PDA

View Full Version : Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House



George Gervin's Afro
05-27-2008, 07:50 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.

A few reporters were offered advance copies of the book, with the restriction that their stories not appear until Sunday, the day before the official publication date. Politico declined and purchased “What Happened” at a Washington bookstore.

The eagerly awaited book, while recounting many fond memories of Bush and describing him as “authentic” and “sincere,” is harsher than reporters and White House officials had expected.

McClellan was one of the president’s earliest and most loyal political aides, and most of his friends had expected him to take a few swipes at his former colleague in order to sell books but also to paint a largely affectionate portrait.

Instead, McClellan’s tone is often harsh. He writes, for example, that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House “spent most of the first week in a state of denial,” and he blames Rove for suggesting the photo of the president comfortably observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover. McClellan says he and counselor to the president Dan Bartlett had opposed the idea and thought it had been scrapped.

But he writes that he later was told that “Karl was convinced we needed to do it — and the president agreed.”

“One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term,” he writes. “And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.”

McClellan, who turned 40 in February, was press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. An Austin native from a political family, he began working as a gubernatorial spokesman for then-Gov. Bush in early 1999, was traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and was chief deputy to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at the beginning of Bush’s first term.

“I still like and admire President Bush,” McClellan writes. “But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.”


In a small sign of how thoroughly McClellan has adopted the outsider’s role, he refers at times to his former boss as “Bush,” when he is universally referred to by insiders as “the president.”

McClellan lost some of his former friends in the administration last November when his publisher released an excerpt from the book that appeared to accuse Bush of participating in the cover-up of the Plame leak. The book, however, makes clear that McClellan believes Bush was also a victim of misinformation.

The book begins with McClellan’s statement to the press that he had talked with Rove and Libby and that they had assured him they “were not involved in … the leaking of classified information.”

At Libby’s trial, testimony showed the two had talked with reporters about the officer, however elliptically.

“I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.

“Neither, I believe, did President Bush. He, too, had been deceived and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie.”

McClellan also suggests that Libby and Rove secretly colluded to get their stories straight at a time when federal investigators were hot on the Plame case.

“There is only one moment during the leak episode that I am reluctant to discuss,” he writes. “It was in 2005, during a time when attention was focusing on Rove and Libby, and it sticks vividly in my mind. … Following [a meeting in Chief of Staff Andy Card’s office], … Scooter Libby was walking to the entryway as he prepared to depart when Karl turned to get his attention. ‘You have time to visit?’ Karl asked. ‘Yeah,’ replied Libby.

“I have no idea what they discussed, but it seemed suspicious for these two, whom I had never noticed spending any one-on-one time together, to go behind closed doors and visit privately. … At least one of them, Rove, it was publicly known at the time, had at best misled me by not sharing relevant information, and credible rumors were spreading that the other, Libby, had done at least as much. …

“The confidential meeting also occurred at a moment when I was being battered by the press for publicly vouching for the two by claiming they were not involved in leaking Plame’s identity, when recently revealed information was now indicating otherwise. … I don’t know what they discussed, but what would any knowledgeable person reasonably and logically conclude was the topic? Like the whole truth of people’s involvement, we will likely never know with any degree of confidence.”

McClellan repeatedly embraces the rhetoric of Bush's liberal critics and even charges: “If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.

“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

Decrying the Bush administration’s “excessive embrace of the permanent campaign approach to governance,” McClellan recommends that future presidents appoint a “deputy chief of staff for governing” who “would be responsible for making sure the president is continually and consistently committed to a high level of openness and forthrightness and transcending partisanship to achieve unity.

“I frequently stumbled along the way,” McClellan acknowledges in the book’s preface. “My own story, however, is of small importance in the broad historical picture. More significant is the larger story in which I played a minor role: the story of how the presidency of George W. Bush veered terribly off course.”

Even some of the chapter titles are brutal: “The Permanent Campaign,” “Deniability,” “Triumph and Illusion,” “Revelation and Humiliation” and “Out of Touch.”

