The Death of Discretion

It used to be, back in the day, that those who served their country in high positions, positions of authority and importance, would honor their offices and the office they ultimately served: the presidency. Even when they may have acted dishonorably in office, they kept the dirty linens to themselves. That's what was expected of them, and that's what they did.

They didn't write kiss n' tells. They didn't spill the beans. They didn't tell tales out of school.

They kept their counsel, and went to their graves with the stories that gentlemen simply did not tell.

Goodbye to all that.

The unspoken rule of political memoirs once was: you can write what you'd like, and you can express disagreements and even once-confidential conversations (provided enough time had elapsed so as not to imperil national security secrets or anyone's reputation), but you must only do it once the presidency in which you had served had ended. There was to be no memoir-writing while the president for whom you had worked was still in office.

George Stephanopoulos was the first high-ranking White House official to publish a tell-all while his president was still in office. "All Too Human" was a scathing look inside the highly dysfunctional Clinton White House, published nine months before Bill and Hillary backed up the moving van and made off with the White House furniture.

Was it salacious? Yup. Was it delightful? You bet. Was it proper? Not really.

Now a new memoir is hitting the bookshelves, written by former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan. In it, he blasts the president for relying on "propaganda" to sell the Iraq war, which he now deems "unnecessary." He attacks the Vice President and Secretary Condi Rice for incompetence and arrogance, and goes after the president for being stubbornly attached to certain positions.

Some of these criticisms may have merit. The events we are in the midst of now will one day be history, and the history of the administration will be looked at from many angles and with many sets of eyes.

But for someone who was once the president's confidante, someone he knew and trusted, someone who gave him the opportunity of a lifetime, to write a tell-all while that history is still being made, is not cool. There will be plenty of memoirs coming out of the Bush administration. Most will be cover-your-tushy affairs, as memoirs often are. Some will paint a glossy picture. Some will be critical. But their timing is crucial.

McClellan could have published this book in 8 months, when Bush was on his way out the door. But then, he wouldn't have sold as many books. Publishing now may make him a bit wealthier, but it's simply not cool to do to your former boss and your president. Not cool at all.

Comments

[FK]

But how loud did you complain when Stephanapolous published his book about Clinton? I bet not too loud. Your problem here is that this book criticizes a Republican president.

Sounds to me like McClellan felt like the Bush Administration ill-used him (which, of course, it did), and since they were not loyal to him, he does not feel that he has to be loyal to them.

Bush is leaving the office in humiliation. No one wants to be counted as one of those still sticking by him.

[emineid]

Scott McClellan finds himself in a situation similar to that of J. Robert Oppenheimer at the closing of WWII, in that they both felt the guilt of complicity in the death of civilians of a nation that was at war with America.

Judas McClellan has now compounded his guilt by selling out his benefactor.

This tortured soul just wants to forget it all--the war, the book, the money.

He would return the silver coins to the publisher if only that would turn back the clock to the pre-9/11 days.

Brutus, Cassius, meet your future cellmate.

[SteveOk]

The problem I have with these books like McClellan's book (apart from the fact it is all about money), it's all about his impressions and feelings. These books don't offer any hard evidence such as occurred with the 9/11 commission. He is simply spewing the leftwing conspiracy theorist line so that they will all run out and buy his book and they can say I told you so. The leftwing has built this crazy conspiracy theory that Bush cherry picked the Intel and manipulated the news media in order to force people like John Kerry and John Edwards to vote for the war. That way they can ignore the fact that these Democrats fully supported the war also and not hold them equally accountable for the war.

[Ummahgummah]

Bush is leaving the office in humiliation. No one wants to be counted as one of those still sticking by him.

POSTED BY: FREDK2929

---

That's one way of seeing it.. I am more inclined to see it as the one of the first rats leaving the sinking ship..

[Ummahgummah]

Oh and by the way, it seems McClellan was a Clinton holdover.. I think he's going to be used to make the case for future clean sweeps when any new administration comes into power.

So much for the "spirit of bi-partisanship". Conservatives, please learn your lesson here!

No more sleeping with the enemy.

