McClellan says his ‘loyalty to the truth’ trumps loyalty to Bush

May 29, 2008

The White House response to Scott McClellan’s new book has been less than subtle. The Bush gang is livid, and in some ways, is trashing McClellan harder than they would a Democratic critic, because McClellan’s criticism is perceived as a “betrayal.”

For his part, McClellan took to the airwaves this morning to defend his work.

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, speaking out for the first time since publication of his searing memoir, told NBC’s “Today” show on Thursday that he erroneously believed what President Bush was saying about the war but now is answering a higher loyalty: “a loyalty to the truth.”

“The White House would prefer that I not talk openly about my experiences,” he said in a lengthy, at time combative interview with anchor Meredith Viera. “These words didn’t come to me easy…. I’m disappointed that things didn’t turn out the way we all hoped they would.”

He added: “I have a higher loyalty than my loyalty necessary to my past work. That’s a loyalty to the truth.”

McClellan added, “There’s no one I’m harder on in the book, I don’t think, than myself.”

I have not yet read the book, so I have no idea if that’s true, but I’d like to hear more about McClellan’s perspective on his own work. All of the media reports I’ve seen point to his harsh analysis of practically everyone in the Bush White House, including the president and vice president. But most of the loyal Bushies have been asking, “Why didn’t Scott speak up before?” and they’re not wrong to ask.

McClellan said this morning his mission had been to write “openly and honestly about what I lived and learned.”

That sounds quite noble, but in McClellan’s case, it’s unfulfilling. Why wasn’t his mission to speak “openly and honestly” while he was the White House press secretary?

To hear McClellan tell it, he needed time and perspective to come to grips with that he’d seen.

McClellan, in turn, said it took him some time after leaving the White House to come to terms with his experience there. When the Iraq war started, “my beliefs were different,” he told “Today.” “I trusted the president’s foreign policy team and I believed the president when he talked about the great and gathering danger from Iraq. I believe the president believed it too. He had convinced himself.

“I don’t think this is a book that I could have written two years ago,” McClellan added. “[I] struggled as I went through this book process. I struggled to come to grips with how things went so badly off course.”

Perhaps. It’s certainly possible that McClellan was stuck in The Bubble, and couldn’t appreciate how badly the White House functioned until there was some distance between himself and the team he represented.

But it’s hardly persuasive. He was there, he saw the Bush gang’s ridiculous behavior and judgment, and he went out to the podium every day to tell us not to believe our lying eyes. I’m glad McClellan wrote the book — by all appearances, it’s an important perspective for the historical record — but he won’t exactly win a “Profile in Courage” award for waiting to come clean.

The general response to McClellan’s change of heart can more or less be summarized in four words: “Now he tells us.”

Post Script: I’d just add that McClellan seems anxious to burn the bridge behind him. He not only trashes the Bush gang in his book, but he did NBC’s “Today” show this morning; he’ll do MSNBC’s “Coundown with Keith Olbermann” tonight; and he’ll do NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. All of this, of course, comes just a week after White House officials suggested Republicans should no longer appear on NBC or MSNBC. His choice of venues, in other words, is twisting the metaphorical knife, just a little.

Sounds like a bunch of BS to me.

I am betting that McClellan saw dollar signs by writing a “tell all” book.

A real man with real convictions would have resigned on the spot instead of lying and propagating lies.

  • All of this, of course, comes just a week after White House officials suggested Republicans should no longer appear on NBC or MSNBC.

    There is a chicken and egg quality to this. Surely the Bush Administration knew the book was coming out. I would be absolutely shocked if they hadn’t read it. If McClellon had top secret clearance, which I assume he did, they certainly knew what was in it, because he would have had to have it proofed. So I’m left wondering whether McClellan chose his venues, or whether he was left with the one that refused to support Bush. I’d be curious if others have seen more Bush friendly coverage on the other channels.

  • Again, I’ll back McClellan.

    Look at his successors.

    Snow and Perino are only too happy to bald-faced LIE and give nothing of any value to teh press. Frankly, all the reputable news outlets should “resign” and not cover these “press conferences” where hard questions are deflected or even punished.

