Scott McClellan, 2006
May 29th, 2008 at 11:58pm Mark Noonan
Mr. President, it has been an extraordinary honor and privilege to have served you for more than seven years now, the last two years and nine months as your Press Secretary.
The White House is going through a period of transition; change can be helpful, and this is a good time and good position to help bring about change. I am ready to move on. I’ve been in this position a long time, and my wife and I are excited about beginning the next chapter in our life together.
You have accomplished a lot over the last several years with this team, and I have been honored and grateful to be a small part of a terrific and talented team of really good people.
Was he lying then, or is he lying now? Only McClellan, and God, can know for certain…but I note that a very liberal friend of mine is disgusted with McClellan and his book.
UPDATE: From NRO’s Editors:
McClellan tries to walk a fine line between echoing Bush haters and saying utterly irresponsible things. So he specifically stipulates that the administration didn’t lie. But he couches a commonplace point — that nuances were lost in the heat of the debate over Iraq in the run-up to the war — in indefensibly incendiary language. We won’t rehearse the tired debate over the intelligence over Iraq, except to note that the Silberman-Robb commission studied the matter and concluded the fundamental problem was the poor quality of what intelligence we had to begin with.
McClellan makes much of the administration’s emphasis on weapons of mass destruction prior to the war, as opposed to Bush’s desire to transform the Middle East, which wouldn’t have been as palatable to the public. This is an odd sort of supposedly damning charge: that Bush was secretly more idealistic than he let on in public. But the two rationales for the war weren’t mutually exclusive, and Bush talked about the importance of a democratic transformation in the Middle East as well as the dangers of Saddam, even if the emphasis was (appropriately) on the latter.
The most extraordinary aspect of McClellan’s book is the sense that he stumbled into a reckless, propagandizing administration and did its bidding for years without realizing how nefarious it was — until he left and decided to write a book. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he has shaped his views to the marketing pressures of the publishing industry. If so, it is a shameful end to an undistinguished public career.
Yep.
Entry Filed under: President Bush
46 Comments
1. cam | May 30th, 2008 at 12:28 am
It won’t matter. No matter how many ex Bush admin people come forward and reveal the truth about the selling of this unecessary war there will be a certain percentage, who have made a substantial emotional and psychological investment in the selling of this war and will never come to accept the truth. Certainly one can continue to try and justify the planning or lack of planning for the aftermath/occupation. Certainly one can continue to cheerlead for Bush and his legacy of death and deficit. Just as the common citizens eventually noticed that the emperor had no clothes, at some point, even the most fervent Bush faithful must begin to develop a sense of doubt about the necessity of this war.
2. jayhay | May 30th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Yeah there’s a certain disgust on this side of the aisle, though I’m glad for him he’s coming to grips with reality. Our reaction is more, “Ya think?”
3. What? | May 30th, 2008 at 12:57 am
I would be curious to meet a person Mark considers to be “very liberal.” She/He must be either a center leaning Democrat or one of the 1% ultra-left Americans who believe in Maoist Communism while supporting the Tibetean Freedom Movement.
As for this book, it is all old news the American public has long since realized. The response from the WH and right-wing media is the more interesting aspect of the story. The whole thing was like clock-work.
I imagine Scott believes what he has written and believed it when he left the White House. His comments above are those of a person gracefully ending a job who was yet unsure about whether he wanted to air his boss’ dirty laundry.
4. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 1:14 am
What,
Unlike your mindless stereotypes about people, I actually take people as they are…including liberal people, some of whom are very close to me, and much loved in my life. This particular lady is about as liberal as you get - but she’s not mindless leftist, as all too many of you liberals are these days.
At any rate, it is interesting that you’ve plugged for “lying back in 2006″ - a clear indicator of your desire that this book be true…
5. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 1:15 am
cam,
Like most liberals these days, you’ve got it exactly backwards…but, then again, this is the Age of Lies, and I’ve found that quite a number of people prefer a lie to the truth, because a lie requires no effort, intellectual or otherwise.
6. thrower | May 30th, 2008 at 1:24 am
I suspect most of the posters here are pretty thoughtful people Mark. But when virtually every post is introduced with a charge that liberals are foolish, thoughtless, feckless, traitorous or delusional, it doesn’t exactly bring out the best in posters from either side. Occasionally you get a thread where people debate issues in a civil manner, and more often than not, it depends on how you introduce it. Most threads started by Leo quickly dissolve into hate fests.
