October 26, 2008 CNN D.L. Hughley

From Larry King Live Oct. 24, 2008 the panel of Scott McClellan, Terry Holt, Lars Larson and Christopher Hitchens discussing the Presidential election ,McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate, Iraq, the surge and Palin's fruit fly comment.

Add former Bush press flack and lifelong Republican Scott McClellan to the long list of unlikely Obama endorsements.

WaPo:

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, who angered many Republicans earlier this year with a memoir criticizing President Bush, said today that he's voting for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

McClellan told CNN that Obama's message "is very similar to the one that Governor Bush ran on in 2000," apparently referring to the current president's early pitch as a reformer and a moderate.

"From the very beginning I have said I am going to support the candidate that has the best chance for changing the way Washington works and getting things done and I will be voting for Barack Obama," McClellan said during the interview, which was taped for the Saturday broadcast of a new CNN show, "D.L. Hughley Breaks the News."

Scotty asks Obama not to investigate his peeps in the White House if he wins in November because it will taint Obama.

Scott McClellan advises Obama, in an interview with my colleague Daniel Libit, not to investigate the Bush Administration -- because it would, McClellan says, damage Obama's image...read on 

That's good enough for me...   More at Will Bunch. 

Download | play    Download | play   (h/t Heather)

On Sunday's Q&A, host Brian Lamb sat down with National Review columnist Kathleen Parker to discuss her take on the comings and goings in Washington DC.  My buddy Heather noted this odd little bit of unsound morality and logic.  Parker wrote a scathing piece on McClellan's book What Happened for the NRO, coming thisclose to likening him to a serial killer (No, I'm not kidding, read it yourself).  See, for Parker, McClellan has reached the apex of immorality, because he listened to the Bush administration's plans, apparently put up no fight (of course, this is according to the White House, whose veracity should have dubious credibility) and then said nothing until he left the White House and wrote a book.  

Don't get me wrong, if I had been in Scott McClellan's position, you could be damn sure I would be speaking up loudly and longly while in the White House.  And I'd probably be out of a job and smeared within an inch of my life by the Karl Rove machine (see how they treated Paul O'Neill as an example).  But for Parker, the fact that he left the White House and then spoke up makes him more deplorable than those he spoke up against. 

Parker: ... I've met Scott and he is, comes across as just the sweetest, nicest fellow. I took great umbrage at this primarily because, whether the... you know, if... if he were... if he sat in those meetings where evidence was being trumped up and people are actually dying and never so much as cleared his throat or raised an eyebrow--which is what I'm told by everyone in the White House--then I think that he is guilty of something much greater than whatever he presents to the public in this book. You don't sit there and listen to what you now consider lies and know... you walk out the door. An honorable man walks out the door. And you can go and call a press conference if you are the Press Secretary of the President of the United States. You can call a press conference. You can walk out and get a book contract that day, but you don't sit through it for years and years and then say 'well, I think I'll go get a book contract and you know present basically my notes that I've taken all these years knowing that these people were doing wrong.'  So I simply don't trust a person like that.

But you'll trust the ones that did the lying and put the Americans in harm's way and continue to do so?  They are actually LESS offensive to your mind than someone whose conscience was so burdened that he left the job and spoke out against what happened?

Methinks someone needs their moral compass re-calibrated.

Transcripts below the fold: (thanks to Heather)

Continue reading »

  Who can forget Rep Steve King's horrible words about Obama back in Iowa?

King: "And I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the, the radical Islamists, the, the al-Qaida, and the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11....

Well, he's baaaack. In one of the most reprehensible lines of questioning today - and Lord knows there were many as Republicans desperately try to outdo each other on who can cover Bush's ass best - GOP stooge Steve King takes the cake with this gem:

"Couldn't you have taken this to the grave with you and done this country a favor?"

Download | play   Download | play

You see, in bizarro Republican world, staying silent and allowing your fellow citizens to remain clueless about how their leaders lie to them is the right, patriotic thing to do. Only traitors speak up about how their country is being flushed down the toilet when there's still time to actually do something about it.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Scott.

Download | play Download | play

Former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee this morning to answer questions about what he knew about, and his role in the treasonous outing of covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame.

