the numbers..... only to drive it out the window and into the woods.... daddy's gonna be pissed.

I hate to admit it, but I agree with much of what you say.......and it is VERY hard to discount the opinion and revelations of an insider.

I supported the Iraq War on three grounds:
1. Death to Tyrants.
2. Saddam USED WMD........and behaved like he had more.
3. The resolution of "bellus interuptus", the premature halt in the first Gulf War.........

I understand how and why Bush got so focused on Iraq.........but it was a collosal mistake.......

However.

Now they are stuck with it.

Full stop.

 

[Praxius]

Update:

US ex-aide defends Bush critique

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7425964.stm

A former White House spokesman has defended his new book criticising the Bush administration, after angry reaction to its content from officials.


Scott McClellan told the NBC network's Today programme he initially believed the US was right to go to war in Iraq but came to see the move as a mistake.

Ex-colleagues of Mr McClellan have attacked him for not airing concerns about Mr Bush's policies sooner.

His 341-page memoir is to be published on Monday.

Extracts of the book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, give an often scathing view of both the president and his highest-ranking aides.

From July 2003 to his resignation in April 2006, Mr McClellan was a loyal defender of the Bush administration. He had previously worked for Mr Bush when he was Texas governor.

'Playing the game'
Mr McClellan said in the interview that the main message of his book - to change the culture of Washington government - had been "lost in the mix of the initial reaction".


"I had all this great hope that we were going to come to Washington and change it," he said.

"Then we got to Washington, and I think we got caught up in playing the Washington game the way it is being played today."

He said he was publishing the book now in the hope that it would encourage debate on the culture of government during the presidential election campaign.

Asked to explain why he had not expressed concerns about the Iraq conflict earlier, Mr McClellan said he had different beliefs then and trusted the president's judgement.

"Because of ... my belief and trust in [the president] and his advisers, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and looking back on it now ... I don't think I should have," he said.

But the former spokesman said he did not believe anyone in the administration consciously lied, rather that officials became wrapped up in trying to sell the story.

'Puzzled'
Former and current White House officials have attempted to portray Mr McClellan as a disgruntled employee and a turncoat.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement on Wednesday she was "puzzled" by the book and that "this is not the Scott we knew".


Former senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, now a political commentator for Fox News, said he should have spoken up sooner if he had concerns about White House policies.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has also commented on Mr McClellan's claims that the administration misled Americans over Iraq.

She said Mr Bush had been "very clear" that concern about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction was the fundamental reason for going to war.
In the book, Mr McClellan also criticised the government's response to Hurricane Katrina and accuses Mr Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, of misleading him about a CIA leak case involving White House staff.

 

[MikeyDB]

Is poor ole George Bush destined to become tomorrows Paris Hilton...or Britany Speers....

Is there life after the paperatzzi are through?

 

[earth_as_one]

The Press Secretary just delivers the message. I don't think he has that much control over content. But McClellan was a great BS'er. Even today millions of people still have misperceptions based on his spin and misinformation.

I never supported the war from before it started.

1. Taking out a Tyrant isn't necessarily worth the cost. In the case of Iraq 2003, it certainly wasn't. Most experts predicted tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian deaths. No tyrant is worth that much carnage unless they are actively creating that level of carnage. Sure Iraqis were oppressed by a tyrant, but most of their suffering was a result of punitive economic sanctions imposed on Iraq long after they served their intended purpose, not Hussein. The sanctions could have been lifted in a few months if UNMOVIC inspections cleared Iraq of possessing WMDs. In 2003, most Iraqis were safe from the tyrant as long as they didn't challenge Hussein's rule.

2. Saddam USED (note past tense) WMDs and even had the US government support. Hussein hadn't resorted to WMDs since the late 1980's. The time to be upset was at the time, not 15 years later. Some people obviously still have a remnant misperceptions that Iraq pretended to have WMDs as per spin by people like McClellan. Since 1998 Iraq only claimed to be compliant with WMD disarmament requirements in order to get the economic sanctions lifted. Spin doctors like McClellan twisted and distorted information to create misperceptions which persist to this day. Everything which has been found in Iraq since 1998 supports Iraq's claims. Seems to me its obvious who was telling the truth and who was telling lies. I thought the lies were obvious at the time and have since become more obvious.

3. The first Gulf War should have been over as soon as Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. Nothing has been found in Iraq which support weekly/daily US and British raids into Iraq to enforce US/UK approved no-fly zones. (The 1992-2003 Iraq bombing campaign killed hundreds of Iraqis, destroyed civilian and legal military facilities)

4. The Iraq war violated International Law and was the international equivalent of a lynching. Iraq was forced to prove negatives and meet unachievable objectives. They were accused of hiding non-existant WMDS and required to prove their non-existance, which is logically impossible. They were accused of helping the people behind the 9/11 attacks on the flimsiest of circumstancial evidence. Anger over 9/11 was being obviously manipulated to create a mob mentality.

5. Nothing had been found in Iraq by UNMOVIC inspections which supported war. In fact, the US declared war on Iraq just 10 days after UNMOVIC reported that they were making good progress on all disarment issues and would likely resolve all remaining ones within months.

7. A compliant media which failed to ask obvious questions and failed to question obvious lies.

8. The US claimed that previous UNSC Resolutions allowed the US to invade and occupy Iraq, yet couldn't get UNSC approval which specifically approved what the US did in March 2003.

The Iraq war violated international law:

...the Secretary-General had reiterated his well-known position that the military action against Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter.

In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal." The Secretary-General said the war in Iraq and its aftermath had brought home painful lessons about the importance of resolving use-of-force issues jointly through the UN. "I think that in the end everybody is concluding that it is best to work together with allies and through the UN to deal with some of those issues...
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11953&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

UNMOVIC's progress
Hans Blix - UNMOVIC

7 MARCH 2003

....Mr. President,

Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Bush's ultimatum speech 10 days later is appropriately titled:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003​

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

 

[earth_as_one]

Denial and Deception (post above) was supposed to be about Iraq's WMDs programs and links to the events of 9/11. Even at the time it was obvious who was lying. People who relinquished rationale thought and became part of the lynch mob should read the UNMOVIC report and Bush's ultimatum to remind themselves of how easily their opinions were manipulated by people like Bush's former press secretary.

Has anyone learned anything about themselves since 2003?