The Fundamental difference is that Scott McClellan put himself out there on an almost daily basis for years to speak officially for the administration and gave the press no indication that he had misgivings and apparently gave no one in the administration any sign of such misgivings so that they could defend themselves contemporaneously. But now all of a sudden we are asked to believe that he's a brave TRUTH-TELLER.
Chris-2-4 | 05.29.08 - 2:55 pm | #

Fake Courage, Real Cowardice... Did you mean the title of your next post for this one? Sure seems to fit.
Chris-2-4 | 05.29.08 - 2:56 pm | #

Thanks for illustrating my point, Chris. That's how defenders of the cult always talk. If the former cultist used to parrot the party line then that proves the party line was true. If he repudiates the party line, that proves he's erratic. Ignore patently false claims from the cult leader like "We do not torture" or "There is no doubt Saddam possesses WMDs". Focus on the disloyalty of the ex-cultist and shout "traitor".
Mark P. Shea | 05.29.08 - 3:18 pm | #

Chris-2-4 also doesn't seem to understand the dynamic of conversion. As McClellan explains, when he began, he trusted the President and his advisers, and gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Gradually, he began to realize that they were liars. It took him awhile, but he did it.

Hopefully more Bush administration "insiders" will come forward to expose the lies and behind-the-scenes goings-on of this terrible administration.

Here's a good rule of thumb: Anything the Bush administration says should be deemed false unless conclusively proven true.
One for the Thumb! | 05.29.08 - 3:24 pm | #

Spokeman (still not up to spokesmodels yet, oh well) aren't paid for their opinions. They are paid to give the person or institution they are representing's opinion. It wouldn't have been McClennan's place to object at the time, even if he cared to.

Writing a tell-all book is a bit self-serving, but it is something that is tolerated in this day and age. I personally wish the practice would end.
M.Z. Forrest | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 3:58 pm | #

You couldn't be more wrong Mark. You illustrated your own point when posted your comments and yourself said "very little...about whether what he has to say is true.

Nevertheless, the book hasn't even come out yet, they are only responding to the snippets that have been reported which are not facts to be proven true or false, but Scott's impressions.

The fact remains that he did absolutely ZERO to discuss his impressions in a timely manner with the people he now accuses. Had he done so, they could have explained to him their thoughts on matters. Then he might have something interesting to write about. As it is, it's just a bunch of observations and conclusions he's made about people's thought process without actually discussing their thought process.

It's less than heresay and yet you and the media are jumping on it like it's damning evidence.
Chris-2-4 | 05.29.08 - 4:01 pm | #

The word I wanted was "hearsay", not "heresay"...
Chris-2-4 | 05.29.08 - 4:04 pm | #

Actually, I made no claims whatsoever about whether McClellan's book is truthful or not. There's a reason for that: I don't know. I haven't read it. All I remarked on was the curious affinity between the language used here and that used by ex-cultists and their critics. The only language I *know* to be a lie is the language used by the Administration which I cited above. McClellan may, for all I know be engaging in self-exculpation: former cultists often do. He may be in it for a buck: lots of Bushies are. That doesn't change the curious fact that he and his critics sound just like an ex-cultist arguing with people who still have not abandoned the cult leader. It's all about loyalty and betrayal, not about whether what he says describes reality.
Mark P. Shea | 05.29.08 - 4:09 pm | #

Your stated point, Mark, was that little is being said about whether what he has to say is true. And you followed the same pattern. You proved the point by not discussing the truth of it.

You then defend yourself on that count by saying, "There's a reason for that: I don't know. I haven't read it". Which is precisely the reason I stated for THEM not addressing the truth of it.

I guess a reason good enough for you is not good enough for them in your opinion.

The only truth that can be known by us at this point, is that Scott McClellan is a lousy witness to rest a case on.
Chris-2-4 | 05.29.08 - 4:16 pm | #

Excellent form, Chris. Shout "traitor". If he was a woman you could also throw in the "nuts and sluts" ploy that worked so well for the Clintons.