[gringoman]

All I knew about Scott Mclellan was seeing him in action with the Washington press corps. That was after he replaced the Jewish guy from Long Island (I believe) who at least had a sense of humor and knew how to smile at piranha.

My immediate impression: Was this the best the Republican brain trust could come up with?

Disgust with the Dems drove me to vote for these Republicans. Even if Georgie Bush wasn't quite as smart and devious, he and the gang would make up for it with character, competence and maturity. Right?

Ah, mes amis, les illusions perdues....

Hey, but something has still been salvaged from all that: Disgust with the Dems. In fact now more than ever (which they obviously do not get.)

[gringoman]

All I knew about Scott Mclellan was seeing him in action with the Washington press corps. That was after he replaced the Jewish guy from Long Island (I believe) who at least had a sense of humor and knew how to smile at piranha.

My immediate impression: Was this the best the Republican brain trust could come up with?

Disgust with the Dems drove me to vote for these Republicans. Even if Georgie Bush wasn't quite as smart and devious, he and the gang would make up for it with character, competence and maturity. Right?

Ah, mes amis, les illusions perdues....

Hey, but something has still been salvaged from all that: Disgust with the Dems. In fact now more than ever (which they obviously do not get.)

[Account Deleted]

(continued from last entry) ...

UG: I respect your taking issue with me on GBro, but still believe Fred’s intentions are good. You may recall I took him to task for lascivious remarks directed at our hostess, Monica, and our friendship (I trust I am not assuming too much) only grew. We may disagree on policy, but only respectfully.

I also agree Conservatives and Libertarians must start taking the initiative. My point about Buckley’s book is that victory comes naturally to those whose ideas stand on inert ground. Buckley’s genius was building a rock solid intellectual foundation for Conservatism from which, I submit, Republicans and conservative Democrats wonder at their and the country’s peril to the quicksand of expediency.

G-Man: You make many interesting points; thank you.

1. What to do if Iran cannot be destabilized internally? First, I believe it can with practical certainty … if the US has the will. But if their N-bomb is more imminent, pre-emptive military action is within our right and obligation. Such action should be a la Reagan, not Bush, Jr.

4. The Constitution recognizes inalienable rights – the first such political document to do so (with arguable exception of the Magna Carta), which is why it is the standard by which Goldwater asked, “Are we maximizing freedom?” Such a remarkable document cannot have been written to conceive a country unless individual respect and an abiding faith in man’s spiritual nature (first premise of Goldwater’s “Conscience”) was a basic principle.

5. Thank you for your overture of harmony between yourself, UG, and yours truly – received with utmost welcome. Let’s include Fred, shall we?

PS: I am not black, but it should not matter. And incidentally I am not as stringent on this matter as to oppose racial humor made to expose the fallacy of racism; viz, The Rat Pack joking with Sammy Davis, Jr. for this purpose. They did more to disabuse racists of their bigotry with humor than all the politicians have with affirmative action. If that is what GBro is doing, and this audience knows it, I withdraw my comment with apologies.

Finally, on the subject of Monica’s current blog, I agree whole heartedly with her and the other commentators that McClellan’s book is indiscrete and its untimely release motivated by money. Nothing in the principles of free enterprise precludes the unscrupulous from profit … but I have greater faith in the American people and hope the market will make his gambit ineffectual by poor sales results. Consider this, however: in yesterday’s The Wall Street Journal, Douglas J. Feith, under secretary of defense from July 2001 until August 2005, describes in objective terms how Bush “sold” the war to the American people after the big “whoops! … no WMD here?” after which Conservatives have the right and obligation to tell a President who betrayed them: you are not one of us.

Cheers,

[SteveOk]

THE GULF OF TONKIN RESOLUTION: The left in this country has long been howling that Bush lied us into the Iraq War (without any evidence) and now Scott McClellan has basically sold his soul and joined that chorus, without a shred of evidence. Actually we do have an incident in history where the President (LBJ) conspired in a ruse in the Gulf of Tonkin to get a War Resolution from Congress (a Democratic controlled Congress) to escalate the war in Vietnam. There was no attack on American warships in the Gulf of Tonkin yet LBJ used that incident to get a war resolution. The Democratic controlled Congress then turned a blind eye to that fact and gave LBJ a free pass even though he really did lie us into war with Vietnam where more that 50,000 Americans died. A couple of Senators (that I know of) who served in Congress at that time are still there (Ted Kennedy and Robert Bryd). They would be amoung the first to vote for impeachment of Bush if evidence existed yet when a Democratic President actually did lie us into war they did nothing.

