Just reading about excerpts from a book by one of the men most responsible for President Bush’s rapidly declining poll numbers in the first fifteen months of the President’s second term. And it shows how this man whose tenure as White House press secretary was best defined (to paraphrase Bill Kristol’s expression) as being in a constant “defensive crouch” now accuses administration officials of being “involved” in his “unknowingly pass[ing] along false information” about the involvement of some of those officials in “outing” then-CIA analyst Valerie Plame.
I’m sure denizens of the netroots already whipping themselves into a frenzy and pulling out their worn-out old bromides about the administration’s deceptions.
While the media will focus on the alleged efforts of the much-maligned (in the MSM) White House officials to slander Ms. Plame, they will neglect an important story about Mr. McClellan’s incompetence. He was the White House press secretary at the time. And he was more interested in playing defense, handling queries about Ms. Plame rather than going on offense and challenging the credibility of her dishonest husband.
That spouse, netroots hero Joe Wilson claimed that President Bush lied in his January 28, 2003 State of he Union address when he spoke these sixteen now famous words, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.ā That Mr. Wilson said that he knew the president was lying because he had been to the African nation where Mr. Hussein supposedly was trying to buy Niger and reported that the then-Iraqi dictator was doing no such thing.
But, it turns out that CIA believed Wilson’s report lent credence to the notion that Hussein was indeed trying to get yellowcake uranium from Niger. (Basically, Mr. Wilson’s report didn’t say what he publiclhy said it did.) Not only that, Mr. Wilson lied about how he got his job. And he had didn’t know whether not the president (or any of his advisors) had seen his report. While he was accusing the president of lying, he was the one spreading falsehoods.
Instead of playing defense to the press’s queries, a responsible White House Press Secretary would have taken the time to discredit point by point that Democratic partisan’s deceptions.
There likely never would have been a scandal had Mr. McClellan gotten out of his defensive crouch and done his job. Instead, several conservative journals (and blogs) and at least one non-partisan web-site have done it for him. One wonders why the president did not appoint someone more aggressive for the job.
It’s too bad the president wasn’t as sensitive to his public image as was his predecessor. Or was as concerned with telling the truth about his record — and getting that message out — as he was with stubbornly standing by his staff.
So far it seems the MSM has focused on only one aspect of the story. Perhaps, when Mr. McClellan’s book comes out, people will discuss more that man’s inability to deal with an aggressive and antagonistic press corps.
By all available evidence, it’s clear that Scott McClellan is a decent man, a nice guy and loyal to George W. Bush. But, he was clearly not cut out to be White House Press Secretary at a time when the media was hostile to the administration and skeptical of the president’s every action, indeed every word that he spoke.
UPDATE: It’s almost amusing reading AP’s coverage of this. No wonder Vince P (in comment #1) called this “the story that refuses to die.” AP headlines its story (at least the version I got via Yahoo!) Former aide blames Bush for leak deceit, but the text of the article doesn’t provide any statement from McClellan allocating such blame. AP seems to have so convinced itself that Bush is a liar that it need not provide evidence to make the case.
Yes, McClellan says the “president himself” was “involved” in his passing along “false information.” But, he doesn’t show (nor has anyone showed) that the president knew any of his aides mentioned Ms. Plame’s name to the media. (If the president did know that his aides had done so and told McClellan otherwise–and McClellan said as much, then and only then would the headline be accurate.)
(For that matter, Rove never mentioned her name either, only responding to one reporter that he had heard she worked at the CIA while encouraging another to steer clear of the Wilson story because his wife worked at the CIA.)
As AP reporter Matt Apuzzo himself writes, the excerpt from McClellan’s book “doesn’t get into detail about how Bush and Cheney were involved or reveal what happened behind the scenes.” He says they were involved, so we’ll have to wait for the book’s release to see what that involvement was.
I wonder if McClellan will address in his book why he did not, as White House Press Secretary, challenge Joe Wilson’s long-since discredited statements which made him a cause celebre among Democrats and the netroots. Perhaps, he’ll reflect on his own failure to deal with that Democrat’s deceptions.