Yep. It's all about questioning loyalty. Me: I'll wait till I've read the book (if I ever get around to it) to decide whether McClellan is a liar. I've long ago stopped defending the cult of Bush and I didn't need McClellan to tell me the Administration is a hothouse of groupthink led by a man who dislikes thinking too much and is not averse to lying when he thinks he needs to.
Mark P. Shea | 05.29.08 - 4:41 pm | #

Scott McClellan's tell all book isn't all that revealing. Like O'Relly said on FOX last night. "McClellan said Bush mishanded Katrina? Well Duh!".
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 05.29.08 - 4:44 pm | #

Excellent form, Chris. Shout "traitor".

Direct me to where I said anything remotely resembling that...

Me: I'll wait till I've read the book

I simply suggested you give the administration the same benefit.

As for me, I actually assume he's NOT a liar until I have evidence to the contrary. However, he's given his OPINION of the administration and freely admits that he didn't bother to FORM that OPINION with any actual discussion with those involved. So it's hardly the same as dismissing a rape victim to say that I believe his opinion was probably inadequately informed.
Chris-2-4 | 05.29.08 - 4:55 pm | #

Direct me to where I said anything remotely resembling that...

Could have something to do with your kneejerk assumption that a man whose book you have not read is a liar ("But now all of a sudden we are asked to believe that he's a brave TRUTH-TELLER.")
coupled with the kneejerk will to "give the benefit of the doubt" to people we have on record as lying repeatedly about matters up to and including war crimes.

Defend the cult and the Leader, Chris. It's the sole imperative.
Mark P. Shea | 05.29.08 - 5:14 pm | #

I know you can read, so either you're being lazy and not reading what I write or you're simply being malicious. What other explanation is there for following up my comment of:

"As for me, I actually assume he's NOT a liar until I have evidence to the contrary."

with this utter falsehood:

"Could have something to do with your kneejerk assumption that a man whose book you have not read is a liar"

Questioning whether someone is "a brave TRUTH-TELLER" is not the same as assuming they are liars. Most people understand that "not telling the truth" is not necessarily the same as "lying".

Furthermore, I did not assume per se that he was not telling the truth. My point was that people who never believed the man in the past, automatically now assume that he is telling the truth and that his truth is THE TRUTH. Why? Because it fits with their own pre-conception, not because they trust the man or what he's saying.
Chris-2-4 | 05.29.08 - 5:40 pm | #

Chris, please consider how the slavery of sin works. The diabolical message is that, having once sinned, we are the devil's property forever. We are without hope, forever incapable of repentance.

They are doing the devil's core task who point at the repentant, saying "Hypocrite, I know what you really are!"

Your line of argument excludes the possibility of conversion. It's not just alien to Christianity, it's hostile to it.
Romulus | 05.29.08 - 5:42 pm | #

Brit Hume says it wasn't all Scott's fault. That he didn't ask to be in on briefings so he pretty much was sent out there to respond every day just with given talking points BECAUSE they disliked the liberal press so much and didn't want to have someone able to give them much more, hoping to frustrate them. So Scott took it and looked completely out of his element which Brit says he definitely was...but a nice guy!
CK | 05.29.08 - 6:00 pm | #

Questioning whether someone is "a brave TRUTH-TELLER" is not the same as assuming they are liars.

Uh huh. Sure.

Well, pall, it's also not ever-so-gently whispering that we must give him the benefit of the doubt as we must always do our great and good Leaders, even when they are on record as lying through their teeth. For some reason, all the energy of what any normal speaker of English would call "scorn" "ridicule" and "hostility" is directed at McClellan while you continue to walk on eggshells rather than credit the slightest suggestion that the Administration is less than trustworthy. *That* would be horribly mean and 'ow you say? "uncharitable"--despite the established fact that they lie about matters up to and including war crimes.

Give thou me a break, Chris. It's perfectly obvious what conclusion you wanted people to arrive at about McClellan in your first two posts. It's the Administration party line. It might have been cribbed from Dan Bartlett's talking points. Backtracking now only insults my intelligence.
Mark P. Shea | 05.29.08 - 6:13 pm | #

Most people understand that "not telling the truth" is not necessarily the same as "lying".

