So, Scott,what else is new?
By Patrick Kelley
Originally published 09:36 a.m., May 31, 2008
Updated 09:36 a.m., May 31, 2008
WILL SCOTT McCLELLAN’S tell-all book about administration maneuvers before and after the invasion of Iraq do any great harm to what remains of George W. Bush’s presidency? It is difficult to see how it could.
Recent polls have pegged Bush’s approval rating around 27 percent. That is only three points above Richard Nixon’s approval rating when he resigned in disgrace. A careful reading of the polls suggests that Bush has not much farther to fall. He still has hard-core support among 15 percent of the voters and little is likely to dent the faith of those true believers.
The reaction to McClellan’s book is coming from people who already knew or suspected what McClellan confirmed — that war, for the White House insiders — was just an extension of politics.
For that audience, the proper response to the book is not “Gee whiz!” but “What took you so long?”
In his time at the podium in the White House briefing room, McClellan was the least effective of Bush’s many press secretaries. He lacked Ari Fleischer’s professionalism, Tony Snow’s smooth assurance or even Dana Perrino’s arrogant ignorance. McClellan usually appeared flustered and unsure of himself, sweating like a guilty man being grilled by the cops. When McClellan was speaking to the press, it was easy to assume that he was either lying or at least tap-dancing like mad around the truth.
So for many Americans — perhaps a majority — the surprise of the book lies not in what McClellan reveals, but that he decided to reveal it.
Those revelations are not likely to change the way the White House conducts business for the next few months. Congress will not seriously consider impeachment because indicting a president is a long and costly process. Congress has better ways to spend the next few months than trying to give a departing president a kick in the pants to speed him on his way.
John Dean told Congress the truth and brought down a president. McClellan’s truth-telling is not such a mortal wound.
From the standpoint of the president, McClellan’s book is just one more damn thing in what has been a very bad term.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
create (anonymous) says...
Imagine how those who lost loved ones to the Iraq war must feel about Bush's "extension of politics." But the President refuses to even watch the news on television or read newspapers, certainly not the opinion columns. Ignorance is bliss.
May 31, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Another left wing attack on the President. So, Gazette, what else is new?
May 31, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eldiablo (anonymous) says...
Was that last comment a sarcastic joke?
Because I laughed...
A lot.
May 31, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
You have to be kidding - treating Scott McClellan as a truth telling American icon? To any reasonable and clear thinking person it is crystal clear that McClellan sold his soul for profit and fame. For anyone, no matter his political beliefs, to cite McClellan as authority on anything is no more authoritative than citing Winnie the Pooh. Come on, Mr. Kelley, we know that you are part of the left wing crowd, but surely you have more standards than this. Don't you?
May 31, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
A president should ignore opinion columns. Classified information is only available to a few and those are the ones whose opinions count. Press secretaries seldom have high clearances. At least Bush has sense enough to hold his cards close when it matters and do what he feels needs to be done, whether or not he gets treated kindly or skewered by those who have opinions but no knowledge. it is called courage.
May 31, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UsayULoveGod (anonymous) says...
Left Wing Right Wing , does it really matters ? We are in Iraq trying to make people live our lives and stop a war that started before Christ was born !!!!
May 31, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
What we seek in the Mideast is a "Democratic Peace", a very noble and expedient concept. Waaaaay too long to explain here. Google it.
May 31, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
jayhawker- Now we see your true feelings and colors as a true staunch Republican, Bush supporter, no matter what !
Again you have the audacity to brow beat and degrade some one who was as close to Bush as anyone and was picked by Bush himself to be his whipping boy Press Secretary and I am sure that Mr. McClellan only stated what Bush and Bushs' speech writers told him to tell the public and the news media. So now that Mr. McClellan decides to clear his conscience and be truthful, you deem him a liar and oppertunist and then you also have the where with all to demean a former president ( Bill Clinton) and yet if anyone, even a trusted former Bush press secretary has the back bone to stand up and say that Bush and his republican majority congress had the audacity to lie to the nation, you have the crass to defend the actions of Bush, even though it has been proven over and over that he misled, lied and bullied those who oppossed him into doing what he wanted, you sir should be ashamed of being such a hypocrit.
Also with your mindset I imagine you also think the U.S. is better off now, after 8 years of Bush rule, than when Bill Clinton left office, if you do then I feel sorry for you as a misguided, lost soul !
Now, before you accuse me of being a Democrat, I will tell you that yes I am a registered Democrat, but I also do not vote strictly Democrat, I vote only for who and what I think will be the person, who will do whats best for my country and all of my fellow countrymen and women, whether he or she be a Democrat, Republican, Independent or what ever and right now in the up-comming election, I truthfully don't know who would be the best person for the job.
May 31, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Methusla: I respect your opinions. I guess that I am confused about your accusations toward me. Could you point out to me where I demeaned President Clinton? Where I have been a hypocrite? In fact, in past blogs I have said that President Clinton was treated unfairly in certain respects, although overall I believe that his was a failed presidency. You called President Bush a liar, which I would never call anyone absent evidence, and even then I would not use that word. We all should recognize that when we chose to contribute to a blog that we are going to be attacked for our opinions. However, I don't think that it is fair to be accused of something that I never said, implied or even thought. I have taken up for President Bush, as I will continue to do unless he changes his approach to governance. I am in good company with those of the past who have defended unpopular presidents. Lincoln and Truman come to mind. By the way, I am with you on voting for the best candidate over party. Most elections I find at least one Democrat to give my vote, although overall I strongly feel that the Republican Party represents the principles that best serve America. I will further admit that I will vote for John McCain, although without great enthusiasm. I wish that either President Bush or Vice President Cheney were on the ticket. Because that opinion does not mesh with yours (or even the majority) does not mean that it is not as valid as anyone else's. We should all respect that, respect each other and keep the discussion reasonable and civil.
May 31, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
jayhawker- I too respect your opionions, but in your last post you confirmed my opinion of you, in the fact that you stated that Clintons' presidency was a failed one, sounds like a demeaning statement to me. I don't for the life of me see how you consider Clintons' presidency a failed one when during his administration the following was achieved:
1. The national debt was abolished and the Clinton administration ended with a debt surplus !
2. Inflation and recession was virtually non existent !
3. The Jobless rate was at its lowest in decades.
4. The country did not go to war because of deception and lies.
5. And all of the above was accomplished even though Bill Clinton had to fight a partisan Republican Congress all the way .
Yes I get plenty upset when people can't see the damage that Bush and his administration has done to this once great country and people, even though the proof is undeniably evident and a matter of public record.
Therefore the Bush, both Bush presidencys' were and are a bigger and more shameful failure that Clintons' presidency will ever have the distiction of being.
I for one am certainly glad that Bush can never run for the presidency again ever and as for Cheney, god for bid that he should ever consider running for president or be elected president !
I've had my say, you've had yours, so be it.
May 31, 2008 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Yes, the President is informed by the more important classified information; however, reading opinion columns would allow the president to measure the pulse of the nation, nothing more expected than that.
"Democratic Peace" in the Middle East? That's an oxymoron. They live their lives and fight their wars based on strict religious beliefs established eons ago. One war isn't going to change that.
June 1, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
The bars in Bahrain and UAE are always full on Wednesday and Thursday nights, westerners are there seven out of seven. Most of them are no more fanatical or "strict" than anybody else.
June 1, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eDJ3c...
June 1, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )