McClellan vows to donate a ‘portion’ of his profits

June 1, 2008

On Friday, MoveOn.org challenged Scott McClellan to do the right thing with his book profits.

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has a new book out in which he admits that Bush misled the nation into war. Coming clean is great — but profiting from lying to the public isn’t. McClellan was a critical part of the effort to sell us the war and now he’s poised to make millions of dollars for it. That’s wrong.

That’s why we’re calling on him to donate the proceeds of his book to a group that helps Iraq veterans, like IAVA. McClellan’s going to be on all the news shows this weekend and if we can make lots of noise about this he’ll probably get asked about it.

Good guess, MoveOn. Sure enough, and to his credit, Tim Russert pressed McClellan on just this point this morning on “Meet the Press.”

“Some have suggested because you were a part of the propaganda machine that sold the war, that many people have died and been injured because of the war, you should donate some of the profits of this book to the families of the victims of the Iraq war,” Russert said. “Will you do that?”

McClellan responded, “I intend to. I do intend to. I’ve already made that decision.”

Russert pressed on, asking, “Significantly?” To which McClellan said, “A portion. I don’t know what I’ll do, Tim, but a portion. I do intend to do that. My wife and I look for ways to always support the troops, including sending care packages regularly to them.”

Let’s hope that’s true.

And speaking of McClellan, Frank Rich had a good item today, explaining why the former press secretary’s revelations still matter.

So why the fuss? Mr. McClellan isn’t a sizzling TV personality, or, before now, a household name beyond the Beltway. His book secured no major prepublication media send-off on “60 Minutes” or a newsmagazine cover. But if the tale of how the White House ginned up the war is an old story, the big new news is how ferocious a hold this familiar tale still exerts on the public all these years later. We have not moved on.

Americans don’t like being lied to by their leaders, especially if there are casualties involved and especially if there’s no accountability. We view it as a crime story, and we won’t be satisfied until there’s a resolution.

That’s why the original sin of the war’s conception remains a political flash point, however much we tune out Iraq as it grinds on today. Even a figure as puny as Mr. McClellan can ignite it. The Democrats portray Mr. McCain as offering a third Bush term, but it’s a third term of the war that’s his bigger problem. Even if he locks the president away in a private home, the war will keep seeping under the door, like the blood in “Sweeney Todd.”

Most important is Russert’s framing: “Some have suggested because you were a part of the propaganda machine that sold the war, that many people have died and been injured because of the war, . . . ”

This hurts McCain badly, and serves the truth well. I can live with the hypocrisy of Russert pretending he wasn’t a part of the propaganda machine if he and his ilk start consistently framing the discussion like this.

  • While I don’t have very much respect for McClellan, I have to agree with Frank Rich.

    Yes, Scott’s revelations are too late to prevent what happened, and yes, speaking out now after the fact doesn’t make him a hero, and yes, this is probably a CYA strategy, but he is still another voice with another piece of evidence. The more of that we have, the less cover the GOP and its leaders have. They want to put a lid on this, just as they do with all of their corruption. The more people we have speaking out, the more likely we can prevent the GOP from covering this up and ignoring it.

  • I just don’t get it. The press, media, Congress and administration are all complicit one way or another in the crime of the century – attacking and occupying Iraq for no good reason.

    So along come a few whistle-blowers, and they’re excoriated for one reason or another by the crowd who committed or aided and abetted the crime. Then, to add a little chutzpah to the mix, they demand that the whistle-blowers give up the profits they’re making for telling the truth.

    Meanwhile, the crime itself continues to be ignored, the perpetrators uninvestigated, unindicted, and unconvicted.

    To top it all off, the press and media ask, “What lessons [going forward] do we learn from what the whistle-blowers have told us?”

    They should be asking why the hell isn’t the crime being investigated? And why aren’t the war profiteers giving up all the tens of billions they’ve “earned” on this illegal war, and giving back all the money they’ve made in outright fraud? Why doesn’t anybody care about that? Or about the 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians killed because GWB suffers from delusions of grandeur? Or the wreckage of Iraq? Or the more than half a trillion bilked from the taxpayers for this outrageous disaster?

    I just don’t get it. There’s no accountability for this mess. Nobody seems to give a damn. All they care about is blasting the whistle-blowers.

  • Hark writes: So along come a few whistle-blowers, and they’re excoriated for one reason or another by the crowd who committed or aided and abetted the crime. Then, to add a little chutzpah to the mix, they demand that the whistle-blowers give up the profits they’re making for telling the truth.

    MoveOn didn’t commit, aid or abet Bush’s war crimes. As for McClellan’s book profits, it’s the least he can do.

  • 2. On June 1st, 2008 at 1:23 pm, Shade Tail said:
    While I don’t have very much respect for McClellan, I have to agree with Frank Rich.

    Yes, Scott’s revelations are too late to prevent what happened, and yes, speaking out now after the fact doesn’t make him a hero, and yes, this is probably a CYA strategy, but he is still another voice with another piece of evidence. The more of that we have, the less cover the GOP and its leaders have. They want to put a lid on this, just as they do with all of their corruption. The more people we have speaking out, the more likely we can prevent the GOP from covering this up and ignoring it.

    Yeah, I agree.

  • If Scott goes before congress and testifies under oath that Bush told him he was responsible for outing Valerie Plame and forces congress to impeach Buch/Cheney, that’s a hero in my book. No one else is getting it done. Remember he even pardoned…er commuted Libby’s sentence. Watch Pelosi ignore this disclosure because itr might “interfere with policy making”.

    Notice Russert just get himself to say “move on.org”. This from the man the WH used to “control the message”. Yeah Russert, you should donate at least 3yrs salary for the propaganda you’ve been supporting.

