JLF: Scott McClellan. He's What's Wrong With Our Government.

McClellan was harsh on Richard Clarke, yet did the same thing a few years later.  You could argue that that was McClellan's job in 2004, right?  To defend the White House?  FUCK NO.  McClellan's boss isn't the President of the United States and he isn't slave to the President's political agenda.  McClellan's boss, like that for all other elected and appointed civil servants, is the people of these United States.  The best part about McClellan tearing Richard Clarke a new hole for speaking up about the Bush administration's policies in the war on terror?  McClellan admits to never having read the book.  [And let's take a second to point out that Richard Clarke was right, Bush's policies towards terror have proved to be a mess... yet the White House blindly, knee-jerk screamed over Clarke's warnings.]

Honestly, it's the lying that's getting me so mad.  The blind, partisan lying.

While the American public, and the world, was questioning the Bush administration's decisions, McClellan stood there - with the White House's seal behind and in front of him - and defended Bush administration's actions during the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame by administration officials, the hurricane Katrina debacle in New Orleans, our lack-of-progress in Afghanistan and Iraq, the misdirection on the importance of climate change, our country's shady relationship with oil-producing countries, the ties between the Bush administration and energy companies...  And, in a time where the smallest straw could have broken the camel's back, he stayed zipped up, happy to proliferate the bull shit instead of speaking his mind.

On Meet the Press, Russert did a great job of explaining exactly how McClellan screwed everyone over.  Let's take the Iraq war, shall we?  Now, the war started when McClellan's predecessor, Ari Fleischer, was the voice of the White House.  Defending of the war fell on McClellan's watch.  Now, in February, 2008 George Bush himself was on Meet The Press and Russert ask the Pres if, knowing what we know now about Iraq's WMD's, if the war was one of choice or necessity.  The President, on camera, was first confused like a school boy in a lingerie store, then answered it was a war of necessity, given the intelligence (flawed) that he had the time.  What happened off camera, (from McClellan's' book):

"I remember talking to the president about this question following the [Meet the Press] interview.  He seemed puzzled and asked me what Russert was getting at with the question.

"This, in turn, puzzled me.  Surely the distinction between a necessary, unavoidable war and a war that the United States could have avoided but chose to wage was an obvious one that Bush must have thorugh about in the months before the invasion.  Evidently it wasn't obvious to the president, not did his national security team make sure it was."

Wouldn't you speak out about that?  Wouldn't you go to the press and say... something's wrong here.  Bush hadn't asked the basic question the entire world was struggling with!  Wouldn't you say, "World, you're right, they don't know what they are doing."

Another example of McClellan's flubbing comes with the Valerie Plame fiasco.  The press had plenty of questions about how the CIA agent's name was released.  All signs were pointing to the Bush administration having leaked it, which is usually considered treason and people go to jail.  Let's take a read into how Russert drilled him on this.  [If you'd rather just take my word that McClellan's a slippery, lying bastard, just skip down past the rather long quote.]

MR. RUSSERT:  This was Scott McClellan in January of '04 talking about intelligence.  Let's watch.

(Videotape)

MR. McCLELLAN:  Intelligence is something that we take very seriously in this administration.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  "Intelligence is something we take very seriously." That's what you're telling the American people.  And yet, on an airplane, with the president, you write this:  "According to Scooter Libby's grand jury testimony, President Bush had actually engaged in selective declassification himself.  He authorized the use of parts of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate in an effort to discredit Joe Wilson's attacks on the credibility of the administration.  Now, with those three simple words, `Yeah, I did,' the president was telling me that my public statements about the sanctity of classified intelligence rang hollow." Why didn't you then say, "Mr. President, I've had it."

MR. McCLELLAN:  I'll tell you why.  I...

MR. RUSSERT:  "I'm out of here.  I can't do this anymore.  I'm out there saying that we have intelligence, we take it seriously, and it's being selectively declassified and leaked to attack political opponents."

MR. McCLELLAN:  I, I was stunned by his reaction.  I walked off an Air Force One, and he asked what the reporter was shouting at him, and I said, "He, he said that you had authorized the selective leaking of this classified information," which the president has legal authority to do.  And no one else in the administration knew, other than the vice president and Scooter Libby. Not the director of Central Intelligence, the national security adviser or the chief of staff.  It was very compartmentalized, and that's part of the problem with this White House as well.

But the reason I didn't was because that was the final 10 months of my time in the White House, when my disillusionment increasingly set in.  I became dismayed beginning in July of 2005 with the revelations that I had been knowingly misled by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, and then ending with the NIE. And I had made a decision at that point, right around that--right after that, that that was the final straw, that I would leave the administration.  My intent was to do it at my three-year mark in July of 2003, just a couple months later, that I'd do it quietly and leave, because I could no longer continue to go through this when I had been decrying the selective leaking of classified information for years, as had the president.