“I think the concern about liberal bias helps to explain the tendency of the Bush team to build walls against the media,” McClellan writes in a chapter in which he says he dealt “happily enough” with liberal reporters. “Unfortunately, the press secretary at times found himself outside those walls as well.”

The book’s center has eight slick pages with 19 photos, eight of them depicting McClellan with the president. Those making cameos include Cheney, Rove, Bartlett, Mark Knoller of CBS News, former Assistant Press Secretary Reed Dickens and, aboard Air Force One, former press office official Peter Watkins and former White House stenographer Greg North.

In the acknowledgments, McClellan thanks each member of his former staff by name.

Among other notable passages:

• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes.

• Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’”

• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”

• “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

• McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.”

• “‘Matrix’ was the code name the Secret Service used for the White House press secretary."

McClellan is on the lecture circuit and remains in the Washington area with his wife, Jill.


No, Bush and his buddies deserve medals......:rolleyes

01.20.09
05-28-2008, 08:49 AM
Is anyone really surprised at all by this book? The only thing I'm surprised about is the lack of loyalty from McClellan. That just doesn't happen to Bush. I'd be looking over my shoulder if I were him.

boutons_
05-28-2008, 09:15 AM
already posted:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97211

JoeChalupa
05-28-2008, 09:17 AM
already posted:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97211

This thread was was posted first.

The Bush machine is going to make McClellan look like a whiner and this will all blow over very quickly.

boutons_
05-28-2008, 09:27 AM
A WH spokesman, whose job it is to spin, distort, and lie, mostly egregiously, for the WH, complaining about being lied to by dichkead and firends? :lol

What kind of ethics is "I tell lies, but don't lie to me" ?

j-6
05-28-2008, 09:45 AM
Ari Fleischer wouldn't say shit if his mouth was full. McClellan's a young guy still, trying to ride the crest of the anti-Bush wave. Maybe his mom told him to do it.

RandomGuy
05-28-2008, 10:45 AM
Every single insider has said similar things about this president.

If it were one or two "disgruntled" people, that might be easy to dismiss.

Pile it up into the mountain it has become, and one has to conclude that this presidency has been one "bungle-a-thon" from the beginning.

From not thinking foreign policy and terrorism was a problem, oops sorry about those buildings, to taking a fucking vacation when Katrina hit, good job Brownie, to Harriet Miers for the supreme court, to "we'll be greeted as liberators" and "the war will pay for itself" in Iraq, the picture becomes pretty damn clear to anybody who isn't gargling Bush's balls at this point.

If you aren't disgusted, you aren't paying attention.

If Bush is the best that the GOP can do, they deserve to be fired en masse, until they can get their shit together.

JoeChalupa
05-28-2008, 10:51 AM
I'm sure yonivore and xray have solid explanations for this.

clambake
05-28-2008, 11:02 AM
I'm sure yonivore and xray have solid explanations for this.

they'll just say the bum is trying to make money= thanks for admitting everyone in the cabinet is a bum.

RandomGuy
05-28-2008, 12:22 PM
I'm sure yonivore and xray have solid explanations for this.

The explanation is that liberals are destroying america, silly. :lol

Gay marriage, booga booga booga!! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!!

Leaving Iraq is surrendering to terrorists, EEEK!! Don't read that intelligence assessment...

That bit got old years ago. If I may cliche: We all know the emporer has no clothes. The naked idiocy of this administration is plain to everybody who isn't a total hack.

boutons_
05-28-2008, 12:22 PM
Rove Hits Back At McClellan: 'Sounds Like A Left-Wing Blogger'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/28/rove-hits-back-at-mcclell_n_103872.html

Rove also denies to say that we was or wasn't involved in framing Siegalman in AL and sending him to prison.

Does anybody have the balls to go after these criminals?

George Gervin's Afro
05-28-2008, 12:46 PM
I'm sure yonivore and xray have solid explanations for this.

ray will blame the dems for voting for the war

clambake
05-28-2008, 12:49 PM
i'm gonna go repub here and say "if you don't like it, then move, you donkey-crat".

