This book gives me hope that Scotty has a soul after all (sorry for the old social vampire quip a few years back!....well, not that sorry; others fit the bill).

On the other hand, I'm wondering if he's like to see a backlash against Bush policies enough to get a Dem in office, or if McClellan wants to help pave the way for McCain to distance himself from Bush

I think he's just trying to save his own ass, he's not the first post-staffer to try.

Better late than never, I suppose, but that doesn't mean we should forget about his compliance (until apparently today) and prominent role he played in the deception or whatever it is he's trying to blame all on Bush

It is obvious that Scott McClellan was captured and brainwashed by Michael Moore. The damage done to his psyche is so profound that after Moore was done with him, all he could do was to spout "left-wing talking points to try to galvanize a bunch of reactionary dittoheads". Another conservative hero corrupted by Marxist lefties!

I find it hilarious how left-wing people are reacting to this. There's a poll on MSNBC where readers can give their impression of this event - more than 90% of the responders say they believe McClellan 'found his conscience' and is 'speaking out about' what he 'really saw' in the White House.

Because of course it's less likely that a person who is no longer a member of the power elite might just have an axe to grind and a paycheck to cash, and is thus just telling people what they want to hear. I mean, that can only be true when it's something I find wrong. When you're telling me something I think is right, you must be telling the truth! That's how smart people make sure they don't get tricked!

I rather liked the one White House staffer who responded: if McClellan indeed saw all this shady crap while he was at the White House, why didn't he speak up at the time?

Why, indeed?

Why did Scott not speak out?

Are you effing KIDDING me?

This is a president that just outed a CIA agent who specialized in WMDs in the middle east, thereby commiting high treason JUST to get back at Wilson.

This is a president that back up this treasonous act so confidently that the final conviction for this event was 'communted'.

i.e. (for the slow learners) "if you are on Our Team, we will go to bat for you. i fyou go against Our Team, we will bury you and bury you deep."

It has been said by MANY that this president did not listen to dissenting opinions, and those that do dissent got punished. And now, instead of laying Bush on the line for his criminal behavior, you are asking Scott why he agreed with the criminal?

This argument is similar to "it is your fault you got raped". Blame the rapist calli, not the girl with the gun to her head.

calligraph = troll

Go back & look at his posting history, and it will become blatantly obvious that debating him is a complete waste of time. He has no particular concern for facts, logic, or scruples. He argues with a Nerf bludgeon. It's big, it's colorful, it completely fails to make a meaningful impact.

'nuff said about that.

I particularly liked Russert's very last comment, starting at 3:19, in which he effectively called McCain the incumbent.

It makes no difference when a former Bush administration official comes clean about how the Bush White House has operated:

In 2002, John J. DiIulio Jr., who's the former head of he president's faith-based initiatives, is quoted as saying "What you’ve got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis." He composed a 3000-word letter excoriating the Bush government. The Bush administration thinks they solved the political “problem” he created by forcing him to recant a month later. When a guy who LIKED Bush’s ideas (after all he took on the job of coordinating faith-based initiatives), writes a multipage letter condemning the government’s ability to function effectively, it looks WORSE when he is forced to recant shortly thereafter – Mao Tse-Tung would have been proud of the speed with which DiIulio was “reeducated”.

David Kuo was another Faith-Based Programs director who concluded that the Bush White was totally dominated by political decision making - not by analysis of facts.

Paul O’Neill was another Republican who worked for the Bushites and couldn’t stomach them any more. A summary of his assessment: Policy decisions are determined not by careful weighing of an issue's complexities; rather, they're dictated by a cabal of ideologues and political advisors operating outside the view of top cabinet officials. The President is not a fully engaged administrator but an enigma who is, at best, guarded and poker-faced but at worst, uncurious, unintelligent, and a puppet of larger forces. O'Neill left in 2003.

With calligraph, the timing of McClellan's confession is of no real interest, because he is a true-believer. His thick skull is impenetrable; he'd spout excuses, diversionary arguments, and anti-liberal invective if he witnessed George Bush in a snuff film and Laura Bush herself vouched for its authenticity.