MR. RUSSERT:  Let's talk about that podium, October 7th, 2003, when Scooter Libby and Karl Rove were being accused of being part of the whole Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson situation.  Scott McClellan defended them.  Let's watch.

(Videotape)

MR. McCLELLAN:  They're good individuals.  They're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved.  I, I had no doubt with--of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this.  And that's where it stands.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  You misled the American people.

MR. McCLELLAN:  I did, unknowingly.  I, I, I went to both those individuals, asked them point-blank, "Were you involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity in any way?" Both of them told me, unequivocally, "No." Now, the president also told me in a conversation I detail in the book that he had been told the same by Karl Rove in terms...

MR. RUSSERT:  So--stop there.

MR. McCLELLAN:  Yes.

MR. RUSSERT:  Did Karl Rove lie to the president of the United States?

MR. McCLELLAN:  That's my belief.  But I don't know their specific conversation.  I just know what the president told me, which was "Karl told me he was not involved."

MR. RUSSERT:  There's a difference in the way you describe the questioning as to the way Mr. Rove described your questioning.  Here's what Rove says:  "But the fact of the matter is Scott's questions to me were:  did I leak Valerie Plame's name, and the answer is no."

You write:  "The second time I checked with Rove was on Saturday, September 27, 2003.  ...  I asked Karl an unambiguous, unqualified catch-all question, `Were you involved in this in any way?' I was" certainly "referring to the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity--information that was believed to be classified--to any reporter.

"Karl replied categorically, `No.  Look, I didn't even know about his wife.'"

One of you is not telling the truth.

MR. McCLELLAN:  Well, Karl had also said something very similar to, I think it was on CNN and ABC, when he was asked about questions, "Were you involved in this?" He said, "I did not know her name.  I did not leak her name." It's pretty disingenuous.  I, I think most people, most objective observers realize that now.  He still maintains he wasn't involved in the leaking of her name, yet most objective observers say, yes, he was.  He talked to two reporters about her identity, Matt Cooper and Robert Novak.  Apparently he was the second confirming source.

But let me mention this.  That question, when I said, "Were you involved in this in any way?" and he categorically said no, that is absolutely true.  It is what I said under oath to the grand jury, it is what I told investigators. And secondly, that is the same question I asked Scooter--very same question I asked Scooter Libby, because the chief of staff Andy Card came to me shortly after that, that Saturday after the first week, said, "The president and vice president spoke this morning.  They want you to give the same assurances that--for Scooter Libby that you gave for Karl Rove," basically exonerating him publicly.  I said, "I will do that only if I am given the same assurances by Scooter." And I called him, I got him on the phone, said, "Were you involved in this in any way?" "No, absolutely not."

MR. RUSSERT:  Would you...

MR. McCLELLAN:  And, and I think White House reporters know, I said I talked to those individuals and they assured me they were not involved, that they can take me on my word when I said that.  Unfortunately, that information turned out to be false.

MR. RUSSERT:  Would you agree to release your grand jury testimony publicly?

MR. McCLELLAN:  I haven't thought about it.  I don't know, I don't know if I have the authority to do that or not.  I, I'm glad to, you know, certainly share my views, as I have in this book, and talk about it.

MR. RUSSERT:  The president said at the time that "if someone committed a crime, they'd no longer work in my administration." Do you believe the president should have fired Karl Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN:  That's a, that's a question that the president had to make, and he chose not to.

MR. RUSSERT:  But what do you think?

MR. McCLELLAN:  Well, I, I think he should have stood by his word.  I think the president should have stood by the word that we said, which is if you were involved in this any way, then you would no longer be in this administration. And Karl was involved in it.  That would be a tough decision.  I don't know if, if there was any crime committed.  I don't--I say I just don't know that in the book.  But we had higher standards at the White House.  The president said he was going to restore honor, integrity.  He said we were going to set the highest of standards.  We didn't live up to that.  When it became known that his top adviser had been involved, then the bar was moved.  And the bar was moved to "if anyone is indicted, they would no longer be here."

MR. RUSSERT:  So you think they should've been dismissed.

MR. McCLELLAN:  I think so.  I mean, Scooter Libby was, and I, and I think that he should...

MR. RUSSERT:  Well, he resigned.  But you...

MR. McCLELLAN:  Yes.  But that was pushed out.

MR. RUSSERT:  But you believe Rove--Rove should've, should've left?

MR. McCLELLAN:  I think the president should've stood by his word, and that meant Karl should've left.

It's a whole bunch of crappy lying and slipping around the question.  Terrible.  If McClellan's happy with writing this in a book, he should be happy to say, "I'm good to go.  Bring on the grand jury."

He's an ass.

The only nugget of funny I can find in this story (and trust me, JLF tries to always pull out the funny, but the topics sometimes are too HAWT-inducing) is McClellan's defense of his actions.  He actually claimed, on Meet the Press, that he came to Washington "with high hopes that we could change Washington... that the President was a bipartisan leader in Texas."  But, once here, McClellan became a mindless robot with no self-control because he says, "I got caught up in the Washington permanent campaign culture just like everyone else."  And changing Washington's status quo?  "It didn't happen. ...  That's one of the things I wanted to look at in the book.  Why did it go so badly off course."