RobinsontoDuncan
05-28-2008, 02:19 PM
I just don't understand how intelligent people can still support the Bush administration.

As much as we all through around insults, it has to be said that Xray, Aggie, WC, and Yoni are intelligent individuals, but through either hubris or thorough brainwashing, they still cling to the dying embrace of a movement that has lost its way

boutons_
05-28-2008, 02:34 PM
it's ideological. if the politicians are right-wing, they support them.

"fuck the problems they cause, the problems they don't address, they're right-wing, we love 'em unconditionally."

After insiders Greenspan and Old McFlopPanderKeating admitted Iraq was for oil, they still say Iraq was GWOT.

xrayzebra
05-28-2008, 02:41 PM
I'm sure yonivore and xray have solid explanations for this.

Simple. Politics and money and wanting a position in life.
And he has accomplished all three. He was involved in
politics with Bush administration, wrote a book which will
now sell very well and he has made all the liberal media
happy so he will land himself a good job. NBC analysis or
with CNN analysis.

So what else is new.

George Gervin's Afro
05-28-2008, 02:41 PM
Simple. Politics and money and wanting a position in life.
And he has accomplished all three. He was involved in
politics with Bush administration, wrote a book which will
now sell very well and he has made all the liberal media
happy so he will land himself a good job. NBC analysis or
with CNN analysis.

So what else is new.

Or he could be telling the truth.. right ray?

boutons_
05-28-2008, 02:47 PM
Why would a porky loser, long-time dubya sycophant/coat-tailer, who owes everything he is to sucking off dubya, now attack dubya and all his accomplices, outright calling them liars?

Like Ari Fleischer, McClellan could have had many more years with Repug income. Now he's fucked himself forever with Repugs and their owners. makes a lot of sense, huh? revenues from a single book won't pay for the income lost from destroying his Repug career.

ChumpDumper
05-28-2008, 02:55 PM
Simple. Politics and money and wanting a position in life.
And he has accomplished all three. He was involved in
politics with Bush administration, wrote a book which will
now sell very well and he has made all the liberal media
happy so he will land himself a good job. NBC analysis or
with CNN analysis.

So what else is new.He could have written a book lauding Bush and gotten a job at Fox.

That's what is new.

xrayzebra
05-28-2008, 02:56 PM
He could have written a book lauding Bush and gotten a job at Fox.

That's what is new.

No way my boy, no way. No one would have known he
wrote a book if it had been all good for Bush. More than
likely wouldn't have gotten published to begin with.

Yonivore
05-28-2008, 03:04 PM
I'm sure yonivore and xray have solid explanations for this.
Let him have his say...so far, he's not backed up any single accusation with fact. In fact, much of what he says is his own opinion. He's entitled to it.

What I find interesting is that Douglas Feith's book, probably the most sourced (with footnotes and copies of declassified memos -- along with a web page of those same documents) book on the administration's conduct leading up to the war isn't getting any media attention at all.

Another thing that should be considered was expressed by Karl Rove earlier today...If Scott McClellan was an outsider, kept on the other side of the door during many of the most important meetings (and this is by McClellan's admission), how the heck could he know anything at all?

JoeChalupa
05-28-2008, 03:07 PM
Let him have his say...so far, he's not backed up any single accusation with fact. In fact, much of what he says is his own opinion. He's entitled to it.

What I find interesting is that Douglas Feith's book, probably the most sourced (with footnotes and copies of declassified memos -- along with a web page of those same documents) book on the administration's conduct leading up to the war isn't getting any media attention at all.

Another thing that should be considered was expressed by Karl Rove earlier today...If Scott McClellan was an outsider, kept on the other side of the door during many of the most important meetings (and this is by McClellan's admission), how the heck could he know anything at all?

Oh, I forgot...what Karl Rove says is gospel.

clambake
05-28-2008, 03:12 PM
the WH just gave a statement about scott and said "this is not the scott we know".

how could they know scott if he was on the other side of the door?

