Posted on 06/03/2008 4:30:36 AM PDT by The Hound Passer
In the media week that has been Scott McClellan, my former colleague has had his motives questioned, his character impugned, and his own book dismissed as something he could not possibly have written himself.
Yet in the midst of the storm, the press has largely skipped over what is at once Scott's central claim, and his silliest argument: that the president's big mistake was to embrace the "permanent campaign" and that this led to a strategy that meant "never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."
The decisions on Iraq that followed Scott's departure tell a much different story. Whether you agree with the surge or not, that decision was one of the defining acts of his presidency. And what Scott apparently still has not recognized is that his own heave-ho was the prelude to exactly the kind of reconsideration he says was impossible in the Bush White House.
Exhibit A is the sacking of Don Rumsfeld immediately after the 2006 elections that gave the Democrats control of Congress. The "after" is critical, because the president was blasted for his timing by many in his own party. Arlen Specter complained that he would still be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee if the president had made the move before the elections. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that the president's timing probably cost Republicans control of the Senate and 10 to 15 seats in the House.
These men had a point. But the timing also said something about George W. Bush: A president who makes a decision knowing that it could cost his party control of Congress can be accused of many things, but subsuming all his decisions to the "permanent campaign" cannot seriously be one of them.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I think this piece by McGurn in today's WSJ is the first attempt I've seen by anyone in the media to really poke holes at McClellan's leftwing generated perceptions and myths instead of just name calling (which McClellan deserves, but that alone doesn't reveal him to be the phony he is).
Washington has a history of McClellens with poor military understanding...
McClellan sold out to the libs. He is dull at best so had to do something to sell a book. I always thought he was the worst Press Secretary ever.He should be holding his head down in shame and too dumb to realize it.
When you’re out of work and writing a book you don’t have time to read the papers, so he probably did miss the surge.
If he only defended the President as well as he does his Screed, he would still be press secretary.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Yes, and he also missed the bus...the one marked "Duty", "Integrity", "Honor". What a colosal PUTZ.
The problem is I think he defend the President as well as he is his book. That is to say, not very well at all. The difference now is the press is going easy on him with his book so as to make him look stronger than he is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.