Win the McClellan book!
Gotta hand it to Scott McClellan. He's managed to create a political firestorm with What Happened, 323 pages of mostly tepid insider tales. We learn that Washington is filled with dissemblers. And the Bush White House, like previous White Houses, shaded the truth to serve its political needs.
This is news? In 2008?
But McClellan's timing was perfect. The D.C. press corps is bored to death with the interminable Clinton-Obama struggle and the quiet McCain campaign. So they come back from the Memorial Day weekend, all tanned and refreshed, to find a gift-wrapped controversy.
As a Sun story notes, Bush has been the target of more insider tell-alls than other presidents. But McClellan's stands out partly because interest in politics is high and Bush's approval rating is low.
Who'da thunk that a book whose final chapter reads like a PoliSci text -- arguing for the creation of a White House deputy chief of staff for governing -- could lead to cries of both "traitor," and "patriot." On second thought, in a world that would deem an iced-coffee-toting Rachael Ray a symbol of bomb-throwing terrorists, who knows what to think?
Where do you think McClellan fits on the traitor/patriot spectrum? One lucky commenter, chosen at random, will win a copy of What Happened.
While she always preferred The Hardy Boys to Nancy Drew, 
Comments
Scott is not a patriot just because he's a Christian or worked in the White House; that's not what patriotism means. Scott is certainly not a traitor in any meaningful sense for writing the book and having it released - that sort of talk is literally treasonous to the American way of life and freedom. He certainly repaid betrayal and lies with truth and scorn, but that's the opposite of treasonous.
He might be considered treasonous for the way he obstructed, misdirected, and bullied the media, as agents of the public, in our quest to be told the honest truth about the war and other matters. He was a tool for treason - in the legal sense - in the criminal betrayal of covert individual(s) (remember, the true victim is not Valerie, but every source and every agent who ever met with her in public while she was under cover - and the public interest). And while I am delighted by the political result of his book, I won't bother buying a new copy myself.
Spread the message, accept his attempt at an apology, but don't forgive what was done by and through him. And don't support his book. But certainly do support him as a human being against the smear campaign already well under way by ideological terrorists given shelter and comfort by the right-wing news and spin apparatus.
Posted by: Joe | May 30, 2008 10:32 AM
Some folks have posted their comments directly on the story. Here's a sampling:
Looks like the guilty ones are in collusion to describe McClellan as "just not himself." As usual, an attack on the person and not so much what he said. ... -- ericmiami
1. He didn't say anything. 2. He took money for this inept pandering (similar to the oldest profession) which his editor 'suggested' and 'organized' (Surprise, surprise!) 3. Hope he enjoys spending it as most kiss and tell people are forever more recognized for what they are....-- hearditallbefore
It's obvious that what McClellan says is true and that he has hit a nerve. Otherwise, why would the White House be mobilizing all of its acolytes and hangers-on to condemn the book in such harsh terms?... -- sigh
Posted by: Dave | May 30, 2008 11:40 AM
This man wrote the book to make money . He certainly wouldn't have sold many books if it were laudatory of the administration .He , like many people in politics, has no conscience or honor.
Posted by: Paul G. Mueller MD | May 31, 2008 6:08 PM