For the real issue here is the White House’s ham-handed response to a dishonest partisan. Because of that ham-handed response, this issue is one which refuses to die. And the MSM continues to dwell on the “leak” while giving short shrift (if any shrift at all) to Wilson’s deceptions.
OMG… the story that refuses to die!
Where’s Ari Fleischer when we really need him? š
mmm yum
Have there ever been more people trying to get rich from a non story? The Plames now the lame McClelland.
So he is now incompetent and lame? He asked questions, Bush and pals lied to his face, then he tried to sell those lies to the country (as they knew he would), yet he is the one thrown under the bus?
This is a very strange post…
Gil, why is it a strange post? I have long been faulting McClellan for lacking the boldness to stand up to a hostile media. The point of the post was that had had he a strategy for dealing with Wilson’s dishonesty, the White House may never have found itself in the mess it did.
And anyway, McClellan didn’t say that Bush lied to him. There’s no evidence that Bush knew that Rove or anyone else had mentioned Ms. Plame’s name to the media. And from the extensive investigation, we know that Rove never mentioned her name to the two reporters who asked him about it.
It does seem that Scooter Libby may well have deceived McClellan. McClellan may well have a point here, but I was also making one about his being ill-suit to be White House Press Secretary.
Actually, there never would have been a scandal if the liberals weren’t so hell bent on inventing one. They keep trying to fabricate one, but it always turns to excrement on their faces (as usual).
Somebody needs to visit the GP archives and educate themselves. But that’s what an intelligent person would do. Gutless liberals do not.
And I still want to know why the Wilson’s weren’t called before the Grand Jury.
If this had happened in the Clinton administration the same people who claim this was no big deal would be calling for impeachment hearings.
We will get decent government when we stop excusing unethical and illegal acts on our side and hold everyone to the same standard.
I’m not holding my breath.
GPW
Sometimes your posts are funny, brilliant and wonderful to read
Other times you come off as a Hack.
This is one of those “Hack” times. Especially your “update”
What you call “ham handed” is really bush and pals meeting about, and planning how they will refute Wilson while McClellan had no role. It appears Cheney and Rove kept him from having any information and instead lied to his face about their involvement.
So you can’t put the blame on him. The blame must go on Bush and his inner circle who decided to fight this with innuendo and not through his spokesperson who was left in the dark and in the end, holding the bag.
Classic conservative ethics.
I agree.
I cant believe anyone supports Hillary considering what she did to the White House Travel Office Staff shortly after getting in the WH. Framing people for fraud so you can get your LA buddies in to be your travel agent… no excuse for it.
I dont say this to be a point/counter-point type baby tactic.. generally i like to pretend the clinton era never happened and never discuss it again
Vince,
This is exactly why I cringe at the idea of another Clinton presidency. There is a lot of “anti-Hillary” sentiment among Democrats. She might get the nomination anyway given her ability to raise money. (Her ability to raise money for her own campaigns is almost as strong as the right’s ability to raise money using her name. LOL) But I don’t trust that we wouldn’t get lots more of everything I have hated inside the last two administrations if she is elected.
Classic conservative ethics.
Tell me, since when did liberals know a damn thing about ethics???
Furthermore, talk about hacks? With your belief in Beauchamp and your defense of the lying POS Wilsons, you sir/ma’am are HACK personified. Every goddam post you offer us are prime examples of your hackery (yeah I said it).
Please, all, forgive the above comment. It was accidentally cut and pasted from another comments thread.
Strange that “ethics” should be dragged into this. “Political ethics” is an oxymoron. We respect the politician who comes closest to acting like an ethical person.
The president (any president) engages is managing when and how news from his desk is delivered. The Press Secretary’s job it to carry the message and to contain the negative spin. The MSM has never fawned over Bush, so his Press Secretary must be equipped to handle snipers.
Anyone who knows the skeletal outline of the Plame/Wilson charges should be loathe to start tossing around the concept of “ethics.” That is not to say that unethical people should be treated in an unethical manner.
The whole claim that Valerie Plame was “outed” is a charade. Let there be an open trial. Of course, that can not happen, because the workings of the CIA must remain in the shadows. It is that fact that Plame/Wilson have used to continue their Swiss cheese allegations.
This also why we will probably never know what Sandy Berger stuffed in his socks.
I like it when people who take dirty Chinese campaign cash over and over worry about ethics. hehe. What money, what FBI files, Livingstone, who’s he?, I don’t recall….
And the fact that, in open trial, Plame’s “I was covert” would be shredded to ribbons, given that Plame openly broke numerous rules about what covert operatives could do publicly — and it doesn’t even mention the fact that Plame was yanked back to the US because the CIA was certain her identity had been given to the Soviets by Aldrich Ames.
That’s why there will never be one. Put a real CIA official on the stand, get them to recite the agency’s own rules, and present evidence like this, and what are they going to say? That they allowed an agent who had openly used an embassy address, who had openly been in positions that everyone KNEW made her likely to be a CIA agent, who worked for a farcical company that any ten-year-old could have seen through, much less trained intelligent analysts, and who they KNEW had been outed to the entire Eastern Bloc to be a “covert agent” — because her husband was a Democrat donor and Clinton lackey?
Rather than rehash the Plame-Wilson-Novak non-story, I’d like to point out Dan that you’ve been pretty consistent on one point: loyalty to staff in politics has no place in the WH.
Conservatives have tossed McClellan, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Myers and others under that bus of political expediency… and they may still do it to Cheney or Gates, if they get the chance (God forbid). I can imagine some here literally salivating at Veep Cheney’s health problems hoping that he’ll take an exit card and they can press W to name conservative-dream-boi Freddie Thompson as Veep.
Conservatives remind me of the Georgia hunter who, when asked by a NYTimes reporter why the hunter shot his hunting dog, replied to the Yankee “He was eating more food than he was helping me catch.”
Loyalty to staff in presidential circles matters, boys. W has been as consistent on that point of character as some of you have been to quickly toss the offending staffer under the bus.
I give W big points for his loyalty to staff. But then, I think that’s maybe why conservatives loathed JerryFord and Bush41 so much… because conservatives saw in those leaders tests of loyalty the conservatives knew they’d lose if they were holding the cards. Just because RR was keen to ditch staffers when the astrologers told Nancy to doesn’t mean that RR had the issue of staff loyalty in proper perspective.
I don’t get how people who fashion themselves “patriots” can demand others be so disloyal at a personal level? I thought patrioitism and loyalty rose from the same place on the soul.
Where is Bush’s loyalties to his staff of court martialed Marines and imprisoned Border Guards.
Talk about eating your own, his own Federal Attorneys and Military Lawyers are the ones sending them to jail.
Screw Bush
Vince, with due respect, some of the court martialed Marines have deserved the sentence handed out to them by the military courts or their superiors. If you’re talking about Murtha’s targets, I think the book isn’t sealed yet, no? If you’re speaking about border guards who exceeded their authority, violated USC/DHS regs and practiced a violent felonious act… well that’s a matter for the federal courts and, if justice hasn’t been served, I’m sure Bush will have a chance to correct the sentence by pardon if warranted.
W is loyal to his staffers. As Dan often points out, W should have fired various staffers when they no longer met Dan’s perceived sense of effectiveness. I look at it this way: if there had been no Scott McClellan or John Ashcroft, we’d never been blessed with their replacements.
Again, I wonder how the passion for patriotism can cause so many conservatives to ask, no DEMAND, the Pres be disloyal to public staffers. Patriotism and loyalty arise from the same spot on the soul.
Disloyal to staffers? Clinton, sure with a notable exception. RR, just check the stars’ alignment and double check with Nancy’s people. Ford, Carter, Bush 41 and Bush 43 have been loyal to a fault.
Remember, the phrase “getting Borked” came out of the conservative President RR’s term and his lack of resolve to support the farRight’s choice to fill Powell’s seat on SCOTUS… the ultimate disloyalty by a President. Staff getting Borked in the face of opposition by others calling for their ouster for political reasons.
Heck, even after SandiBurger was caught and found guilty of stuffing National Archive documents in his shorts, the Clintons still let him serve on the political campaign as a trusted advisor. That’s taking loyalty too far, tho.