Heh, stop the personal attacks on calli, we need some dissent over real issues. Tim is however right, there has been a series of ex whitehouse loyalists that all are saying the same thing. Almost all of them tell the same story. (don't forget Richard Clark, and i am waiting for the real story from Colin Powell.) If you listen to the republican talking heads, they are attacking the messenger but most are saying that most of what he said is true. (seriously watching CNN now, and they are not really contradicting him, just attacking his character and things.)

Finally, almost all the information we know is true. The interesting story is why is such a loyalist doing it now.

Also he is really attacking the press too, so it is not just an attack on the bush whitehouse.

Why did he do it? well he was lied to deliberately by a bunch of folks. He had to hire lawyers to protect himself.

More interesting is why release the book now.

Rats finally leaving a sinking ship?

McClellan will find himself in no man's land. Obviously an outcast from the Bushie dead-enders, yet not embraced by the liberal/left wing who are not impressed by his belated apostasy.

Heh, stop the personal attacks on calli, we need some dissent over real issues.

I initially thought this too. But I've come reluctantly to admit that engagement does not appear to yield productive results. Responsibly argued dissent of the prevailing view is to be welcomed; bare assertion without argument or evidence is annoying, as is his consist lumping of all of us together as woefully uninformed, hypocritical, bleeding heart, commies (although, I admit, it's funny sometimes) and as though we all think exactly alike. Granted, name calling back doesn't help, and is equally unproductive, as I myself have said before, but from here on out, I pass over these posts in silence.

On a completely separate note, following is delightful performance last week on "appeasement', I must say, goddamn, Chris Matthews--who usually I find not so impressive--is on a friggin' roll these days: "We don't blame the whore for escaping the whore house!"

I love Buchanan's confused defense as well. He admits that the WMD claims was false, and with it, the claim that Iraq posed a threat to us. Then he says, in response to the democratic imperialism charge, that the only way Bush thought we could be safe was by establishing democracies in the Middle East. But that is a non-sequitur. If there was no threat from Iraq, then the project of establishing a democracy through predatory war and murder bears no relationship whatsoever to national defense. Indeed, by creating a power vacuum that Iran has ably taken advantage of, with their greatest enemy in the region being undermined, it has arguably harmed us.

"I rather liked the one White House staffer who responded: if McClellan indeed saw all this shady crap while he was at the White House, why didn't he speak up at the time?"

So you think he's making it up? For the most part it's well-confirmed stuff. Paul O'Neill and Bob Woodward have said as much. Even Doug Feith and Paul Bremer have confirmed a lot of it, in their pro-Bush way. McClellan on the other hand is agreeing with the Bush critics' interpretation of the events, and he was Bush's spokesman for years.

The "paycheck to cash" is a bit weak as an explanation for this particular kind of book. He could have paid some bills with a less critical book. Sure, the money wouldn't have been as much, but the heat would have been much less as well. Aside form the massive attack that's about to be unleashed on him, McClellan's political career is now over, and he's barely 40. He's not going over to the Democrats, so that doesn't strike me as opportunistic behavior.

You should compare this book with George Stephanopoulos' All Too Human and other post-Clinton kiss-and-tell pieces. The stuff was sensationalistic and embarrassing but true. When you were an insider, you don't have to lie to sell books.

looking forward to seeing mcclellan on jon stewart on monday night

I keep watching all the experts talking, a few things, no one actually says this is not true, if you saw mathews with ari fletcher, he even states quite clearly certain things were true and says people should read the book. The only real critisism is about him not speaking up before. The George S book is interesting too, he got attacked but everyone now says it was all true.

I wish that the journalists would NOW start examine themselves. I think that is the biggest story of the selling of Iraq how no one in the media really even tried to speak against it. I also wish this, as it would bring the presidential race back to real issues and not this stupid stuff about seating delegates. Let us hear from McCain, Obama and Clinton how they are going to be different, how they are not going to decieve us. And how exactly are they going to do this.

You have a good point about the press k. Part of this is that we had a corrupt administration that was able to play the fear card at a time in history when the world of the press was changing drastically - news papers were going under, money was governing telemedia with increasing frequency, and the internet was still in an infancy/toddler stage when Bush and Co. entered the oval office.