    McClellan, I distinctly remember spinning his answers to show the Bush administration in the best light possible while not weaving stuff out of whole cloth. It was a train wreck every time which is exactly how it should look when a president screws up.

    I think he was fired because he told too much truth. I believe the administration officials lied to him because they knew he was a lousy liar and if given the truth, he’d let it slip out.

    Snow and Perino aren’t remotely credible due to their womb-like comfort in lying.

    His successors show that McClellan did the best he could in a crappy situation.
    He was shown the door and well paid ventriloquist dummies took his podium. I hope he gets a good job somewhere. Yo, Hagel!…whatcha up to these days?

  • I’m going to put this out.

    Boy George II and Scotty have conspired to convince the American people (or some portion thereof) that the real reason BGII went to war in Iraq was a ‘misguided’ belief in Democractization as the solution to all America’s woes with the Middle East and Islamic radicalism, but they couldn’t ‘tell’ America that was the reason for the war because people (read Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson et al) wouldn’t support the war for that reason, so the White House concoted a LIE about Saddam Hussein’s WMD and nuclear programs.

    So it’s not that BGII didn’t want to be honest with us (and he did mention Democratization as a goal in Iraq) it’s just that we Americans are too self-centered to go to war to bring liberty to the Iraqis.

    THIS IS A BIG F**KING LIE!

    We went to Iraq to gain control of their oil. Period. End of story.

    Scott McC is just spinning a new lie.

  • It’s all about perception, and those pesky things can be the hardest things to change. For example, for years, I’ve been trying to get my partner to see McCain for the tool that he is. I’ve given him article after article detailing McCain’s true leanings, and all he has said is “you just don’t like McCain.” Very frustrating. At this point, though, McCain’s election conduct has been so blatantly reprehensible that my partner’s perceptions have finally shifted. I’m not going to tell him “I told you so”, but it’s been fascinating to watch that shift and its obviously painful difficulty. I myself had the hardest time admitting that I’d shifted from Edwards to Obama before Edwards dropped out.

    McClellan gave himself to a certain ideal. He probably whole-heartedly believed in what Bushco was selling, for a long time. It may have taken longer than it should, but he finally saw reality – and more importantly, allowed reality to change his perceptions. Just think how hard it can be to say to one person “I’m sorry, I was wrong.” Now imagine saying it to millions of people. My four words for McClellan would be “better late than never.”

  • Why wasn’t his mission to speak “openly and honestly” while he was the White House press secretary?

    I haven’t read the job description of WH Press Secretary, but I seriously doubt the words “openly and honestly” appear unless it’s under the section titled, “reasons for dismissal.” The PS is the disposable catapult of propaganda, the grand wizard of spin, and the denier of all wrongdoing.

    Anyone who takes the job checks their personal integrity at the door. The thing about McClellan was that he squirmed when lying, indicating to me he knew when he was slinging BS and when he wasn’t.

    As others have said in an earlier post, I wouldn’t believe him now except that he’s just confirming what others have said and what I observed myself. So, to me the messenger is less important than the message — nothing works like repetition.

  • The first exaggeration comes fairly easily. There may be a small pang of conscience about it, but it goes away soon enough.

    A little later, you have to tell an out-and-out lie. Just this once. It’s for a good cause, because you believe in your colleagues and what they are doing.

    It’s kind of intoxicating, attending a daily press conference and speaking on behalf of the President, explaining his policies that will surely make the world a better place.

    Even though you are no expert on military or international affairs. And you know that.

    The War is for a good reason. WMD’s, you know. The smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud…

    Sucked in bit by bit, little by little.

    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice believed their own spin, their own BS. McClellan was a dim bulb (he was a Bush admirer, wasn’t he) who went along for the ride.

    That’s why even a person of conscience wouldn’t speak out when the lies started. That’s being charitable, and assumes that McClellan actually is a person of conscience.

  • A real man with real convictions would have resigned on the spot instead of lying and propagating lies. -David Gustof

    Let’s do him a favor and make him a real man and convict him.

    I completely agree with you that his motivation is primarily monetary, but that doesn’t mean he’s not telling whole or part truths. Let’s leverage his book to our advantage.