JoeChalupa
05-28-2008, 03:30 PM
When it comes to this administration there is only one side.

Nbadan
05-28-2008, 03:34 PM
McClellan was the brightest bulb in the socket, and I anticipate the the WH will go on a huge PR blitz to destroy any credibility he brings to the table relatively soon, but this does give yet another interesting insider look into what went on in the WH process leading up to the war in Iraq....

JoeChalupa
05-28-2008, 03:38 PM
I just don't understand how intelligent people can still support the Bush administration.

As much as we all through around insults, it has to be said that Xray, Aggie, WC, and Yoni are intelligent individuals, but through either hubris or thorough brainwashing, they still cling to the dying embrace of a movement that has lost its way

I don't understand it either.

ChumpDumper
05-28-2008, 03:43 PM
No way my boy, no way. No one would have known he
wrote a book if it had been all good for Bush. More than
likely wouldn't have gotten published to begin with.So Bush is THAT unpopular.

OK.

George Gervin's Afro
05-28-2008, 03:50 PM
have you seen that list of all of those people who died and were associates of the clintons? Now that my friend is the truth..!

sincerely,

yoni and xray

Nbadan
05-28-2008, 03:55 PM
Must have been a liberal blogger who wrote this book, because 'it doesn't sound like Scott' - I have admit the Republican attack machine has lost some of it's teeth recently..


KDgFn-1BwSE

DarkReign
05-28-2008, 04:05 PM
As much as we all through around insults, it has to be said that Xray, Aggie, WC, and Yoni are intelligent individuals, but through either hubris or thorough brainwashing, they still cling to the dying embrace of a movement that has lost its way

To be fair, Aggie doesnt like anyone. Nor do I *think* he supports Bush in any way.

He is just forced, IMO, into the same situation most normals are, the lesser of two evils.

He chose his 8 years ago. Was he right? Not IMO. But let him have his say.

boutons_
05-28-2008, 05:50 PM
Yoni's still drunk on the Repug/neo-cunt koolaid.

Doug Feith as credible? He's slimy, neocunt tool who fabbed a lot of the "evidence" for Rummy. A war criminal.

Yonivore
05-28-2008, 06:12 PM
Oh, I forgot...what Karl Rove says is gospel.
Hey, he just pointed out the obvious contradiction between McClellan's complaint about not being an insider and his memoir supposedly being a "tell-all" from an insider's point of view.

Which is it?

I give attribution and you slam the messenger...I don't give attribution and you bitch about my plagiarism.

Anybody else see why I steal shit?

ChumpDumper
05-28-2008, 06:15 PM
I steal

Anyway, Rove has got his own ass to worry about now.

Yonivore
05-28-2008, 06:17 PM
the WH just gave a statement about scott and said "this is not the scott we know".

how could they know scott if he was on the other side of the door?
Get the quote right. "...we knew." What if they knew a Scott that was an outsider, on the other side of the door...someone with not enough access to be making the claims he's now making?

clambake
05-28-2008, 07:08 PM
Get the quote right. "...we knew." What if they knew a Scott that was an outsider, on the other side of the door...someone with not enough access to be making the claims he's now making?

first of all, who cares really?

all he says is that bush deliberately misled the country into war. colin powell said that about 5 years ago. it's not even worthy of debate.

Don Quixote
05-28-2008, 07:48 PM
And the book proves what exactly? That the Bush administration is corrupt/inept/stupid/bent on power? You knew that already.

Dog bites man ...

boutons_
05-28-2008, 08:56 PM
No instant commentary on McCluckin's book is claiming to be surprised.

Simply confirmation from an insider of ALL the suspicions and outright crimes of this WH. There will be more.

Still waiting for an insider to violate the political/WH secrecy for the period 20 Jan - 11 Sep 01. It will come.

Trainwreck2100
05-29-2008, 12:03 AM
I'm gonna add this guy to my suicide pool

ChumpDumper
05-29-2008, 12:32 AM
Why? Did he write something about the Clintons?

