The left should be grateful to this president for all the money they have made off of his presidency. Criticism of President Bush is a very profitable business. We have numerous examples of this, from former WH aides and former military personnel to talk show hosts with no greater purpose in life than to criticize the Bush administration for every single thing it does. Why else would MSNBC give Olbermann millions of dollars for no noticeable talent other than saying inflammatory things about Bush and our military? Say what you want about Iraq. There’s nothing wrong with voicing opposition to the war, but those who watch the news recognize bias when they see it. Unfortunately, it’s less clear when the media lies to the public to boost its own standing with their colleagues — whether it’s to fatten their wallets or increase their reputation with the popular anti-war people.
Scott McClellan is not blazing any new ground here with his tell-all book. Has he gained any more credibility than he had when he was fired as Press Secretary? Doubtful. Why is that the left suddenly finds him to be a credible source? Could it be because he now agrees with them on the Iraq war? If you didn’t believe him before, why believe him now? What Scott McClellan will soon find out is that the left will use him for their own ends, and then go back to laughing at him behind his back. If he was really disallusioned by his experience in the Bush administration, I think it’s fair to let him know that his new friends may not be around very long — hope the publicity and some indirect money from George Soros was worth the price he paid for them.
And BTW, even arch-enemy David Gregory isn’t buying McClellan’s anti-Bush spin (h/t Townhall).
On Wednesday’s edition of “Today,” “NBC Nightly News” reporter David Gregory, who covered the White House while McClellan was spokesman, said, “There was never any indication that Scott McClellan, either publicly or privately, held these kinds of views about what was happening at the time on the war, on Katrina, on the leak case — which was his most difficult hour in the White House. He never expressed anything like this.”
I don’t share the opinion of those who believe that McClellan’s book will have a significant impact on the presidential race. Those who aren’t intimately acquainted with campaign minutia like this (the average voter, for example) won’t pay much attention to what McClellan says. To them, it’s just another WH tell-all that doesn’t add much to the discussion of where we are now and what to do next in Iraq.
The left isn’t embracing McClellan as much as Fox News is making it sound. Oh, speaking of people with no talent making millions with political commentary shows, FNC is loaded with them.
Like I said on my site, McClellan is a tool. I feel no pity for the guy. And I’ve yet to see the left want to buddy up with him like you say they are. If the left is doing anything, we’re using his book to say “told ya so.” And like the right admits, and seemingly you do as well, Scottie doesn’t really offer anything that isn’t already painfully obvious. Also what’s obvious is that the right isn’t disputing what the book says, just that he said it.
Bush has been a terrible president and when one of his inner circle writes a book about just how it all happened it’s of course going to be news worthy. The right would be much more sane to try and dispute what the book says about their Leader rather than trying to shoot the messenger.
As far as disputing what Scott McClellan’s book says, the effort to discredit the substance of what he wrote is already in progress. Don’t worry about the right. We will find some bones to pick with his account of “what happened” — like the insistence by McClellan that it was Karl Rove who leaked Valerie Plame’s name when in fact it was Richard Armitage who was guilty of doing that. If he’s not the leaker, then McClellan is wrong to say, as he did on Meet the Press today, that Karl Rove should have been fired over the Plame affair.
Tim Russert beat up on poor Scott. I almost felt sorry for the guy — but then I remembered that he is getting money from Soros. Besides that, the book he actually “wrote” is different from his original book proposal…as Russert pointed out to him. You don’t think that Soros’ money and lefty editors influenced the book’s content at all? I would have a few questions about that if I had the opportunity to question Scott McClellan. I guess I’m crazy to question the motives of someone who waited this long to speak up about issues that were secretly tearing him up inside, and on top of that, there’s a new insider book to sell. Call me cynical if you want to. 🙂
It’s not about shooting the messenger, but for the record, I think Scott McClellan is perfectly capable of destroying his own credibility without my help. I don’t see many people (even in my own party) rallying around Bush at this point. However, when there’s such a significant shift in attitude or perspective as he has demonstrated with this book, it’s not unreasonable to ask questions about that shift.
By all means ask him questions. I don’t think I would ever disagree with asking questions. Questioning things is like my favorite thing to do. 😉
Typical, though, it’s all the lefts fault and all George Soros’s fault. Even if McClellan, who is a tool by the way, isn’t entirely accurate with the Rove/Plame leak, what’s that to say about the other revelations in the book about Iraq, Katrina and Powell?
I’m a little cynical of the whole thing too. Obviously money would be a motivation to finally come clean with some inside knowledge. If I had any inside knowledge I would probably sell it too. But that by itself doesn’t immediately discredit what’s contained in the book. The right wing and what’s left of Bush’s measly support would have us believe that since he’s making money off the deal nothing in the book is truthful. I’m cynical of that stance too.