  • From everything I’ve heard and read, “dissent” and “differing opinions” are not exactly appreciated in the “Bush Whitehouse Bubble”.

    So, for those asking why he didn’t “speak up sooner”, I’ll bet his pasty white ass would have been kicked out long before it was if he had started “questioning” superiors.

  • Hahahaha.

    Once a rat always a rat. Although I will say that he’s at least burning the “right” bridges.

  • toowearyforoutrage (3):I think he was fire because he told too much truth.

    We have different recollections. My impression was always that he played everything so safe that there was absolutely no reason to show up for his press conferences except to hear your own self-serving question aired on CSPAN or cable news. I also felt he was replaced because the White House wanted someone who would make a bolder defense, whether that meant insulting the press members or inserting unprovable justifications.

  • I think Steve’s hypothesis that McClellan was living too much in the bubble to comprehend the totality of all of the administrations actions holds a lot of water. @ #1 where you say its BS and he is just trying to sell books, you may be right, but I’m sure that Scott, being a loyal Bushie, desperately wanted to believe what he was saying, and did. People can delude themselves into believing silly things and with the Us and Them, you’re either with us or agin’ us attitude the Whitehouse employs, it’s fairly easy to understand that when your in the bubble, you can’t perceive the criticism from people outside, because those are the people who are agin’ us have nothing valid or true to say.

    Doesn’t excuse him being a lying sack of excrement to the american people and media for years though.

  • While I won’t give him a complete pass on not speaking up about things earlier, I do know from personal experience that that when you are in the midst of coping with chaos or whatever, it really is hard to see what is really going on. That is even more so when everyone around you is either doing the same thing or actively trying to keep things like chaotic so no on has time to think. Between being so close that everything is so blurry, the whole boiling frog thing, and the hyper-active way most in the administration were deliberately trying to exclude reality I can see why he didn’t see the way things were going right away. There really was a weird pathological thing going on in the White House that political scientists and psychologists could study for years and we still wouldn’t totally understand it.

    Saying that it seems obvious to us, then and now, what was going on – and I still don’t really see how he could stay quite for so long. But then many on the left were never predisposed like McClellan was, to believe a word that came out of the mouth of anyone/everyone in the administration. I won’t give him a complete bye but he does seem to be doing his small part on setting things right.

  • Don’t you remember how McClellen squirmed and stammered at the podium those last few years? He was clearly uncomfortable in what he was saying. He knew in his heart what was right and what was wrong, it just didn’t work its way up to his head yet.

    So it took some distance for self-examination. He’s human. Cut the kid some slack and give him the respect he eventually earned by calling out the Bush administration for the incompetant liars they are. It can be a difficult road to self-respect, harder even when you get hammered from all sides.

  • Reaction on the right, judging from what I just heard on rightwing talk shows on car radio, is that McClellan, “not being in an important position,” couldn’t have known the truth so he’s just trying to make himself sound important. Because after all Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush were in important positions, were in the war room, knew what was what, knew Iraq was responsible for 9/11 (yes, they still believe that), and did the right thing. McClellan’s book is an effort at self-aggrandizement while picking up a few bucks. People like W don’t lie.

    Sic transit…

  • Why wasn’t his mission to speak “openly and honestly” while he was the White House press secretary?

    Hmmm… Maybe because he was the White House press secretary, and one of that job’s primary responsibilities precludes being open and honest?

    I don’t think McClellan’s an especially courageous guy or anything, but why does no one seem to get that a lot of jobs require saying things they don’t really mean? Defense attorneys, CEOs, and especially paid spokesmen.

    Obviously if he felt the Bush administration was pure evil he should have said so earlier and flushed his high profile career down the toilet, and he didn’t do that. But that’s hardly a surprising decision, unless everyone criticizing him for waiting until he left his post thinks that their job is 100% in accordance with their personal beliefs.

  • Ex-right winger, David Brock, had his come-to-Jesus awakening and now, as the head of Media Matters, he is one of the fiercest opponents of the right wing establishment. Perhaps Scott has had his own come-to-Jesus moment and is able to finally admit his own self-deception while enclosed in the Washington bubble.