Yonivore
05-29-2008, 07:51 AM
I'm gonna add this guy to my suicide pool

This isn't the Clinton administration.

Yonivore
05-29-2008, 08:17 AM
first of all, who cares really?

all he says is that bush deliberately misled the country into war. colin powell said that about 5 years ago. it's not even worthy of debate.
First of all, McClellan joined the administration as Press Secretary in 2003, after the invasion. Secondly, he claims to have been left out of the loop. Third, his job was to deliver the administration's message to the press and public...I doubt very many Press Secretaries are involved in the construction of that message.

And, finally, Secretary Powell did no such thing. Source it, clam.

This should be an interesting development...

Wexler: McClellan Must Testify Under Oath Before House Judiciary Committee (http://wexler.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl19_wexler/050808_mcclellanpressrelease.shtml)


http://www.arar93.dsl.pipex.com/mds975/Images/homer_simpson_doh_02.gif

Maybe they can use some actual documentation on the events heavily sourced and referenced in Douglas Feith's book on the same time period.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vvHs6UDaL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/War-Decision-Inside-Pentagon-Terrorism/dp/0060899735)

I know there are some big words and all but, I find it interesting the press is showing absolutely no interest in a book that contains references to the actual meetings, documents, and notes from the period for which Scott McClellan claims to have intimate knowledge...but, because his tenure didn't start until afterward, could not.

Douglas Feith served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July 2001 until August 2005. His government service extends back to work at the NSC and the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. His work at the Pentagon during the Reagan administration earned him the Defense Department's Distinguished Public Service medal, the department's highest civilian award.

Mr. Feith has written War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism (http://www.amazon.com/War-Decision-Inside-Pentagon-Terrorism/dp/0060899735). This memoir is an important book, providing the first account of decision making from inside the Pentagon during the war and countering many of the myths promulgated about the events covered.

Failing any comprehensive review by the press, Mr. Feith to previewed the book, in his own words, for a blog I read:


I’ve been doing many interviews about my book in recent days – and I’ve heard from many journalists and others that the book surprises them. It tells a story that contradicts key parts of almost all the major books about the Iraq war.
Interviews that aren't being published or aired on mainstream media...probably because the "surprises" don't fit the media's narrative on the war.


For example, it refutes the notion that President Bush came into office determined to go to war no matter what – that the administration refused or failed to consider the arguments against war. In fact, as my book reveals, the most serious analysis of the downsides and risks of war was produced in the Pentagon by Rumsfeld and his top advisers – not by Colin Powell, Rich Armitage, George Tenet or other officials who are reputed to have been the voices of caution.
Remember, before you call him a liar -- he's sourced the book and posted the documents on a website.


My book contradicts the common allegation that Pentagon civilians did not plan for post-Saddam Iraq. It explains what is wrong with the charge that the State Department had a plan that Defense officials discarded. It explains what is wrong with the charge that Rumsfeld and his advisers were dupes of the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi – and what is wrong with the assertion that we intended to “anoint Chalabi” as the leader of Iraq.

My book quotes extensively from previously classified documents – from numerous memos that were exchanged among Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Tenet, General Myers, VP Cheney and the President. It recounts numerous meetings – and it does so, not on the basis of after-the-fact interviews in which officials remember (or pretend to remember) years after the fact what occurred in those meetings, but on the basis of the notes I took while attending the meetings. In writing the book, I made the radical decision that words would be put in quotation marks only if they were actually spoken by the characters in my history at the very time and place described.

Among the main topics covered in the book are:

· The development of the strategy for the war on terrorism in the hours and days after 9/11 – a strategy that broke with US counter-terrorism policies of the previous decades – a strategy that aimed not simply to punish the perpetrators of 9/11, but (much more ambitiously) to prevent follow-on 9/11-scale attacks.

· For all the errors the administration has made and the terrible problems we have encountered in recent years, especially in Iraq, it is a notable achievement that we are six and half years past 9/11 and the United States has not been hit again as we were hit then. This owes something, I believe, to our strategy.

