Scott McClellan, former White House press secretary, has a new book coming out in April. His publisher has released a very short excerpt on its website:
The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
There was one problem. It was not true.
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President’s chief of staff, and the President himself.
This is obviously big news. Scott came with Bush from Texas, he had a very public role in the administration, he was trusted by many. The excerpt appears to be a bombshell.
That is, of course, what his publisher wants – although releasing that material now, five months before its scheduled late-April launch is a bit odd. The more buzz the better.
But there are several reasons to be cautious of jumping to any bombshell conclusions:
- It lacks any context. There are, quite literally, innumerable things that could precede or follow those words. He could say that the reason those five people were involved in passing along false information was because it was all Scooter Libby’s fault. He could say Elvis told them to do it. We have no clue.
- He does not say they knowingly mislead him. He simply says five people were involved in giving him misleading information; he doesn’t say it was an orchestrated disinformation campaign.
- In all likelihood the book isn’t even finished yet. It isn’t due out for another five months. By the time it is finally put to bed he will have ample opportunity to change it. I am sure he is getting a lot of calls encouraging him to not make any more waves.
For Scott to break with Bush and his friends from Texas would be extraordinary. He is certainly capable of it. He is a man who values his integrity and his faith. If he felt that there were things to say “for the sake of history” I have no doubt he’d say them no matter the cost.
Will he? The first indicator will come this week. If he remains silent throughout the week then the White House may have reason to worry. If clarifications and backtracking and apologies from the publisher for printing those paragraphs of an “incomplete” book are issued then there’s little need for White House worry. Stay tuned.
posted November 21, 2007 at 8:21 am
In other words, never fear an accuser who stutters?
To me, Valerie Plame is Bush’ Monica Lewinsky. The story is sympathetic but (unless you’re Valerie Plame,) hardly important against the critical matter of a government that won’t follow its own laws.
posted November 21, 2007 at 9:05 am
McClellan appears to be simply giving us another angle on the same story you covered in your book, David. Yes, the piece may well be out of context, but the deceit alluded to in that piece echoes the deceit you mention in your book.
posted November 21, 2007 at 9:08 am
What did the President know and when did he know it?
I think this is a fair question to ask again. Even if the President did not initiate the leak, it appears to have originated from the highest levels of his administration, and he must have been aware of it at some early point in this scandal. For all the President’s stubborness and refusal to back down and admit when he made a mistake in judgement or competence(such as Iraq or Katrina), I find it most galling and disappointing when a fellow believer is unwilling to admit a moral one. He pledged he would fire any official in his administration who leaked the case-where is is his backbone? Where is his own moral indignation. Instead he urges us that it is an old story and to move on. As Christians, we need to try to make things right when wrong is committed not bury it underground. More so as a leader who sets an example for others, and even more so as a “Christian” leder who also is a witness for Christ.
As Christians, we can forgive a President who is human but we cannot tolerate sin. I personally would like to see a leader who professes to be a Christian (and arguably uses it for convenient political purpose) display less hubris and more humility. Knowing right from wrong, and acting accordingly would also help. I don’t see it coming from President Bush sadly. I hope and pray we will see it in our next President.
posted November 21, 2007 at 9:10 am
What did the President know and when did he know it?
I think this is a fair question to ask again. Even if the President did not initiate the leak, it appears to have originated from the highest levels of his administration, and he must have been aware of it at some early point in this scandal. For all the President’s stubborness and refusal to back down and admit when he made a mistake in judgement or competence(such as Iraq or Katrina), I find it most galling and disappointing when a fellow believer is unwilling to admit a moral one. He pledged he would fire any official in his administration who leaked the case-where is is his backbone? Where is his own moral indignation. Instead he urges us that it is an old story and to move on. As Christians, we need to try to make things right when wrong is committed not bury it underground. More so as a leader who sets an example for others, and even more so as a “Christian” leder who also is a witness for Christ.
As Christians, we can forgive a President who is human but we cannot tolerate sin. I personally would like to see a leader who professes to be a Christian (and arguably uses it for convenient political purpose) display less hubris and more humility. Knowing right from wrong, and acting accordingly would also help. I don’t see it coming from President Bush sadly. I hope and pray we will see it in our next President.
posted November 21, 2007 at 11:34 am
This is a little reminiscient of Rush Limbaugh’s delightful mea culpa after the Democratic congressional victory:”I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don’t think deserve having their water carried.”
Finally the idea that deceiving the electorate to protect a bunch of lying, incompetent scoundrels is wrong gets some traction.
About time!
posted November 21, 2007 at 12:59 pm
McClellan comes from an extended political family in Texas that is extraordinarily well-connected to the Bushes. For him to feel betrayal — especially given the way he stood in the well day after day to take reporters’ hostile Valerie Plame questions — I find remarkable.
posted November 21, 2007 at 2:08 pm
When a political agenda is god, should we be surprised when those committed to protecting it act like the devil?
posted November 21, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Pardno my cynicism, but this is hardly “big news”. It isn’t even “news” for many of us who simply doubted from the beginning, merely confirmation.
posted November 21, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Et tu, Scott?
I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you! The president knew of this? All this time I thought it was all an elaborate fabrication of the left wing media and all the America haters. Now one of Bush’s closest confidantes is saying Mr. Bush did something untoward? He must have been brainwashed by the liberal abortionists.
/sarcasm.
posted November 22, 2007 at 4:05 am
Well, it sure didn’t take long for the retraction.
Phil, bringing up the Robin Lowman Garner abortion will definitely make you persona non grata with Team Bush.
posted November 22, 2007 at 8:00 am
Yaaaaawwwwnnnnn.
Another comfortable day in the United States of America.
Thank you Mr. Bush.