I guess I'm not most people. The only situation I can think of where not telling the the truth might /= lying is where one remains silent, therefore one is not telling anything. And even then, under some circumstances, remaining silent can be tantamount to lying.

Am I missing something?
c matt | 05.29.08 - 6:15 pm | #

Here's a loyal member of the cult who does discuss whether what McClellan says is true.

Imagine that.
Tom Connelly | 05.29.08 - 6:54 pm | #

It strikes me that

A) McClellan's book may be mostly true (or close enough)...

AND -

B) He may still be a weasel looking to gain media approval and make a quick buck.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Tim J. | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 10:21 pm | #

Also after November Bush is out of the Job. Others will write books giving him a more sympathetic hearing.

Myself, I am unhappy Bush didn't secure the board & didn't control Iraq & as a result lost Congress to the Evil Party.

Still he was a better President than Clinton. But that's not hard.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 05.29.08 - 10:47 pm | #

I guess I'm not most people. The only situation I can think of where not telling the the truth might /= lying is where one remains silent

Try expanding your thought processes then. It's not that difficult. It's called being "wrong" or "mistaken". That's neither telling the truth, nor lying. It's only difficult if you want it to be, or if you want there to be only 2 sides to every story.
chris-2-4 | 05.29.08 - 11:17 pm | #

I just saw him on Oberman for a few minutes. That's all of Oberman I could stomach. I just don't get it. Why did McClellan need to say something condemning the Bush 41 campaign against Dukakis? Why so high and mighty? Who is this guy that we should consider his opinions great wisdom missed out on by the pres? McCl claimed that Bush missed out on working constructively w/Dems by not putting a Dem in at the newly-created homeland security dept. I guess he missed Bush kissing Kennedy's keister and getting slapped in the face left and right.

That said, I have no idea whether his book is fact or fiction--maybe a little of both. But the moral superiority that is being attached to him for his "revelations" and "truthiness" is rather annoying.
Peggy | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 11:18 pm | #

This happened before you know. George Stephanapolous had "All Too Human" published right about the time it became clear to a large number of democrats that the Clintons weren't all they'd hoped for. It was a good book and seemd pretty geniune, (from what I could surmise anyway). In fact, this happens all the time. I live in the area and know quite a few people who come to DC with high ideals for public service only to exit a few years later with a pretty jaded outlook.
julian | 05.29.08 - 11:57 pm | #

Mark:

I suppose one could say the same about Rod Dreher leaving the Catholic Church - your responses, and others', regarding Dreher's "escape" are similar to many of the responses of conservatives to the McClellan thing.

Just saying, you might want to be a bit more circumspect regarding your analogies.
Kozaburo | Homepage | 05.30.08 - 2:16 am | #

And another...
Tom Connelly | 05.30.08 - 6:55 am | #

And another
Tom Connelly | 05.30.08 - 6:57 am | #

Mark, I gotta say, it's tough for me to take McClellan at face value. I mean, coming out just in time to cash in on the election season, and blaming everyone else as if he weren't just as much a part of it? And I heard him say yesterday that he had hoped his book would "reduce partisanship". Come on, there's no way he really thought that.

Maybe he really is telling the truth, but it's all too fishy for me to just accept it in good faith.
The Deuce | 05.30.08 - 10:10 am | #

The Nordlinger piece was good.
Pauli | Homepage | 05.30.08 - 11:24 am | #

I have actually seen a lot less grousing about loyalty than Mark has in the critiques of McClellan, so I'm not convinced that the motif of cult Mark lays out fits McClellan's publicity junkets and the responses very well. In some cases, yes, but not enough to read as much into it as Mark does.

Mostly, I'm seeing attacks on McClellan's credibility, which speaks to the issue of truth that Mark thinks should be central here. Former staffers coming forward to say that McClellan could not know about things that he claims to know, or that his assertions of misgivings while in office were mysteriously absent amidst expressed enthusiasm for the job, all pertain to issues of truthfulness. There has also been plenty of suspicion expressed about self-serving promotion and cashing in one's insider cache while it still has some value, all of which is similar to the criticism doled out on books by former staffers of the Clinton White House. Questions of motive touch upon believability as well.