Another major topic covered in the book is the rationale for the Iraq war. I explain what the President and his top officials were concerned about – why Iraq was a problem made more urgent and more worrisome by 9/11 even though we did not believe that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attack itself.

The book reviews the issue of politicization of intelligence – and the accusations of manipulation of intelligence. It explains the actual controversy between my office and the CIA over the intelligence on the Iraq-al Qaida relationship. The actual controversy was not a clash in which Defense officials argued that there was an intimate Iraq-al Qaida relationship while CIA officials argued for a more sober assessment. Rather it was an argument about methodology and professionalism. It was about the criticism by Defense officials of the CIA’s politicization of its own intelligence.

And perhaps most newsworthy, the book explains for the first time anywhere the key postwar plan developed by the administration – the plan for political transition in post-Saddam Iraq. It was a plan developed in the Defense Department – and it aimed to prevent a prolonged US occupation of Iraq. It was a plan to put Iraqis in charge of their own government promptly after Saddam’s overthrow. It was a plan that built on our experience in Afghanistan, where the US overthrew the Taliban regime but did not establish a US occupation government. As I say in the book, it was a plan “which my office drafted, Powell and Armitage tried to delay, President Bush approved, Jay Garner began to implement, and L. Paul Bremer buried.”

Much of the latter part of the book deals with how this plan was undone and the harmful consequences that resulted.

While the book recounts controversies and debates, it does so in a way that I think is far more fascinating than the snide and shallow self-justification that is typical in memoirs of former officials. I refer in the book to the “I was surrounded by idiots school of memoir-writing.” I don’t like that school. I find it boring and bad history. While I was in the administration, I had many disagreements with other officials, but I generally thought that their arguments had important merits. When I disagreed, it was usually because I thought that an alternative strategy or policy had even more merit.

Throughout, I have tried to be critical of all the work I discuss in the book – that of other agencies, that of the Defense Department and that of my own office and myself. Washington Post reporters apparently assume that former officials’ memoirs are inevitably finger-pointing, blame-laying books. Some have asserted this about my book, but they did so without actually having read it. If they eventually do read it, they will find that they were wrong.

I’ve been pleased that writers who did read the book have written favorably about it – for example: Bret Stephens (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120761972863897011.html),) in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence Di Rita (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTNhY2NmN2ZjY2UwMzBmZTY2MjY0MzE0NmRiNDY1OWM=) at NRO, and Frank Gaffney (http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080408/COMMENTARY03/837016518&SearchID=73316156195474) in the Washington Times.

I tried to make my book a useful, accurate account – as accurate as one man’s account can be. I care about accuracy. That is why I relied so heavily on the contemporaneous written record. That is why I provided footnotes and endnotes so extensively. The book is 530 pages long, with around 140 pages of notes and reproduced documents. And I want readers to pay attention to the notes – to read them. I’d be happy if they challenge me on my use and interpretation of the documents. I have created a website – War and Decision (http://www.waranddecision.com/) – where anyone can go and easily pull up the unclassified documents and articles and other material that I cite.

I was very pleased the other day when Professor Dan Byman joked at a talk I gave at Georgetown University that my website will strike fear in the hearts of professors across America. The idea of someone making it easy for people to check one’s footnotes – a terrifying idea, he said, but he complimented it as the essence of scholarship.

I want to invite all of you to read my book and visit War and Decision (http://www.waranddecision.com/) to plunge into the actual record of the fateful decision of the Bush administration at the dawn of the war on terrorism.

It should be noted that in addition to the book's contribution to history, the book is responsible for another contribution. Mr. Feith is donating all the proceeds from the book to charities that help veterans and their families.
Hugh Hewitt comments here (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/b59f0bf4-3e81-4f03-ad3c-36c00a71d11b).

So, does anyone recall this book getting as much attention as has McClellan's? If not, why not? Feith was an actual insider with intimate knowledge of the events. McClellan? A paid mouthpiece that came along after we had already invaded...and, formed opinions based on an outsiders observations; not much different than you guys.