  • Listen carefully to the Bushies (and their media supporters) when they criticize McClellan. They seem to have gone directly from denying crimes to accusing McClellan of disloyalty, greed and not acting sooner, as though these are the bigger crimes. It’s the silence in between that says the most. They are not denying his conclusions.

    I can’t wait until someone from the media actually does one of these books – John Gibson, maybe?

  • If McClellan wants to testify before Congressional committees, and Bush objects, does Bush have any legal authority under the “executive privilege” doctrine to prevent McClellan from testifying?

    I know that Bush is supposedly blocking Harriet Myers, Karl Rove and others from testifying, but they don’t want to testify.

    If anyone knows, I would be interested your comments.

  • I don’t believe McClellan really has to donate the profits from his book, as a matter of ethics, but it would be nice if he did as a sign of good faith, to deflect accusations of “cashing in” and to offer some redress for the evils of the Bush administration (insofar as redress is possible).

    “A portion,” of course, is by itself a meaningless phrase. Anyone who has caught wise to advertising knows that a portion can be anything from a penny to the whole thing minus a penny.

    As for his motives, I don’t know what they are. But remember that Mark (“Deep Throat”) Felt performed a valuable service to the nation, no matter what his motives.

  • OkieFromMuskogee – My understanding is that executive privelege belongs to the President, just as doctor/patient or attorney/client privelege belong to the patient. However, since he wrote this book, and the White House had an opportunity to reject parts because of classification concerns, it becomes much trickier. I should think that at least they could make him state under oath that specific passages are true.

  • Okie:

    It will be hard for Bush to stop McClellan testifying since they’re going to ask him about what he has already made part of the public record, so it’s not the same as saying they’re protecting the WH privacy, as with Rove and Miers.

    McClellan testifying is going to be the “John Dean moment” of this administration. We may not get Bush/Cheney impeached, but we may destroy the Republican Party for 20 years – right now even Mitch McConnell is in trouble with his re-election. There are 24 GOP senators up for re-election and they’re even worried in Missisippi, f’r chrissakes. We could see a blowout that leaves the GOP irrelevant to the proecess after November. People could just get that mad at the scumballs if they hear this stuff from him. Us, they can dismiss as a bunch of “lib’rul activists,” but he comes from inside. I remember in Watergate how my father-in-law wouldn’t believe anything – and then the Dean testimony and the Saturday Night Massacre ended his membership in the Republican Party forever after.

  • Maybe he can be as generous as that blowhard Bill O’Reilly and give his book away to all the troops in Iraq.

  • To be charitable regarding Scott, I would like to remind people of David Brock. He wrote the book “Blinded by the Right.” He is an ex-right winger who is now head of Media Matters. Just goes to show that people can change.

    I think that Scott was blinded by his affection to Bush and the way Bush governed while he was governor of Texas. He wanted to believe but was ultimately confronted with the truth. He admits that he was a subject of own self deception. I give him a lot of credit for coming forth now. Better now than never.

  • OkieFromMuskogee.
    The argument is if information from a book is considered public information, executive privilege can not be invoked. Easy right, well except the ‘advise’ came before the book and I am guessing they are going to claim the president will not get unfettered advise if he has to worry about future book deals.

    At least now any advise coming from the Justice Department can not be tucked away to be used after the fact.

    The problem I have with Scotty is two fold. First, why is he not in jail ? I am no legal, but I do not believe that lying to the public about a war it not illegal. He blew the whistle on himself for personal gain, that is not honorable and a real nice incentive for others to follow in his tracks.

    The other issue is the interviews. Please, he is his own Press Secretary and even on Olbermann, just watching him work his craft made me want to vomit. I have no doubt he told most of the truth, but would I vote yes if I were on a jury on Scotty’s word, not likely. The spin machine knows this and has had a weekend to regroup. His whole premise is they lied to him and/or they made him lie, and his proof is his word. Great, he will go tell Congress what is already in print and anyone who can actually corroborate his testimony will claim executive privilege and round and round we go.

    It still made my week. It seems as if each week is producing something substantial that proves what liberals have been saying for years. From the environment, the gas crisis, to the econonmy, to the war, to everything.

    2008 STATS
    Dumb People (R) – 0
    Smart People (D) – 100

  • Last time I heard someone say ‘I intend to …’, he didn’t follow up on his intention. Does it ring a bell?

  • I don’t consider McClellan as much of a “whistleblower”, since he only confirmed what many of us knew (or “knew”) anyway, and that only after he was no longer Bush’s employee. If he’d sat through much of the manipulative briefings, recorded them, and then released the recordings, while still being employed at the White House… That, in my mind, would have made him a true “whistleblower”.

    So, sure, if he’s seen the light, however late, he can “atone” by donating a “portion” (10%? The traditional “tithing” amount?) of the book profits to the victims, just as he’s assuaged his conscience by writing the book. But the only way to really cancel his debt would be to do everything he can to get the whole upper echelons (Bush, Cheney — especially Cheney, Rumsfeld and on down) in chains and stripped of *all* their ill-gotten gains. And, since that would require the co-operation of the entire Congress, I don’t see it happening any time soon.

    BTW. Here’s Bill Mitchell’s “take” on the story: very much like that of MoveOn:
    http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/analysis/toons/2008/05/30/mitchell/

  • McClellan should contribute, but the neocons et al who are writing books admitting no wrongdoing are the ones who should have to contribute big time, perhaps under the law that says one cannot make money from their warcrimes.

  • I hope someone asks Tim Russert if he plans to donate part of his salary for also being a silent douche in the lead-up to the war.

  • I’m sure someone will follow up on this one later but he’s in the clear somewhat because he said a portion. Whats that? Twenty bucks? I hope moveon blasts away at everyone who’s profiting from the war. Dinner speakers fees are another example.

    • Comments are closed.