Scott McClellan Apologizes for Bashing Richard Clarke

Source: ABC News


As White House Press Secretary, McClellan Called Clarke's Book on the Bush Administration 'Flat-Out Wrong'


What goes around, comes around.

In an encounter last night in the lobby of a New York hotel, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan apologized for denouncing a former White House colleague, Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser, after Clarke wrote a book highly critical of the Bush administration in 2004.

Now McClellan is facing a similar denunciation from the White House for his own highly critical book.

"I should have known how personal it would get when they went after me, well, I mean, after what I said about you," Clarke says McClellan told him in the lobby of New York's Essex House.

"I think I can forgive you now," Clarke says he replied.

"I'd like to ask you to," McClellan reportedly answered.

In 2004, McClellan said Clarke's book, asserting the Bush administration failed to take timely action against al Qaeda, was "flat-out wrong." He told reporters at a March 22, 2004 briefing, "Ask yourself why, one and a half years later, after he left the administration, he's all of a sudden, coming forward with these grave concerns? If he had such grave concerns, why didn't he come out with them sooner?"

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4963452&page=1

"Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book."

Which is what the junta is now saying about McClellan. What goes around comes around.

But you were only doing your job, Scotty...

:eyes:
rocknation

Clark mentioned that there's a box of talking points to pull out anytime a former employee trashes the administration.
#1 - disgruntled former employee
#2 - why didn't they say anything while working there
#3 - this is a presidential election year
#4 - the person is trying to sell their book

Sound familiar?

Jon called Scotty a liar, and said oh by the way he'll be on the show on Monday.

:rofl:

I wish I believed Scotty was sincere.

Julie

Right wingers write books all the time, like Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity about the Liberal scourge and make bundles of cash. He could probably make more money writing a book about how well everything went under Bush* and how horrible Liberals are for America. Conservatives certainly will not buy his book and I doubt many Liberals will either..Liberals aready know him as a whore and LIAR.

Remember that book...about the Clinton scandals and the GOP machine that initiated it and kept it going? It's by David Brock, who used to write scathing denunciations of Anita Hill and Hillary. McClellan reminds me of all this. (Perhaps they should get together, with other GOP whistle blowers, for a group session)

Notice, however, what David Brock has done with himself since his book.(Media Matters) That's the true measure of a mea culpa. Now that you've told us the dastardly deeds you helped accomplish, what are you going to do to help fix the mess? How are you gonna prevent it from happening again?

if he takes the David Brock path and actually tries to fix things, I can start to forgive him to. But for now, I'm so used to being lied to, I'm looking for what his angle is before Scotty can burn me again.

The Bushies make it personal and thrive on winning, revenge, ego, etc. Clarke is a much, much better man than any of the evil children in this awful administration.

He just wants what is right- and McClellan is helping make things right.
:patriot:

:rofl:

or somehow be joined at the hip during press coverage. It's hard to call two people that saw the same thing delusional.

I might even show up and buy a book from both of them.

I belive Scotty is sincere, but I'm still furious with him for waiting so long to say something.

So little Scottie McClellan, whom we vilified for lying constantly when he worked for BushCo, is now being vilified by BushCo for telling the truth. Funny, ain't it?

We always knew when he was lying back then, and we knew that he knew. He was visibly uncomfortable with it. Still, he was a good and loyal soldier in those days. He just wasn't cut out for the job - not like the last two psychopaths to hold the position, so smooth and easy with the lies that they're scary.

People like Mario Solis-Marich are calling Scottie's book the smoking gun, and it does seem to have put some momentum behind the impeachment movement. If it results in hearings all summer, wouldn't that be NICE?

Franken asked people to call in and say who was their favorite member of the Bush administration. One guy called in and said "Scot McClellan because he's the chief liar, but he isn't very good at it."

When McClellan resigned, JS said something like "We're going to miss your sweaty...lying." Seemed he was implying that Scottie wasn't good at lying. Maybe that's why he quit.

He said, "Now you know Scott McClellan must cry himself to sleep every night. He was the guy all the other guys stuffed into a locker in high school." It was so funny.

The reality is that he is actually making Bush look good by making everyone else look bad. The president was just a victim of all the evil men and women around him. In the end, well, the Boy from Brazil was just a victim of Dr. Mengele.

The president looks good, Scott McClellan has a "retirement package" and all's well once again in the world of make believe. The world that quite a few Americans prefer to the real world.

All he's done, for the most part, is to corroborate the evidence of wrong-doing that we already have in front of us.

George W. Bush is a stooge, a useful idiot. We've known that for years - and you think he looks good because it's been substantiated once again? Only to the faithful and tiny minority, who clearly cannot be shaken from their beliefs by any manifestation of reality.

I don't discount his being an idiot. But there were probably quite a few people in Nazi Germany who considered Adolph Hitler an idiot.

To claim that George W Bush is some sort of victim of those around him, a stooge as you call him, is to claim that Adolph Hiter was also some sort of victim of those around him.

Those around him have been willing accomplices. Just as the Nazis were.

The comparison could not be less apt. Can you imagine, for example, W writing anything with the length, never mind the clarity, of Mein Kampf? (Not to say that Mein Kampf was particularly well-written - it wasn't - but a work like that is still well beyond W's reach.)

W is far from innocent, and he's certainly no victim. I'm not saying that at all. He's just not the architect or the CEO, though that's surely how he likes to see himself. He's not in charge of BushCo. He's a figurehead, and he's easily led. This was not true by any stretch of the imagination of Hitler.