McClellan recognized the enormous damage the Plame scandal caused our country and government, and continued his calls for an end to the permanent campaign and scandal culture in Washington D.C.. He criticized President Bush for failing to work in a transparent, and honest manner for the American people, and the media for glorifying people who perpetuate partisan politics, rather than searching for the truth. I, as many others, take issue with his lack of candor back when these crimes were being perpetrated against our country, but at least he's there, in front of Congress and doing the right thing now. You can stream the hearings live on CSPAN's website.

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Smith, and members of the committee.

I am here today at your invitation to answer questions about what I know regarding the Valerie Plame episode. Back in 2005, I was prohibited from discussing it by the White House ostensibly because of the criminal investigation underway, but I made a commitment to share with the public what I knew as soon as possible. That commitment was one of the reasons I wrote my book.

Unfortunately, this matter continues to be investigated by Congress because of what the White House has chosen to conceal from the public. Despite assurances that the administration would discuss the matter once the Special Counsel had completed his work, the White House has sought to avoid public scrutiny and accountability.

The continuing cloud of suspicion over the White House is not something I can remove because I know only one part of the story. Only those who know the underlying truth can bring this to an end. Sadly, they remain silent.

The result has been an increase in suspicion and partisan warfare, and a perpetuation of Washington's scandal culture, one of three core factors that have poisoned the atmosphere in Washington for the past two decades. The central message in my book is the need to change the way Washington governs. We need to minimize the negative influence of the permanent campaign, end the scandal culture, and move beyond the philosophy of politics as war.

The rest of the transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

Last night on "The Daily Show," Scott McClellan went two rounds with Jon Stewart to discuss his new book, What Happened, and, as always, was asked some of the toughest, most pointed questions of his entire media tour. In the second segment, Jon hammered the former press secretary on the book's theme of media complicity.

Download | play Download | play

"The entire Presidency was a facade of public manipulation. Doesn't he say 'I know what's best for the country,' and your job is to help me sell that to the American people without them realizing what we're really doing? Isn't that the gist of how Washington works now?"

You can catch the entire first part here.

Download | play    Download | play   (h/t Bill W)

Scott McClellan got the Judge Judy treatment from Bill O'Reilly over his new book which rips the Bush administration on a host of issues. In this extended clip, BillO took exception because Scott had the audacity to indict the press over their horrid coverage of the run up to the Iraq war. And poor Bill tries to spin him into the ground over his admissions that the Iraq war was sold to American people using---propaganda. (rough transcript)

O'Reilly: You said they used propaganda and that is a loaded word

McClellan: The White House Iraq group, the White House Iraq group was set up, it's a marketing arm for selling the a war. That was a specific purpose that I talked about in the book

O'Reilly: Because they fervently believed that the guy was a danger and could hand his weapons off.

McClellan: No because the President had a bigger driving motivation which was to transform the middle east.

O'Reilly: You telling me that President Bush didn't believe they had the,

McClellan: No, he did too. He believed that too.

O'Reilly:That's not propaganda then, that's not propaganda.

McClellan: It is when you package it all together---over sell it and over state it to the American people. That is propaganda.

In Bill's mind it's A-OK that the WHIG was formed to set up a one stop shopping mart to shoot war propaganda directly into the veins of the press which would be passed on to fool the American people into thinking we needed to attack Iraq. However, in BillO's mind it was no big thing because Bush felt it justified. Unbelievable. Scotty was unflappable.

Since Scotty McClellan came out with his new book called "What Happened," in which he was very harsh on President Bush over a host of issues including partisianship, the Iraq war and the Valerie Plame leak---there has been a very interesting response to it. It's expected that the White House and the rest of the 28%ers would attach him as not qualified for the job, incompetent, a traitor, a phony and a kook, but I think the media has offered up some of the most informative opinions on him and in essence about themselves because he attacked on their war coverage. Martha Raddatz, ABC chief White House correspondent not surprisingly defends her coverage and then tells us something that I would have expected to come from the lips of from David Frum.

Download | play Download | play

RADDATZ: Yet, he seemed like a robot with a new software program on this one. I mean he was on message. It was just a very different message that he was -- he was delivering.

Is he a Cylon or part of the Borg!

He's not even human now. But she was never pressured to change her coverage.

RADDATZ: First of all, we're not a monolithic thing here. But my own experience, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, I was never pressured at all. But in the end, and I think Scott McClellan writes this, George Bush decided to take the country to war even though most people believe there were weapons of mass destruction. It was his decision that sent us to war. But I got absolutely no pressure

Some people needed that push and some people didn't.