    So, I am not going to jump on the bandwagon of those who are condemning him. I take a wait and see attitude and will judge him on how this whole situation plays out. I hope that his expounding on the extreme partisanship in Washington will help change the culture of Washington. If nothing else, it highlights the message that Barack Obama is making a major part of his campaign.

  • If Bush is innocent of any wrong doing, a victim, as Scotty alleges, then how is it that Scotty has come to these revelations, but not Bush?

    Why aren’t the press, the media, going after Bush? Why does he always escape scrutiny? If Scotty is telling the truth, that Bush was ill-served by his administration, then how can it be that Scotty knows this, and Bush doesn’t? At the very least, Bush has to be the dumbest and most incompetent president we’ve ever had, and should be removed from office.

    Or else Scotty is lying, making it all up for some crazy reason, or money.

    I mean this whole affair cries out for an investigation, and we all know that’s not going to happen. Why? Because everybody is guilty, that’s why. The press, media, Congress and the adminstration.

  • ET, You’re explanation holds the most weight for me. While I find it difficult to ascribe motivations to others in clear conscience, I do believe that at, as the defections from the riech come, bit by bit, one by one, and as those who were consumed or caught up in the spin and the lies and the abuses, come forward and basically say, “That was a lie, that was wrong”, it does show some courage, it shows some amount of bravery b/c surely they know that the very smear machine that they used to be a part of, will now visciously turn on them. But they come clean anyway, they see what bu$$h and DICK are doing America and our once proud democracy. I agree it may be too little, and a bit late, but it is still salutary. How many others in the bu$$h regime will ever say “I was wrong.” ? My respect for Scott has grown immensely.

  • About a third to a half of the American public have gone from early support of the war to present opposition. Folks who have made that transition are the reason why the political environment is so different in 2008 than it was in 2002-3-4. McClellan is a part of that group in transitition — probably late because his job gave him a material interest in not changing his mind.

    Those who were right in 2002 and 2003 might want to be a bit more welcoming to the people who are coming along now. This is not about whether you get to wear the “I Told You So” T-shirt for the next decade or so.

  • Stacy6, that was a wonderful narrative of cognitive dissonance. Here’s the Wikipedia explanation of CD:

    Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state that describes the uncomfortable feeling when a person begins to understand that something the person believes to be true is, in fact, not true. Similar to ambivalence, the term cognitive dissonance describes conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitions) that occur at the same time, or when engaged in behaviors that conflict with one’s beliefs. In academic literature, the term refers to attempts to reduce the discomfort of conflicting thoughts, by performing actions that are opposite to one’s beliefs.

    In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one’s beliefs. In detailed terms, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where “cognition” is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.

    I don’t know McClellen’s background. He may be a loyal gooper but was he a loyal neocon? Did he buy into the PNAC vision of the American empire through aggression?

    He continues to protect Bush in many of (what I have seen of) his words (“the president didn’t know” kind of things). I think he’s pretty well gotten a dose of reality of what a puppet Bush truly is (and I bet that level of CD isn’t going to go down too well).

    FWIW.

  • Rather than “now he tells us,” I think the reaction among many people is, “Hi Scott, join the club.” These deceptions have been blatant for years now and McClellan is just the latest to come clean – though only partly.

    He’s still in denial about the reason for the war, replacing one story about it (WMD’s) for another (transformation of the Middle East).

    So the President’s former top spinner is upset because he too was spun, and even as he’s trying to come clean he’s still spinning.

  • In defense of McClellan, I have to point out how significant it is that he was a true believer from the outset. It’s very hard to see what’s right in front of you when you’re already of a fervent mindset one way or the other. The myriad deceptions, and his slowly crumbling confidence in the whole affair was no doubt happening in real time. He probably went through a very long period where he simply didn’t know what to believe anymore, but still wanted very badly to believe in what they were doing. His doubts and skepticism seem to have slowly but surely manifested themselves over time.

