1) Scott McClellan doesn't understand conservative principles or logic.
2) McClellan doesn't understand the threat posed by fundamentalist Islam.
3) Scott McClellan is a liberal. He was a horrible choice for Press Secretary. President Bush blew the selection; his Administration suffered as a result.
When watching Scott McClellan as White House Press Secretary, I'm not the only person to have thought:
Why does he accept the false premise underlying that question?! And underlying that question? And underlying that question? WHY does he meekly agree with every false premise which is proffered?And the answer - which was already guessed by most who watched: Scott McClellan doesn't know any better. He doesn't understand conservative principles or logic.
This is why it was a new day when Tony Snow (God Bless him and watch over him) became Press Secretary. Tony Snow understands the logic underlying conservative principle. Tony Snow thus recognized a false premise when he was whacked upside the head with it. Tony Snow did not put up with the same horse manure. The difference with McClellan was night and day.
McClellan's book seems actually benign. It's only value is as a media sensation. Dick Morris (quoting from memory):
There's nothing there[in the book]. The Bush Administration is crazy to respond as they have, because they make it look as if something is there. What is in this book which is a grave revelation about George Bush?The answer is: nothing. The book is not about inconvenient facts. The book is about McClellan's political opinions, interpretations, and even suppositions about what happened in meetings he did not attend. McClelland has said the book is "my truth". "My truth" equals "my opinion". "My truth" does not equal either "truth" or "facts".
I went into this very much believing the President was going to be a bi-partisan leader, and that he was going to reach across the aisle, and he was going to change the way things worked in Washington, D.C.
1) How does someone this naive become Press Secretary? Pres. Bush blew it when he chose McClellan.
2) At least in this interview, McClellan ignores the Dems role in any partisan divide. Wha?
McClellan on Iraq:
The President didn't have to "box himself in" vis a vis invasion.
Wha?! Details, please. Yet, details are not forthcoming. This is an example of the types of undetailed, unmade arguments which McClellan levels. McClellan says he personally does not believe we should go to war except as a last resort; and that Iraq was not a "great and gathering danger". McClellan and Olberman treat McClellan's personal opinion as proof of Bush' bad intent. Well, I think Iraq, the ME, and fundamentalist Islam were all "great and gathering dangers". I don't think McClellan understands the nature of the threat. So there.
I am baffled and amazed McClellan was chosen to be Press Secretary during a war he did not believe in, and which is fought against a threat he does not understand.
Tony Snow may have saved Iraq via effectively communicating during the Surge. During Snow's time, there were a lot Senate votes taken about ending war funding. If Scott McClellan had been Press Secretary during those months: would McClellan have stood up and effectively communicated in the face of that national and political mood? Of course not. Would additional lack of support have swayed a few Repub Senators to break ranks and side with the Dems to end the war? Tough one. I'm glad we didn't have to find out. Thank God for Tony Snow.
McClellan on Plame:
I was disillusioned when the President told me that he authorized Libby to leak Plame's name. At that point, I realized I could no longer continue in this administration.
McClellan says Libby and Rove lied to him, yet doesn't fully explain how he deduces this. I am suspicious.
McClellan appears not to care that President Bush had legal and moral authority to release any info or any name he deemed relevant. McClellan appears not to care about any White House need to defend against false charges. McClellan appears to agree with media and political opposition premises about Plame/Wilson/Niger. This seems an incredible statement to make, but: I am uncertain if McClellan fully understands what Plame/Wilson was about.
McClellan on NIE(from a different interview):
Even after we criticized leaks of national security secrets, the President authorized Cheney and Libby to leak parts of the 2006 NIE.
McClellan's logic is faulty: POTUS is elected to determine what information should be made public; other government employees are not. When POTUS puts out information, it is policy (in this instance it was policy during wartime). When other government employees put out information on their own, it is illegal.
Greg's comments: McClellan appears still bitter over how Cheney handled the accidental shooting of his friend (another Cheney friend broke the news to a local Corpus Christi media outlet). Even though Cheney could've and should've handled the media situation better, it's instructive that an accidental, non-fatal shooting was more than McClellan was able to effectively handle as Press Secretary. McClellan should've been fired over his incompetence and weakness in this situation alone - or McClellan should've resigned over not getting the cooperation he needed from Cheney. Then McClellan could've allowed the shooting incident to make up half his book. His interview with Olberman could've been about "the real story" of the mishandling of the shooting incident.
Scott McClellan was incompetent. I've never felt such lack of confidence in Pres. Bush ... as I do in realizing he chose Scott McClellan to be Press Secretary, then stuck with him for interminable months.
McClellan on who he will vote for in November:
He is "intrigued" by Obama.
Isn't that precious - and ill-informed. It perfectly sums up McClellan.