George Gervin's Afro
05-29-2008, 08:21 AM
First of all, McClellan joined the administration as Press Secretary in 2003, after the invasion. Secondly, he claims to have been left out of the loop. Third, his job was to deliver the administration's message to the press and public...I doubt very many Press Secretaries are involved in the construction of that message.

And, finally, Secretary Powell did no such thing. Source it, clam.

This should be an interesting development...

Wexler: McClellan Must Testify Under Oath Before House Judiciary Committee (http://wexler.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl19_wexler/050808_mcclellanpressrelease.shtml)

Maybe they can use some actual documentation on the events heavily sourced and referenced in Douglas Feith's book on the same time period.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vvHs6UDaL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/War-Decision-Inside-Pentagon-Terrorism/dp/0060899735)

I know there are some big words and all but, I find it interesting the press is showing absolutely no interest in a book that contains references to the actual meetings, documents, and notes from the period for which Scott McClellan claims to have intimate knowledge...but, because his tenure didn't start until afterward, could not.

Douglas Feith served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July 2001 until August 2005. His government service extends back to work at the NSC and the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. His work at the Pentagon during the Reagan administration earned him the Defense Department's Distinguished Public Service medal, the department's highest civilian award.

Mr. Feith has written War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism (http://www.amazon.com/War-Decision-Inside-Pentagon-Terrorism/dp/0060899735). This memoir is an important book, providing the first account of decision making from inside the Pentagon during the war and countering many of the myths promulgated about the events covered.

Failing any comprehensive review by the press, Mr. Feith to previewed the book, in his own words, for a blog I read:


Interviews that aren't being published or aired on mainstream media...probably because the "surprises" don't fit the media's narrative on the war.


Remember, before you call him a liar -- he's sourced the book and posted the documents on a website.


Hugh Hewitt comments here (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/b59f0bf4-3e81-4f03-ad3c-36c00a71d11b).

So, does anyone recall this book getting as much attention as has McClellan's? If not, why not? Feith was an actual insider with intimate knowledge of the events. McClellan? A paid mouthpiece that came along after we had already invaded...and, formed opinions based on an outsiders observations; not much different than you guys.

Have you read the book? Or are you basing your knowledge of what he said from right wing blogs?

Yonivore
05-29-2008, 08:25 AM
Have you read the book? Or are you basing your knowledge of what he said from right wing blogs?
I've got it on order... Have you? Have you looked at the documents at his website?

Have you read McClellan's book? Has the media?

The point of my post is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the media. They've breathlessly and uncritically hyped McClellan's while almost completely ignoring what, on the surface, appears to be a much more revealing, comprehensive, and complete book on the time period in question.

xrayzebra
05-29-2008, 08:31 AM
Great post Yoni. I will have to get the book and read it.
And as stated, and I stated, if it shows the Prez in a good
light, the book will be buried.

Yonivore
05-29-2008, 08:36 AM
You know, Feith isn't exactly uncritical of the administration...particularly when it comes to how it handled post-invasion Iraq and how it chose to portray the war in public.

In fact, he has a piece in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121184655427621367.html) criticizing the way President Bush "sold" the war in Iraq. Feith writes:


In the fall of 2003, a few months after Saddam Hussein's overthrow, U.S. officials began to despair of finding stockpiles of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The resulting embarrassment caused a radical shift in administration rhetoric about the war in Iraq.

President Bush no longer stressed Saddam's record or the threats from the Baathist regime as reasons for going to war. Rather, from that point forward, he focused almost exclusively on the larger aim of promoting democracy.
Feith actually quantifies this shift, using a chart he developed for his book (page 476):


In the year beginning with his first major speech about Iraq – the Sept. 12, 2002 address to the U.N. General Assembly – Mr. Bush delivered nine major talks about Iraq. There were, on average, approximately 14 paragraphs per speech on Saddam's record as an enemy, aggressor, tyrant and danger, with only three paragraphs on promoting democracy. In the next year – from September 2003 to September 2004 – Mr. Bush delivered 15 major talks about Iraq. The average number of paragraphs devoted to the record of threats from Saddam was one, and the number devoted to democracy promotion was approximately 11.