  • I hesitate to defend anyone in the Bush circle but I’ll give Scotty some leeway here. Everyone is asking why he didn’t speak up when he was Press Secretary and then there is the laughable Dan Bartlett and the despicable Ari wondering why Scotty hadn’t come to them with his issues. Uh…does anybody really think that those coversations wouldn’t have fallen on deaf ears? Do you think they really would have listened to Scott and would have taken some kind of action or would have been supportive? These are the same guys that constantly make transparent attempts to trash the constitution, have no regard for the wishes and desires of the American people in general, sunbverted the Constitution and still they think they are smarter than everyone else. You can only bash your head against a brick wall for so long. Scottt is not totally complicit but he is only a small cog in an evil machine. Much like the rest of us.

  • Of course that scumsucking yuppie whore Meredith Viera would be “combative.” Mcclellan’s book eviscerates her and the rest of the denizens of the whorehouse known as “the media” as the sub-lemur cretins they are, an no sub-lemur cretin likes having that fact pointed out publicly.

  • I, like Mr. Benen and yourselves, find it astounding that Mr. McClellan only now found his “loyalty to the truth” and would really like to understand Mr. McClellan’s true motives for writing this book. However, focusing on this does little to advance what should be the real question: is he telling the truth now? (which, by the way, shouldn’t be that hard for anyone to believe) I don’t see much in the way of real substantive denials from the White House at this point.

    In fact, I would argue this is exactly the debate the Bush team would like us to engage in. They want us to focus on a very distracting personal character assessment. The mainstream media and the progressive blog community seems to me to be falling for their gambit.

  • Those of you under 45 are mostly too young to have any real informed memories of Watergate, so I’ll just point out that those here attacking Scott McClellan’s motivations had “ancestors” who attacked the motivations of John Dean when he came forward. And history reveals who was right and who was wrong.

    Blind, thoughtless self-righteousness is as ugly in a lefty as in a righty.

  • Interesting that McClellan confirms that the private meeting between Rove and Libby occured in 2005. Wonder what the actual date was.

    October 28, 2005 was the day the indictment for perjury, obstruction of justice, and flase statements against Libby was handed down, and the day Libby tendered his resignation, which was accepted. There were a number of meetings going on according to McClellan’s Press Briefing on that day. And as of October 28, 2005, White House personnel were instructed to have no further communications/contact with Libby. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051028-14.html

    McClellan’s characterization of the meeting as private, and the hint that it apeared to be a meeting to get their stories straight, makes me think that Rove and Libby knew they could not risk being seen together again, and they had to get it straight one last time so they would be consistent with their stories. I bet that was one hell of an “Aha” lightbulb moment for McClellan. It’s always a shock to realize that you’ve been played for a fool, and you were to stupid to pick up the signals.

  • steve’s probably right about mcclellan needing time outside the bubble. the book he wrote isn’t the one that he pitched to publishers. no one thought he’d write this.

  • Toowearyforoutrage said: “I think he was fired because he told too much truth. I believe the administration officials lied to him because they knew he was a lousy liar and if given the truth, he’d let it slip out.”

    Myself, I think he was fired not because he told any truth (I can’t remember any, anyway) but just because he was a clumsy and transparent liar. They wanted a smooth liar who the press would like and identify with, so we got first, Tony Snow, media person, then Dana Perino, cute blond. Neither of them has a problem with fabricating lies out of whole cloth, so they worked out much better for the Bushies.

    It could be argued on Scot McClellan’s behalf that he has a rudimentary conscience and that’s why he lied so badly. But to say that he was just a naive innocent in the wilds of Bushworld is just another clumsy lie. He knew what was going on. He might have hated it, but he knew. Furthermore, the Bushbots would never have kept him around if they didn’t think they could trust him.

  • rvadem, I agree. Is it the offense that reporting what has occured (vis a vis the build up to Iraq and all the other crap) in the Bush White House since the year 2000 reprehensible?…or is it the messenger that should be shot. If McClellen is lying, let the Bushies prove him wrong. The ball is in their court. If they can disprove his allegations, let em” trot their witnesses out have at it. If his allegations go ignored by those in a position to disprove them that tells us a lot doesn’t it?

  • Could this be a John Dean-ish “Cancer on the Presidency” moment and mea culpa from the previously, despicable BushMouth.

