By JENNIFER LOVEN , Associated Press

Last update: May 29, 2008 - 12:33 AM

Was it proper for Scott McClellan to write his insider book?
WHAT IS YOUR TAKE? Traitor, Opportunist, Survivor, Realist or none of the above ????????????????

Yes, the public needs to know the truth
Yes, although his role limits his policy expertise
No, there is no place for this kind of betrayal
No, he was out of the loop for much of what he wrote about
If he saw abuses, he should have spoken out at the time
Not sure


WASHINGTON - In a shocking turnabout, the press secretary most known for defending President Bush on Iraq, Katrina and a host of other controversial issues produced a memoir damning of his old boss on nearly every level — from too much secrecy to a less-than-honest selling of the war to a lack of personal candor and an unwillingness to admit mistakes.

In the first major insider account of the Bush White House, one-time spokesman Scott McClellan calls the operation "insular, secretive and combative" and says it veered irretrievably off course as a result.

The White House responded angrily Wednesday to McClellan's confessional memoir, calling it self-serving sour grapes.
Others have said when you serve in that bubble it takes time to sift through what happened, and how you factored into such a complex insular environment.

Meh... Happens all of the time. Disgruntled employees love to try to get back at their former employers by writing a bunch of false b.s.

It just shows extreme low class and a complete lack of personal integrity. Obviously if he had any intergrity at all then if he had all of these issues with what was going on he should have spoken up and/or left at the time. In reality he must be starting to run low on funds so now he sees a way to make a fast buck.

Yes, the public needs to know the truth
Yes, although his role as press secretary limits his policy expertise
No, there is no place for this kind of betrayal
No, he was out of the loop for much of what he wrote about
If he saw abuses, he should have spoken out at the time


Granted, he wants to make a buck as all former white house staff authors do. As he appeared on shows, he was followed by politicians and former white house staff members from former administrations. They were all hawking books, and not their first. That is why i wonder on this dead-end approach, isn't burning bridges and dismissing opportunity?

All the arguments seem applicable. On some level I agree with all sides. He was in deed a little late and opportunist. And not very respectful. Maybe we will gain a grain of insight to the time line from the last few years. Perhaps with a few more books from both sides, we can get a clearer take. These have been unusual times, a lot has been murky and I am not talking about the war.

One thing, this guy was respected and promoted with President Bush's blessing. McClellan must of realized he would loose all political contacts, influence and money making opportunities by writing the book. Not to mention colleagues and friends, as he was in a very insulated world. Granted he will make some cash in the short term, but I do not see a longterm win from this re: money.

Judgment:
I mean Dee Dee Myers who was a interim press secretary for Clinton makes big bucks on the political pundit circuit, and writes books. She was barely a press secretary, and not well known. And had a bumpy personal life. Yet she is doing great.

So, McClellan could of done all sorts of things in media and other side areas that appeal to former White House Insiders. Just does not look like a good move at his age and with his responsibilities. To toss it, that makes me wonder. I dunno. I am still questioning all the motives?

We should all keep in mind that Press Secretaries aren't hired for their ability to evaluate complex information and make important national policy decisions or critique the same. They are communications experts hired for their ability to "sell" anything and everything they are told to sell to the press. This guy may have had access to a little bit of inside information, but he is not qualified to critique the decision makers.

Agree, they are rarely in the loop. Most administrations have them on the outer edge to prtect them so they do not have to get up to the podium and lie. It is common for them not to be in the room when the intricacies are discussed. Avoiding accidental slips or testy press conferences. Also, their educational and professional background is not in policy making.

Ther background and education is in spin. Tat is their job when they sign on. Sure they want to share the facts but they do not always have them all.

John Dean, Nixon's White House Counsel, was in the Nixon inner circle and a lawyer. So his vantage point was different, he knew more. He said Press secretaries usually get the santised version. That is why I do not get McClellan. What is in it after next month fades and in a few yaers he has college tuition for his kids.

I am practical.

IMO it's too little too late but I wouldn't call him a traitor. Opportunist, survivor, and realist? Yes. But there are no laws against those things.


People have a responsibility to use their own brain. Anyone who couldn't tell he was lying through his teeth the majority of the time he was standing at that podium wasn't paying attention.

jmho

I

Agree i was not upset or "puzzled" just curious what the was thinking. Everyone has the right to speak, yup. Just wondering how it will matter in a year. I definitly think no laws were broken, i was mostly just left wondering.

I agree. Unfortunately, when several US Attorneys spoke up about the politicization of the DOJ the argument from Republicans was that they serve the president and should keep their mouths shut and do their jobs. Personally, I think they showed a lot of integrity. I'm glad to see we agree.

I guess they will try to sell books no matter how lame the author and subject are.

Scott McClellan, who was he again, that's right nobody.

His story is already pretty well known. I doubt if the wool was pulled over his eyes as much as he claims.

Udamas sums it up. I also do not think he was totally clueless for so long. And then capable of writing a detailed account, resulting in an articulate book.
So I've been told, i have not read it yet.
Leaves you scratching your head.

No reason at all to get upset or go calling anyone a traitor. Only an idiot would take the allegations in his book seriously. It's obviously the typical opportunistic b.s. you get these days.

While I might take his allegations seriously, I took them seriously long before I heard them from him. Yes; betrayal of public trust actually CAN be a form of treason. I would not want to be in the shoes of anyone involved in the current administration, for moral (or karmic) reasons. That, of course, was meant mostly for one poster here, with lots of moral things to say.

Meh.... I think anything Scott McClellan wrote in his book isn't anything that people didn't already know. Anyone who doesn't realize that Bush is "insular, secretive and combative" really needs to get their head out of their a$$.

Disgruntled and too late. I would read a book written by Powell.. I bet that would be good.