McClellan.  It went so badly off course because you, and everyone else who fell lock-and-step with this administration's insane policies, are a shit head.  You, sir, are even worse because you could see through the madness, or so you claim now, and did nothing about it.  In fact, you shot down people like Clarke who tried to call attention to it... and you didn't even read his arguments.  Oh, I hate you. 

How far-along did this lying go, though?  At what point did he change his mind and realize he was going to step out from the line and say, "Hey, this is horse shit?"  Turns out it was while he was writing the book.  His book proposal said:

"There have been a number of books written about [President Bush], including many more recent ones that portray him in a very negative way.  This book will take a much different look at our Nation's 43rd President.  While being supportive of the President, I want to give readers a candid look into who George Bush is, what he believes, why he believes it so strongely, and what drives him.  ...

"It will be an insider's account of his behind the scenes persona, including his decision-making style, his personal discipline, his composure under fire, and his sense of humor. And I will directly address myths that have been directly associated with him, some deliberately perpetuated by activist liberal and some created by the media, and look at the reality behind those myths.

Then, on Meet the Press, he confessed, "Many of the conclusions I came to at the end I wouldn't have embraced at the beginning."  It was as if he crawled out of his ignorance like a butterfly from a moth.  He says that as he worked on the project, his eyes were opened to the reality of the situation.  I can smell the horse shit from here.

So, what is McClellan's stance now?  Officially?  What does he think of the administration after he was a key part in its propaganda for 3 years?  He says in his book: "Bush was a leader unable to acknowledge that he got it wrong, and unwilling to grow in office by learning from his mistakes - too stubborn to change and grow."

Russert read that to him on the show and McClellan responded with: "It is a true reflection of this President.  We got into the Iraq war... uh.. we went into it in a way that, as I say in the book, uh, was based on a permanent campaign mentality.  It wasn't as open and forthright as it could be and I think that really hurt us later.  When you go to war you have to build bi-partisan support and then you have to sustain it.  We couldn't sustain it because we were not open in the beginning and the President could not go back and admit some of the mistakes that were made early in the buildup to the war.  And I think that that hurts our troops the most because they deserve as much bi-partisan support as we can get here in Washington D.C., and the President failed to do that."

I can't take it anymore.  Looking at the length of this post, you shouldn't be able to take it anymore.  So, I'll sign off with Bob Dole's comments on McClellan's actions:

"Scott,

There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guys to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues.  No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.  In my nearly 36 years of public service, I've known of a few like you. ...

You should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy high profile job.  That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objetively.  You're a hot ticket now but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"

You can check out the entire Meet the Press transcript here.

Scott sums it all up very well, "I have a responsibility to the American people.  I have had a career in public service.  This book is an extension of my career.  I was raised on the values of speaking up and making a positive difference..."  Too bad you spoke up after 3,000+ dead U.S. soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, outed CIA agents, energy prices through the roof, recession kicking in, misled policies on the Fight on Terror, disastrous response to issues at home (Katrina, education, health insurance, home crisis...)....

You're an ass Scott McClellan.  You're what's wrong with this government.

Always your pleasure.

 - JLF


Find me on Facebook.com, and join the HAWTaction.com Reader group.  My name there is Johnny LeadFoot (they didn't allow the space).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In case you want more proof McClellan is what's wrong with the government... his book says:

"The administration ...  shaded the truth; downplaying the major reason for going to war, emphasizing a lesser motivation that could arguably be dealt with in other ways; ...  trying to make the WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable, than they were; quietly ignoring or disregarding some of the crucial caveats in the intelligence, minimizing evidence that pointed in the opposite direction; using innuendo and implication to encourage Americans to believe as fact some things that were unclear and possibly false (such as the idea that Saddam has an active nuclear weapons program) and other things that were overplayed or completely wrong (such as implying Saddam might have an operational relationship with al Qaeda) ...

"The goal was to win the debate, to get Congress and the public to support the decision to confront Saddam.  In the pursuit of that goal, embracing a high level of candor and honesty about the potential war--its larger objectives, its likely costs, and its possible risks--came a distant second."

And here's a discussion McClellan had as the Press Secretary with a female reporter:

"MR. McCLELLAN:  Saddam Hussein possessed and used chemical and biological--used, used chemical weapons against his own people.  He had a history of possessing and using...

Unidentified Woman:  Thirteen years before?

MR. McCLELLAN:  ...using weapons of mass destruction.  He had a history of invading his neighbors.  He had large unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.  He defied the international community for 12 years and some 17 resolutions.

Woman:  ...tell people that there was an imminent, direct threat.

MR. McCLELLAN:  The president made it very clear that we need to act to confront threats in a post-September 11th world before it's too late, before those threats reach our shores and it's too late."