Anyway, these have been the focus of the majority and more powerful critiques that I have seen about McClellan. Comments about disloyalty have come up, certainly, but I just don't see an overriding theme or pattern in the response that Mark apparently sees.
Ronny | 05.30.08 - 11:47 am | #

What strikes me about the whole flap with McClellan is how, if you took out McClellan's name and put in, say, Jason Beghe and then took out "Bush Administration" and put in "Church of Scientology", almost all the dynamics and the language of everybody on both sides of the controversy would be indistinguishable.

One very obvious difference is that McClellan is trying to sell you something. As far as I know, Beghe hasn't signed any multimillion dollar book contracts.

Of course, it's probably worth listening to what McClellan has to say in these interviews. But I won't forget to take it with a grain of salt... and I'm certainly not going to buy his book.

(Now, Mark will no doubt claim that I'm one of those Parroting the Party Line and shouting "Traitor!")
James Nightshade | 05.30.08 - 1:54 pm | #

It's the price of being a neo-con. The last chapter always entails pointing the gun at the head of the movement only to find when one pulls the trigger that his or her own foot is the one that's shot.

Deo Vindice!
Confederate Papist | 05.30.08 - 2:45 pm | #

I agree with my law partner, Bob Dole.
Mike Petrik | 05.30.08 - 2:58 pm | #

The somewhat dubious merits of his book (I've yet to waste (I fear) the money, but I will), aside. One thing we do know about Scotty is that, whatever else he is, he is a real live grade A buffoon. Go back and watch the tape--a perfect example of this administration's never ending quest to hire people stupider than the bosses.

Personally I think that George Neumayr dead on in his assessment: same tool, just a different set of hands using him.
The Contrarians' Review | Homepage | 05.30.08 - 3:58 pm | #

By the way, here's the full interview with Jason Beghe on Scientology. Very interesting. God bless him and let's all keep him in our prayers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N...h?v=NNUjMz9- W2I
Brennan | Homepage | 05.30.08 - 6:24 pm | #

Ben Yachov, how can you POSSIBLY think that the Bush Administration has performed better than any other presidency?

By all standards, the Neo-Con ascendance has been a disaster for our country and the world. It will take decades to undo the damage.
Kerygma | 05.31.08 - 3:06 am | #

The "Neocons are the devil" cult speaks. It was inevitable.
Tom Connelly | 05.31.08 - 8:55 am | #

Does is matter what Brutus said about Caesar? They all died in the end, anyway.
David B. | 05.31.08 - 3:48 pm | #

Neo-cons destroyed the conservative movement.

Neo-con = 1960's liberal with morals.
Confederate Papist | 06.02.08 - 7:51 am | #

Confederate Papist,

RE: your definition of neo-cons.

You're half right.
The Contrarians' Review | Homepage | 06.02.08 - 9:59 am | #

Neo-cons destroyed the conservative movement.

Of course they did. It was their diabolical secret plan.

They are evil incarnate.
Tom Connelly | 06.02.08 - 10:14 am | #

"Of course they did. It was their diabolical secret plan."

Rightly so. Unfortunately a lot of real conservatives didn't see it until it's too late, and I include myself in that mix.
Confederate Papist | 06.02.08 - 11:42 am | #

I watched McClellan get metaphorically machine-gunned by the press, day after day. I was both embarrassed for him and that he was making the case for, well, just about anything. NOW he's saying essentially to the press, "you guys were too nice to me."

WSJ has a piece by one of McClellan's subordinates who basically calls BS on the whole deal, his question being "were you lying to us then or are you lying to everybody now? Cuz given what you said to us then, it's one or the other."

Everyone touting the book had voiced the same criticisms of the Administration themselves earlier, with the difference that they hated McClellan and called him a buffoon. Now they just keep their opinion quieter.

Lastly: how does a guy who has anything resembling a political mind get from working in the Bush Administration to describing Barack Obama as "like George Bush was in 2000?" That's up there with describing Michael Dukakis as being like Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Ed the Roman | 06.02.08 - 11:45 pm | #