[gringoman]

Steve,

Excellent point on the Democrats' Gulf of Tonkin ruse. Funny, during the whole 60's domestic firestorm of the Lefties and their campus soviets, with all their rabble-rousing slogans, we never heard them yelling, jOHNSON LIED, PEOPLE DIED.

MICHAEL AVARI,

Your point about Frk joining the harmony of "The Three Tenors." The reference was to our common view that Obama is more or less an empty Saville Row suit. Do you see FrK sharing that view, or what he sees as the "racism" of 2/3 of the Trio---"racism", of course, as defined by Liberal Racists, who have been the dominant race card players of the past 30 or 40 years---superseding the old Southern Democrats who used to be the dominant card sharps in racism.

re Feith's issue with George Bush and Iraq. My reading of Feith is that if Bush "betrayed" (as I feel he did me as a voter) it was not by "lying" or the standard drone of the venal Left and their dupes. The fact that everyone believed Iraq had WMD, from the Clintons on down, is so documented and so tired, does anyone even have to mention it again, despite the insufferable Democratic weasels? Feith made clear that there were many reasons for regime change, including the ever present danger of a defiant and unpredictable Saddam Hussein, his ability to aid non-state terrorists, the ease with which such a rogue could start a very dangerous WMD program etc. (If the imbecile Lefties can't stop Tehran from nuking up, how could they stop Sadaam?) In retrospect, it's so easy to say that Bush miscalculated. His mismanagement made this inevitable. But it still all comes back to what Feith says and what gringoVision has been saying for years, summed up in its,

BUSH THE GREAT NON-COMMUNICATOR.

He dug himself into a hole rather than communicate to the nation clearly and forcefully the why of the war and the stakes etc. He surrendered all that to the Left, allowing it to control the story and revolt almost everyone who voted for him.

Unfortunately, it appears that fighter pilots may be terrific one-on-one guys, but they are not and were never meant to be orators or masters of mass media.
Looks like we may be getting same weakness like that from Johnny Boy. Obama The Empty can easily outshine them both on the stump, and excite the young romantics and the old Bush-deranged. His vocal approach mimics Martin Luther King with Malcolm X, with perfect network anchor man depth and range. Even if blacks and white college kids did not eat it up, the objective observer would have to rank it well above the Bush or McCain product.

[Dgscol]

Since we live in an open society, our actual intentions in a military action might be secret. To the public it might appear as some kind of ruse. It is almost always the case that Americans are reluctant to fight without a plain provocation. This idea was promoted by FDR who placed ships in harms way.
In Vietnam did they create an incident, to save ships from being placed in harm's way?

Did the Saudi's provide the provocation for Bush's war? Were they afraid of encroachment by the Shiites? Was there a need to protect the oil fields?
Is there a gihad whose aim is to bring global preeminance to a rogue "Islam" ?
Would Americans fight to help the Saudi royals? Was this bad intel, or just a bad job of a CIA operation intended to provide addition impetus to a military action?

The public person did not know FDR wanted to save England as a personal matter. I am not sure but wasn't Vietnam about arresting the Chinese and its government from taking over all of Indochina, possibly Japan, Taiwan, and maybe Australia ? Did not Bush, kiss the ring?

[Dgscol]

Did Cheney create Al-Qaida to cover up the Saudi involvement in 9/11? Were dangerous Islamic extremists identified as members? does this explain the non-capture of Osama ? and his golden path through Afghanistan?

[SteveOk]

THE GULF OF TONKIN RESOLUTION: If you compare the Vietnam War and The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution with the current events of the Iraq War you will see the true character of the Democratic Party. While they did nothing while LBJ lied us into the Vietnam War where more than 50,000 died, they sign on to the whacky conspiracy theories accusing Bush of lying us into the Iraq War. They set on their hands when they controlled Congress in the 60s and allowed LBJ to get away with the most fantastic ruse in American history (because he was a fellow Democrat) and now spew non-stop hatred at Bush when there is no evidence he lied us into the Iraq War.