Newspapers started weakening content to avoid problems with ad revenue: controversy became less the oder of the day and soft stories and gossip grew. They continued to lose readership to the internet and tv news, and desperately tried to save their asses by cutting staff, reporting, and adding the above.

Tv news was relying more on "if it bleeds it leads" as well as anti-Democratic slants that grew heavier as the Clinton admin got lost in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Fox news became profitable, and the networks paid attention, got scared, wanted more $, and they followed suit.

The internet still has hit and miss writing through blogs and online publications. Any internet dissent from the Republican party line was too easily dismissed as rantings and ravings from those who had an axe to grind and/or didn't know what they were talking about.

So the fear card got played. Much of our citizenry swallowed it, and why not? The legislature caved, didn't challenge Bush and Co.'s information, and "did their patriotic duty" and authorized the executive branch to use military force as was seen fit. The media basically rolled over and played dead on this one - this includes outlets that are generally considered to have kept a liberal bent since 2000 - NPR and the like. Next thing you know, those who signed up to defend our country are in a quagmire.

Now that the internet is maturing as a resource, bloggers and paid writers owe it to each other to scrutinize and take to task those who don't do their job. If the legislature continues to forfeit its power in government, let it be known and get someone else in your area seat. If the 4th estate can't get its shit together, make sure someone somewhere comes up with the facts and puts them out there for all to see (yes, I know some prefer to turn a blind eye; that's another tangent). I'd love it if the press would start examining themselves, but I ain't holding my breath.

The next president can campaign on change all the s/he wants, but the real change has to come from us. This is a tough road to hoe, because housing crisis and gas prices be damned, we're still a fairly affluent nation. It's hard to generate activism when creatures are comfortable, and to do so without propaganda. Ah, let the idealism spread and have people give a damn for the next century or so.

k said:

I wish that the journalists would NOW start examine themselves. I think that is the biggest story of the selling of Iraq how no one in the media really even tried to speak against it. I also wish this, as it would bring the presidential race back to real issues and not this stupid stuff about seating delegates. Let us hear from McCain, Obama and Clinton how they are going to be different, how they are not going to decieve us. And how exactly are they going to do this.

Dream on...

Why didn't he speak out! Hahahaha, what a jackass.

I don't need this former apologist for the administration to tell me what was going on; anyone who cared to pay attention knew it all along. The bottom line is that the war is a complete and utter failure. It has failed on so many levels it is difficult to keep track. McClellans helped to sell the war no matter how contrite he tries to appear now in order to sell a few copies of what I'm sure is a complete piece of shit book.

Well gypsy sister, you basically have an editorial right there on your post. It sums it up as well as any paid reporter.

Another issue which the blog sphere won't solve is that because of the cuts backs in real reporting there really is NO investigative journalism as that is expensive, time consuming and needs resources.

It will be funny if Bush's press secretary ends up being the person that actually makes us and the media really look at ourselves.

Now that the internet is maturing as a resource, bloggers and paid writers owe it to each other to scrutinize and take to task those who don't do their job. If the legislature continues to forfeit its power in government, let it be known and get someone else in your area seat. If the 4th estate can't get its shit together, make sure someone somewhere comes up with the facts and puts them out there for all to see (yes, I know some prefer to turn a blind eye; that's another tangent). I'd love it if the press would start examining themselves, but I ain't holding my breath.

Good - if you held your breath you'd asphyxiate a million times over. The only problem with your post, which is otherwise good, is the implication that the press 'couldn't get its shit together.' The capitulation to the Bush administration's warmongers was in many cases a conscious, deliberate policy that was handed down from network corporate headquarters. This was explicitly admitted yesterday by Jesicca Yellin, a year ago by Katie Couric, and has been obvious in the general nonconfrontational nature of reporting for the entire tenure of the Bush administration in office. Fox "News" is only the worst and most fully controlled propaganda outlet – much of the rest of the media is pretty much compliant too. In short, it is misleading to speak of the media as in need of 'self-examination' – they knew damned well what they were doing when they did it.

Oops, the Katie Couric link is here.

But Tim, what about the liberal media?

McClellan spoke out. John Dean spoke out. Stephanapolous (sp?) spoke out. People speak out.