I don't think Bush is stupid. He probably has average intelligence, but it's a low and mean sort of intelligence. Not really the sort of intelligence, and certainly not the disposition, that could ever write a book. In fact, I doubt he's capable of writing a two page letter let alone a book. I can't see him sitting down and being thoughtful for any length of time. It's just not in him.

I think anything he's ever supposedly "written" that is made public is done by clever writers who listen to his stream of conscious wants and demands and then turn it into something palatable that sounds more or less adult and intelligible. They do the best they can but I don't think this actually happens very often. More likely, his staffers and handlers do a sales job on Bush, get him to sign off on whatever it is, and then the writers go to work and put George Bush's name at the bottom.

I think of Bush as an Archie Bunker with absolutely non of the endearing qualities, and his staff as Edith, also with non of the endearing qualities. When it came to important decisions Edith knew just how to handle Archie so he'd do Edith's bidding, all the while thinking it was his idea. I think that's the way it works in this White House.

and we know he's not into self-reflection. Writing being far more self-reflective than reading, it's hard to imagine the guy sitting down and putting together a grocery list, much less anything that might require some thought.

Easily led, that's what I always come back to with W. They needed someone electable, and it needed to be someone with no interest in sitting down and thinking through a problem to find a reasonable, rational solution. W's never in his life had a need to develop that kind of skill.

I saw particularly sickening example of that last night. I did something I always regret and looked in on a site that I don't think can be named, but the people there call themselves Freepers. I was looking at a thread that had 3 photos of that "chest bumping" the asshole did at a military academy commencement. All the comments, one after another, were just gushing at down to earth humanity of their favorite handjob. This showed how "real" he was. It was a rather innocuous, but thoroughly clumsy and odd thing for him to do, and these freepers were positively beaming with love, pride, and respect for "our commander-in-chief".

It's a great site for bulimics or wannabe bulimics. If you feel like losing some weight today, I recommend checking out that thread. It's appalling as well as deeply discouraging to realize these idiots are fellow Americans.

About three years ago I made a pastime, just for a few days, out of going to that site, creating an identity, and watching how long it would take me to get banned. I promise you, I was very cordial, even friendly. I did not call names or bait people. All I did to get banned was to ask simple but direct questions, e.g. "why are we refereeing a civil war in Iraq instead of hunting down terrorists?" It generally only took a matter of seconds before the identity that posed such a question was permanently banned from the site by the Freeper Thought Police.

I might have kept on with it, but I ran out of email addresses.

He came right out and said Bush authorized the NIE leak. He didn't really cover for him at all in this.

Rp

Sure, sometimes what goes around comes around, but sometimes it doesn't. The Bible says that the rain falls and the sun shines on both the just and the unjust. Shit happens.

McClellan could have made a lot more money by not writing a book and staying within the Bushco fold. By doing so he has most likely lost all of those he thought were his friends and has made his own life very difficult and there is no going back for him. Yes, it is too bad that McClellan did not come clean years ago, but again, this is real life and things happen when they happen. He did this for his own reasons and peace of mind and not to mollify anybody here at DU. Unlike Richard Clarke, too many here are unforgiving and if a former bad guy sees the light he will continue to be trashed and ridiculed.

Personally, I am willing to give McClellan the benefit of the doubt at this point and, until he proves otherwise, accept his "conversion" at face value. True ... he was the dirtiest of dirtbags during his tenure as WH Press Sec'y. But the guy is actually giving serious consideration to voting for Obama. That would signal a true change in his character to me anyway. And if his book, and the serious testimony that might come about as a result of it, contribute one iota to the impeachment and war crimes trial of Dumbya, Darth, Condosleezy et al ... then I think he will have proven his repentance to be genuine.

I don't think he'd have ever written the book otherwise.

in any way shape or form. In or out of the fold he would have personally been better off keeping his mouth shut.

"miserable creature" (Politico). The name calling is a dead give away that they have been caught in deceit, crime, etc.

hey Scotty, ever hear the term, "what goes around comes around?"

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read that opening sentence in the O.P.

Of course, the media (except for Keith et al) will bury this story as quickly as possible. But to me, this is just extraordinary.

The chickens have come home to roost.

was ignored and demoted.

pee oh ess!!

go to the abc link. (was a reporter right there when they accidentally ran into each other? this is so weird)

Come out and tell us how they get the talking points to use on their shows.

What's going to be interesting about Scott McClellan is where he goes from here. Both Ariana Huffington and David Brock re-examinded their lives, concluded they were wrong and set about trying to make ammends (this process took several years, see Brock's apology/biography "Blinded By The Right"). Given time, McClellan may do the same.

advance. (or should) * is being sacrificed for Darth's 'misdeeds'. McClellan wrote the book saying * knew. * Knew * KNEW. Takes the focus off Darth. There are circles within circles that make people CONfused. That's how I see it.:evilgrin:

he is seeking to profit financially and in the eyes of history after assisting the criminal regime in carrying out their traitorous work. i assert that he knew then what was going on and had a patriotic duty to expose it, but he failed to do that. he was a willing accomplice in grave attacks against the u.s. he should go down with the sinking ship and should be held liable for his actions.

In addition, from all the reports i've read, there is nothing new in the book.

He's admitting to lots of things we already knew, such as the Plame leak, but he made a big point of saying that the Iraq War was, in Bush's mind at least - to promote democracy. Does the administration think it is worth it to take the flak for the rest to promote that one message- i.e. the war was not about WMDs it was about spreading democracy.

...perhaps he'll begin some sort of atonement for the actual violence he helped perpetrate. At a one-at-a-time pace, he'll spend the rest of his life visiting families and graves.

Typical neocon royalist thinking though, dictates that only well-to-do white men will get apologies.