  • Here’s the thing;

    One should not underestimate how much money and notoriety he could have secured himself by playing nice with the Bush Administration. He could keep up appearances on the lecture circuit, probably shuffle off to Fox news, and be a right-wing cheerleader in general. There is no downside to staying in the good graces of a wealthy, connected president (or soon to be ex-president) and his wealthy, connected cronies. One should also not overestimate how “rich” he’s going to get. As much buzz as this book is generating, it’s not a Harry Potter sequel we’re talking about.

    Really, all of this is immaterial, which is why the right-wing and the administration use these and other arguments to smear him. He did a good thing by setting the record straight, and, as a public servant, telling the truth to those you serve is more important than loyalty. Should he have done it sooner? Hell, yes. But at least he did it. I could fill two paragraphs with the names of people who bear a lot more responsibility for the various messes we’re in who have not, yet and probably never will, come clean. Beyond what you or I may think of McClellan personally, he has done a good thin gby writing this book.

    And hey; at least it came out before the election.

  • If Mr. McClellan is actually sincere, why doesn’t he offer a full public apology to Valerie Plame for his role in torpedoing her life and career? No one has had the ‘nads to do so yet.

  • Why wasn’t his mission to speak “openly and honestly” while he was the White House press secretary?

    Oh, please. The man was hired to shill for fascists who have no ability, much less intention, on being truthful about anything. “Openly and honestly” = “Unemployed”.

    One truthful utterance at that podium would’ve had the Secret Service guys ripping his badge off and throwing him over the gate.

    He is now in the unfortunate position of being branded a traitor by his old crew, admonished by the opposition for not coming clean sooner, and trusted by no one. And any sympathy for the man I might muster is immediately squelched by the recollections of his press briefings.

    I hope your publisher gave you a big fat advance, Scotty, because no one will want to be around after this finally dies down.

  • The US government has great control over its citizens. The people fear the government, which should be the other way around. Enough bickering against one another. Let us all unite for a better future. United we stand, divided we fall.

    There used to be a time when people would march in the streets and voice out their disagreement with the government. I guess people today just don’t care anymore. They have better things to do.

    America is a democracy. Only during elections. Our votes count. We elect the people who we want to govern us. But once elected, America becomes an OLIGARCHY. Our elected officials have gone deaf to hear our voices. They have been blinded by money. They have been crippled by different corporations asking for a payback for their contributions during the campaign period.

    This book exposes how the leader of America deals with its business. McClellan’s loyalty is not to Bush. McClellan’s loyalty is to the people who elected Bush. By writing the book, he risked being persecuted. He risked his friendship with the President and his colleagues. By writing the book, he has shown his loyalty to the truth and to the American people.

  • The Kool Aid effect takes a while to wear off and for some, the effect is permanent.

  • Shame on you for attacking the messenger, thereby belittling the message.

    “If you knew he might be innocent why didn’t you stand up in the middle of the lynch mob and say so”. Give me a break. First there comes a “sense” that something isn’t right. You just can’t be sure because denial and plausibility abound.

    Then when you do know something, how big is it and how likely are you to be believed? Do you have concrete proof to stand alone against the huge oppositon you are likely to come up against. Do you need to worry about harm to your family. Maybe it’s all in your mind.

    Is it so hard to understand the time it takes to go through these processes before you feel motivated enough to think you need to do something that might actually do more than just get you buried.as a result.

    You join the huge line of the Bush and media attack team by attributing the most base motivations behind Scott writing such a book. There’s no doubt he wants to make money from this enterprise but there were a number of ways he could have accomplished this besides saying what he said in the book. I applaud his efforts and his courage to stand up to what he knew would be the onslaught from the republican right wing and the Bush regime. Good on him for opening up further the ever widening crack of this corrupt coup.

    He says Bush affirmed in person that he ok’d the outing of Valerie Plame. Now if he will say that under oath before congress then congress will have to impeach . He will have brought about what millions of us have been trying to accomplish for 7yrs now. In my book that amounts to a hero…a brave hero. I don’t see anyone else coming forward.

  • “I don’t think this is a book that I could have written two years ago,” McClellan added.

    I had *no idea* that drinking KoolAid gave one a two-year hangover. Things you learn by reading blogs…

    • Comments are closed.