[FK]

Shall we review the Sixties? LBJ was creamed in protests against Vietnam. He was called out on his lies and his foreign policy. The difference between LBJ and GWB is that LBJ suffered for his decisions. Photographs of him at that time showed his anguish. I wish that GWB felt just a bit bad for what he has done, but he still walks around with his goofy smile, as if he's having the time of his life. I'd be contemplating suicide if I were him.

[SteveOk]

Fred, it was a long time ago, but as I pointed out in my post, some of the same Senators are still in Congress that were there when LBJ tricked us into the Vietnam War. That was the real deal, LBJ actually created a ruse to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the Democrats in Congress did nothing (because he was a Democrat). And oh by the way there is no evidence that Bush lied us into war. Kennedy and Bryd are still in Congress and have the distinction of giving LBJ a free pass and attempting to crucify Bush on no evidence. This shows you the character of the Democratic Party.

[SteveOk]

And we should give LBJ a free pass for tricking us into the Vietnam War because he cared more than Bush? Now I have heard everything. LBJ tricked us into a war where over 50,000 died and you and the Democratic Congress gives him a free pass because he cares more than Bush. Somehow I don't see your logic in this Fred? And oh by the way there is no evidence Bush lied us into the Iraq War, unlike LBJ where it is an historical fact.

[FK]

Oh, Steveok, please don't put words in my mouth.

I did not say that LBJ gets a "free pass" because he suffered. (Please don't use those neocon tactics on me of setting up a strawman and knocking it down.) I did say that I wish there was some indication that GWB has some remorse.

There is a lot of evidence that Bush lied to us. There are books coming out constantly about how we were misled. And I'm not going to go through them all now and summarize them. It's up to you to get your information from sources other than this blog and Fox News. Go to the library and pick up a copy of "Dead Certain".

Actually, Steveok, there is still controversy about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The accounts I've read indicate that "something" happened, that one of our ships was fired upon, but that the incident was blown out of proportion so that LBJ could get the authority he wanted.

After all the history I've read in recent years, I've finally learned that it's hard to discern exactly what constitutes "historical fact".

[J. Pierpont Finch]

From my viewpoint, by sabotaging the Commander-in-Chief during this dangerous time of war with Islamo-fascists who openly call for the genocide and destruction of Israel, the USA, and all non-believers, McClellan is a Judas Traitor giving aid and comfort to the enemy by undermining the President.

SHAME ON McCLELLAN - I HOPE HE GOES TO HELL AND ROTS THERE FOREVER! Perhaps he'll join the likes of Jimmy Carter, Richard Clarke, The Plames, and all of the other losers who are still in denial about the danger we are all in from the Jihad from abroad and from within.

[SteveOk]

Fred, you accuse me of listening to Fox News and this blog, yet you site Robert Draper? Care to share with us his academic qualifications in history that qualifies him to be an authority on anything?

[FK]

Draper is a writer/correspondent, not a historian. He wrote "Dead Certain" based on extensive interviews with insiders in the Bush Administration, including Bush himself. The book is balanced in that is pleasing and displeasing to both liberals and conservatives. Liberals may not like it because it presents Bush as an intelligent man, but conservatives may not like it because it also presents him as someone who makes up his mind first, and disregards facts that don't support his conclusion (he's "dead certain"; hence, the title).

It's a great book. You should read it. I'm sure you can find your library on the Internet and get directions off Yahoo! if you've never been there before.

McClellan can do no more damage to Bush's credibility than Bush has done himself. Bush has been a lame duck since Hurrican Katrina. He has no respect here or abroad.

I'm trying to imagine Osama bin Laden reading McClellan's book and saying, "Hmm, now this aids and comforts me." Give me a break.

You are quite ignorant when you list the people who don't recognize the dangers from abroad. Have you actually read Richard Clarke, Valerie Plame, and Joseph Wilson's books? They absolutely understand the dangers. It's Bush who apparently never understood the dangers. All he understands is the plot of "The Pet Goat".