Continue reading »

Do you think so? Appearing on MTP this morning, Scotty told Russert that Rove should have been fired over his roll in the Valerie Plame leak case. We all remember the changing narratives that Bush put forth in regards to how he would handle anybody that leaked Plame's name who were part of HIS administration.

Download | play Download | play

Via MSNBC:

MR. RUSSERT: The president said at the time that "if someone committed a crime, they'd no longer work in my administration." Do you believe the president should have fired Karl Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a, that's a question that the president had to make, and he chose not to.

MR. RUSSERT: But what do you think?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I, I think he should have stood by his word. I think the president should have stood by the word that we said, which is if you were involved in this any way, then you would no longer be in this administration. And Karl was involved in it. That would be a tough decision. I don't know if, if there was any crime committed. I don't--I say I just don't know that in the book. But we had higher standards at the White House. The president said he was going to restore honor, integrity. He said we were going to set the highest of standards. We didn't live up to that. When it became known that his top adviser had been involved, then the bar was moved. And the bar was moved to "if anyone is indicted, they would no longer be here."
MR. RUSSERT: So you think they should've been dismissed.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think so. I mean, Scooter Libby was, and I, and I think that he should..

MR. RUSSERT: Well, he resigned. But you...

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. But that was pushed out.

MR. RUSSERT: But you believe Rove--Rove should've, should've left?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the president should've stood by his word, and that meant Karl should've left.

In his "Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger" segment last night, Stephen Colbert ripped into Scott McClellan for releasing his book five years too late, and took Michelle Malkin to the woodshed for her latest jihad against Dunkin' Donuts.

Download | play Download | play

On Scotty: "These are shocking revelations -- in that it is shocking that Scott McClellan thinks these are revelations."

On Malkin: "Well, Malkin has once again protected our nation from the enemy within...Rachel Ray."

During the third segment of Keith Olbermann's interview with Scott McClellan, he reaffirmed what we all have know - FOX is the White House's buddy:

Download | play Download | play

Another interesting part came during this exchange:

Olbermann: "Were the critics in the media largely right"
McClellan: "In terms of Iraq they were largely right"

Yup but instead these people ended up being called names like "unpatriotic" or "freedom haters", when all along they should have been called "the voice of reason".

Although Scott McClellan's memoir is chock full of juicy bits about George Bush, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and the myriad pre-war lies the White House force-fed America, perhaps the most important (and most overlooked) critique McClellan levels is aimed squarely at the "liberal media" and how they acted as "deferential, complicit enablers" of the administration's "propaganda" leading up to the war. On the TODAY show this morning, Matt Lauer asked "the big three" -- Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams and Katie Couric -- whether they thought McClellan was accurate in his criticism of the press. Their answers are revealing to say the least:

Gibson: "I'm not sure we would have asked anything differently [if given an opportunity to do it again.]"

Download | play Download | play

To her credit, Couric admits that mistakes were made and that she could have done a better job vetting the administration's claims; although she also admitted that the White House threatened to cut off her access after she filed critical reports. But Gibson and Williams (along with, one would assume, the majority of the elite press) simply lack the ability to recognize that they were duped, and that they thus duped their viewers. Indeed, as Glenn documents in a lengthy post today:

"This is why most establishment journalists will never be convinced that they failed to do their job, no matter how much evidence is presented: because of the understanding they have of what 'their job' actually is."

For a comprehensive breakdown of just how laughable the Gibson/Williams defense is, be sure to read Glenn's post in its entirety.

Wow. Who would have thought that the incompetent Scott McClellan of all people would force the talking heads to re-evaluate their role in the lead up to the war, and make them finally realize that the White House deliberately manipulated them into mindlessly passing along pure government propaganda? To his credit, Chris Matthews today connected the dots and made as clear a case as possible that the White House used, in the case he cited, The New York Times to inject into the national dialogue completely bogus information that Cheney, Bush and Condoleezza Rice would later cite on the Sunday talk shows in order to scare Americans into supporting the Iraq War.

Download | play Download | play

"There was a lot of salesmanship here....a lot of propaganda."

Chris Matthews and David Gregory seem to get it. Mike Allen...not so much. We'll see how the rest of media handles it.

Of course, for those of us who actually pay attention to this sort of stuff, Bill Moyers chronicled this manipulation extensively in his fascinating documentary, Buying The War.

Memo to the media: Better late than never.