One can understood why, after it started to seem unlikely that we'd find significant stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, the administration was relunctant to talk about WMD. However, the administration still could have talked about the more general threat Saddam Hussein posed and explained how our presence was enhancing our security. Instead, he chose to focus on what our presence was doing for the Iraqis.
Feith points to three ways in which the administration's dramatic shift in rhetoric hurt its position. First, by shifting ground, the administration lost credibility. As Feith puts it, "The stunning change in rhetoric appeared to confirm his critics' argument that the security rationale for the war was at best an error, and at worst a lie."

Second, the administration's shift signaled to its critics that the administration would no longer talk about past. It gave them confidence, for example, that President Bush would not cite the prior hawkish statements of his critics back at them. Thus, his critics and opponents were emboldened to rewrite history.

Finally, the administration redefined the goal away from something we indisputably had accomplished (the overthrow of a deadly anti-American, terrorist-supporting dictator) to something we were having a difficult time accomplishing (establishing a functioning democracy in Iraq). It is the administration's change in the definition of success that Feith believes produced the most deleterious consequences.

Feith concludes with this lesson:


To fight a long war, the president has to ensure he can preserve public and congressional support for the effort. It is not an overstatement to say that the president's shift in rhetoric nearly cost the U.S. the war. Victory or defeat can hinge on the president's words as much as on the military plans of his generals or the actions of their troops on the ground.
I don't know whether there was any rhetoric capable of maintaining support for the war as the military situation deteriorated. It's clear, however, that the administration did itself, and the country, no favor when it changed the way it defended the war.

Yonivore
05-29-2008, 08:39 AM
Great post Yoni. I will have to get the book and read it.
And as stated, and I stated, if it shows the Prez in a good
light, the book will be buried.
I don't think Feith's book attempts to affect the President's reputation either way; it appears to be a sober documentation of events from the perspective of one that was definitely "in the loop" on these decisions.

His criticism of the administration in his Wall Street Journal editorial is a good example of his objectivity, I think.

Oh well, I'll read the book and let you know.

JohnnyMarzetti
05-29-2008, 08:56 AM
Bush and his cronies like yoniwhore and xgayzebra are liars and everyone except the bushies know it and realize it.
Now xgay is riding yoni's balls too.

boutons_
05-29-2008, 09:05 AM
yoni's career is believing liars, and Feith is one of biggest liars, nothing but a neo-cunt/PNAC tool.

dubya blamed "bad intel", assuming that let him off the hook for Iraq.

Feith worked for Rummy fabricating "bad intel" to fit neo-cunt/PNAC imperialistic ideology.

Gates is also known, going back to early 80s, as advocating politically "fixing up" the intel to, rather than the CIA/NSA discovering and providing facts to the politicians.

ChumpDumper
05-29-2008, 09:31 AM
Don't read yoni's posts.

Just read the powerlineblog he steals from.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020616.php

Have you ever had an original thought -- ever?

I find it hilarious that yoni's plagiarism actually supports some of McClellan's assertions.


I don't think Feith's book attempts to affect the President's reputation either wayI think Feith's book is an attempt to cover his own ass. If Garner's occupation "plan" is what he is championing (I give Garner credit for trying, even though he had little guidance from the inadequate, haphazard preparation of the DoD which was completely unsuited for the task in the first place), then he is throwing Rumsfeld and Bush under the bus for replacing Garner with Viceroy Bremer.

Yoni, do you agree with Feith's assertion that Bush made a terrible mistake replacing Garner with Bremer?

Yes or no?

Don Quixote
05-29-2008, 10:34 AM
I don't know why Yoni bothers ...

At least read the books, guys!

ChumpDumper
05-29-2008, 10:39 AM
I don't know why Yoni bothers ...He doesn't. Powerlineblog does.


At least read the books, guys!I'll pick up a used copy at some point.

JoeChalupa
05-29-2008, 06:08 PM
It isn't like this is the first book to criticize this administation.