[SteveOk]

Fred, I don't read books by trophy wives and political hacks, and journalists who pretend to be experts on matters they don't have a clue about.

[SteveOk]

One of the main criticisms of the 9/11 commission was that Congress was dysfunctional and didn't understand the threat of international terrorism. It wasn't hardly discussed in the 2000 election. Now that the Democrats have taken over Congress you can say that in spades. Not only do they not understand the danger of terrorists they believe America is the main threat to peace in the world, and George Bush is the chief terrorists. They continually give aid and comfort to the enemy and insist that Bush is wrong in every move he makes against the terrorists. Bush has kept this country safe since 9/11 dispite every effort possible by the left in this country to sabotage his efforts.

[FK]

Valerie Plame is a good-looking woman, but she's way more than a trophy wife. Otherwise, why was her book so heavily redacted by the CIA? You are kidding yourself because you don't like what she has to say. So it's okay for a conservative like Monica Crowley to be good-looking, but if Valerie Plame is good-looking, that makes her a trophy wife? Yeah, Steveok, you are really enlightened.

Joseph Wilson was honored by none other than George Bush I for his service to our country. But now that he criticizes our beloved president, he's a "political hack"?

Draper does not pretend to be an expert. He is a writer. His book is based on his interviews with insiders, including our beloved president.

Whose books DO you read? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? That guy that keeps getting mentioned who makes the brilliant statement that liberalism is a mental disorder? Yeah, you don't read books by political hacks.

[gringoman]

Gentlemen (including anyone to whom that term does not apply).

It's not correct to say that LBJ lied us into the Vietnam War.

At the time of John F. Kennedy's assasination in November 1963, there were 16,000 US military personnel in Vietnam.

Based on the general consensus about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, we have to say that what the Democrats' President Johnson lied us into was a massive escalation of the Vietnam War,

ps On the World Left's slogan war: Even FrK would know that LBJ took a lot of grief from the campus soviets and their youth:

"Hey, Hey, LBJ
How many kids did you kill today?"

But they never came up with LBJ LIED/PEOPLE DIED.

[Ummahgummah]

The "guy" has a name.

It's Michael Savage. And he's SPOT-ON. Lieberalism is a higly DANGEROUS mental disorder.

[FK]

UG -- The guy is part of the lunatic fringe. So are you. His opinion is absurd. Your opinions are not respected anywhere off this blog.

Gringoman -- Is your problem that today's protesters have better slogans?

[Ummahgummah]

I really don't care if you don't respct my opinions. KKKfred.

Michael Savage is a HUGE lunatic fringe if that's how you want to label him.

The Savage Nation is standing up ever so slowly..

It's going to take a Nation of Millions to holds us back.

[FK]

Hardly.

[FK]

I looked up Michael "Savage", f/k/a Michael Weiner. Perhaps you could explain how a BA in Education and Sociology, an MS in Medical Botony and Medical Anthropology, and a Ph.D. in Nutritional Ethnomedicine (geez!) qualify this guy to diagnose an entire group of people with certain political views with a mental disorder?

I think, Mr. Gumhead, you are taking sarcasm literally. It's time for you to retire that tired phrase that you constantly repeat as if you are being clever.

[J. Pierpont Finch]

Explosive Talk Show Host
http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/?pageId=10

Best-Selling Author of 'The Savage Nation', 'The Enemy Within', 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder', and 'The Political Zoo'

Explosive conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage continues to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic solutions. The 10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week can't be wrong! Turn on WOR in New York, KNEW in San Francisco, WKRO in Boston, or hundreds of other stations nationwide.

Savage is harder hitting than other conservatives. Wilder than Bill, funnier than Ann, Michael Savage is a media icon who is unafraid to take on the establishment. He pulls many of his life experiences, including that of father, son, husband, brother, ice cream factory worker, busboy, lifeguard, writer, and scientist, into his commentary.

Savage coined the terms "Compassionate Conservative" and "Islamo-Fascist," which have been hijacked by Republican speechwriters and spread like wildfire.

An independent-minded individualist, Michael Savage fits no stereotype. He attacks big government and liberal media bias, but champions the environment and animal rights.

Trained as a scientist, he holds Master’s degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology and earned his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley in Epidemiology and Nutritional Science. He spent decades searching and saving tropical rainforests.

Savage is also the author of 18 books including four New York Times Best Sellers: "The Political Zoo", "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder", “The Savage Nation” and “The Enemy Within.”

In show, books and speeches, Michael Savage electrifies and galvanizes his audiences. If you’re looking for someone with an opinion-- who isn’t afraid to tell it like it is-- he’s your man.

SO FREDK, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY TO QUALIFY YOU TO SPOUT OFF POLITICAL VIEW ??

[FK]

Read my question again, Finch. I didn't ask what qualifies him to be a political commentator.

And I am qualified as a well-read, well-informed American to state my views when I please.

[Account Deleted]

JP,

As a Conservative, I find the term "compassionate conservative" insulting, and detrimental to the movement.

If one does not believe that Conservatism IS compassionate then a fundamental weakness in one's understanding of the philosphy has been uncovered. I don't know Savage, but it seems from your remarks he is making up his own brands of Conservatism.

Furthermore, it is an abuse of a degree in science to first create a "disorder" not recognized by the peer community and then impose it categorically on half the country on the sole premise that they hold a certain political view.

Tyranny of the masses by an misguided individual is as an enemy of Conservatism as tyranny by government.

Regards,

[M/M]

Savage's show is very good. I started listening to him on the drive home from work around the time I was trying to escape from the endless stories about Anna Nicole Simpson, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.

Savage is "politically incorrect" and offends me at least once a week, but he also discusses stories I am interested in like Bear Stearns and the economy, foreign policy, history, animal rights, religion and bills in Congress. Although I love FOX "StuckOnNotSoStupid" and "the Leprochan", I do like to hear opposing views once in awhile and Savage is not afraid to challenge everyone. A friend of mine who is an even bigger fan likes him because of his background in Natural Healing and Nutrition.

[doug]

I think that mclellen realized that he was a failure in life, so he started stamping his little feet and whining and by collecting george soros (losers money)and the only way he could attention to himself was to make up stories (that only libs) would believe.
since he was not a close white house confidant, he was only allowed info that the press was to be told!
As far as I'm concerned, george bush has prevented an untold number of deaths in this country by applying a simple solution of "Take the fight to the enemy", or "the best defense is a good offense"!
The simple fact that Noone, not even dense libs can produce is that (There have been NO attacks in this country since George W. Bush showed that he had the stones to "take the fight to the enemy" (AND WIN IT)!

[doug]

I think that mclellen realized that he was a failure in life, so he started stamping his little feet and whining and by collecting george soros (losers money)and the only way he could attention to himself was to make up stories (that only libs) would believe.
since he was not a close white house confidant, he was only allowed info that the press was to be told!
As far as I'm concerned, george bush has prevented an untold number of deaths in this country by applying a simple solution of "Take the fight to the enemy", or "the best defense is a good offense"!
The simple fact that Noone, not even dense libs can produce is that (There have been NO attacks in this country since George W. Bush showed that he had the stones to "take the fight to the enemy" (AND WIN IT)!

[J. Pierpont Finch]

The Soros-McClellan Connection
Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:28:40 pm PST

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30118_The_Soros-McClellan_

[FK]

Doug --

They don't have to attack us here. Bush sent over plenty of targets with inadequate armor for them to attack.

Plus you should not underestimate the patience of the enemy. Just because there was only one attack on our soil during Bush's time in office does not mean they have not been active on our soil making plans.

So are you conceding that if another attack takes place that Bush is a colossal failure?

[Ron Mwangaguhunga]

In the old days you took one for the team. Those days are now passed, probably as a result of Bill Clinton, who "colorful psyche" was so universally regarded as kind of dodgy (although he was quite effective on the issue of the economy). Maybe the President should have given McClellan the Congressional Medal of Freedom. It seemed to work with George Tenet. Judging from his thoughts on Vladimir "Pooty-Poot" Putin and the string of former administration officials who have turned on him, Bush 43's judgement of personalities doesn't seem too keen.

[FK]

Tenet wrote a tell-all book, too. The medal did not work.

People object to being used by this administration.