7. Stimpy | May 30th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Deleted - vulgarity; commenter to be banned.
8. Gaijin | May 30th, 2008 at 1:52 am
I always felt a bit sorry for Scotty. You could tell he was kinda in over his head. Ari Fleisher strikes me as intelligent and handled himself well, even if I didn’t agree with or believe him half the time. Same with Tony Snow. I haven’t really watched enough of Perino to have fully formed an opinion. But Scotty in the press room was like watching 110lb high school freshman box Mike Tyson. Being Bush’s press secretary most take a lot out of a person. It has to be rough selling a piece of your soul and lying and telling half truths all day everyday
9. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Gaijin,
So, you’re going for the “lying in 2006″, too…what makes you so certain he was lying then, but is telling the truth now?
10. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 2:17 am
thrower,
Sadly, most of the liberal/left commenters here are not worth the time of day…and you likely don’t see most of the ones which have to go because of extreme vulgarity and other nastiness; we generally nip those in the bud pretty quick. It is pretty clear to me that a lot of them are “seminar commenters”; directed to go to conservative blogs and just muck them up.
As for liberals being foolish, thoughtless, etc…well, most of you are, and most of you get worse all the time. I’m dealing with people here who think that Wilson told the truth…when you have that as a basis, you can’t help but use such descriptions.
11. Teetertotter | May 30th, 2008 at 2:22 am
Christ, you’ll shake the last drop of kool-aid out of the cup Noonan.
12. Gaijin | May 30th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Mark,
There are several instances in which he uttered lies and half truths. Is his entire book exactly what happened in the WH? How the hell should I know? I would severly doubt it. But I would say there is truth in his book
“Memory-just alternate version of reality.”
You do exactly what you accuse those on the left of doing: repeating talking points and walking lock step with what the party says. Which is fine, you are entitled to your opinion. However, the Republican party is much more centralized from the top down and good at staying on message. That’s why they did so well from 2000-2006. That and Karl Rove, who is a political genious, but also ruthlessly evil.
The party is over for the Republicans though. Barack HUSSEIN Obama might was well start picking out what color curtains he is going to put in the Lincoln bedroom.
Peace, Gaijin
13. What? | May 30th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Mark,
What makes you so sure he is telling the truth now?
This is priceless:
“Unlike your mindless stereotypes about people, I actually take people as they are…including liberal people”
You run a web site where you lump people into two camps, liberals and conservative, every single day and make broad generalization like liberals are anti-intellectual.
Classic Irony. Classic Noonan.
I was curious because you have such a ridiculous idea of what constitutes a liberal. I am wondering if you just happen (miracuously) to know people on the fringe or you don’t realize that the people you call liberals (like me) are in the center of the politcal spectrum.
One more question:
Do you lump this woman (who you know to be a liberal and who you love very much) with the rest of us intellectually incurious liberals? Have you told her she is intellectually incourious? If so, how did she take that?
14. What? | May 30th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Yes Mark
You always judge people individually and never makes broad generalizations based on political leanings:
“As for liberals being foolish, thoughtless, etc…well, most of you are.”
And I suppose most conservatives are wise, steely eyed sages whose purpose is to protect us foolish non-conservatives from ourselves.
15. thrower | May 30th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Thank you Mark. Personal insult noted along with your assumption that anyone on the political spectrum left of Barry Goldwater is now “liberal.”
16. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 3:12 am
what,
Show me a spark of independence from liberal orthodoxy and my respect for you will grow by leaps and bounds…all I ever see from you and most of the other liberal commenters is a mindless repetition of liberal/left party orthodoxy.
As for my friend - she’s intellectually incurious about politics, to be sure…the subject doesn’t come up too often, and that is why today’s remarks about McClellen had extra meaning…she doesn’t like President Bush, she’s a liberal, and yet she’s disgusted with McClellan…you see, that is showing intellectual independence…to explain it slowly and carefully, “intellectual independence” means observing events and drawing one’s own conclusions…
I like you, what, as a commenter - but mostly because you are polite and never nasty…this is refreshing; but I can’t recall anything you’ve ever said which surprised me in the least.
17. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 3:14 am
thrower,
And you are even more predictable than most liberals…
18. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 3:20 am
…just to keep it clear: I’m the guy who wants to end the death penalty, work out a livable arrangement for domestic partnerships, change the tax incentives to encourage smaller corporations, start a crash course in switching over from oil fuel to electricity in our cars, legalise drugs, provide a path to citizenship for illegal aliens…but I also want to win the war, cut taxes, provide school choice (especially for poor parents), make affirmative action based on need rather than skin color, allow prayer in public schools, create a religious exemption in law on matters such as employment, housing and healthcare, ban pornography, ban abortion, strictly enforce property rights…I’m a conservative, but there’s no marching in lock step on the right; it is anethema to us…it is, in a word, fascist…and if you would finally learn at least one thing, then please make it the understanding that fascism isn’t of the right.
Other conservatives view things differently - but we are all one, big happy family…sqabbling, to be sure, but happy with each other all the same. Where, liberals, do you step outside of party orthodoxy?
19. Pain | May 30th, 2008 at 5:23 am
16. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 3:12 am
The We, Ourselves take it that you are equally intellectually independent and find Dick Morris equally disgusting?
20. Danish Artist | May 30th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Scott is laughing all the way to the bank.
A “tell all” book that liberals will think it will vindicate there “logic” and BDS.
Scott knows that there is a waiting audience with baited breath for this work. He make substantial coin for giving them what they want, while stretching the truth like Micheal Moore does.
As evidenced by the liberal posters here, Scott can only say CHA CHING!!!
“…coming to grips with reality” CHA CHING!!!
“I imagine Scott believes what he has written and believed it when he left the White House. His comments above are those of a person gracefully ending a job who was yet unsure about whether he wanted to air his boss’ dirty laundry.” CHA CHING! CHA CHING!!
Writing this “tell all” book during this election year??? Priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21. extramedium | May 30th, 2008 at 7:27 am
“Was he lying then, or is he lying now?”
I don’t think what he said were his words at all. Just like any other high profile departure in business or government, his statement was crafted and/or approved by the administration. Heck, I’ve written a few of these departure statements myself. Example - executives rarely quit in disgust, but instead “move on to spend more time with their family”.
The idea that he made up this slander to make a buck is a better argument - I could buy that, and he will sell a ton of books. A “disingenuous parting statement” argument is pretty weak.
22. Pain | May 30th, 2008 at 7:28 am
20. Danish Artist | May 30th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Middle Class Bush supporters do not have to buy the book because they know what McClellan says is true. Nothing rings truer than the concept of “permanent campaign” or better put the perpetual politicization of the Executive Branch for the purposes of building Presidental legacy, coercing the Iraqis into democracy for their own good and creating a permanent conservative majority in American government.
One out of three ain’t bad. Somewhere, Ronald Reagan is crying and Barry Goldwater is laughing and we are just dancing.
23. Some Assembly Required | May 30th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Scott is regurgitating things the public already knows. He’ll make millions from his book since his ‘change of heart’. I’m glad he finally had the so call courage to step out of lock step with the administration, but lets get real, only a naive child would claim ignorance as a defense. From the exerts I’ve heard from his book he basically says he was duped by guilty parties such as Karl Rove. This is what I find hard to believe. How could he not say to himself, wait a minute, somethings not right here a couple years ago? He needs to be told by the media that it was wrong then reflect and write a book about how he played along with it while taking very little responsibility for himself. It is shameful.
In the end, nothing will be done about this book or the questions asked. It’ll just go to being one of those ‘Oh thats terrible’ conversations at the dinner table before the mash potato’s get served. But come November, there will be a democrat in the White House by the Name Of Obama or whatever soup of the day name you have for him.
24. Street Riot | May 30th, 2008 at 7:59 am
“Was he lying then, or is he lying now?”
You want to find out if he is lying then or now, that is easy? You cons have connections; get Colin Powell on a show like Meet the Press to discuss this book. If he says it is all garbage you might have a chance of changing some minds of the 71% who see this Administration for what it is; conservatism run amuck. Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox News running around liar, liar Scotty’s pants are on fire will not change a single mind.
There is nothing new with what Scotty is saying that 71% of Americans don’t already know. We were lied to by this Administration as part of a sick neocon plan of forceful democratization of another country. A plan which also had the intent of placing the “war” President on an equal historical platform with Presidents such as Lincoln and Roosevelt. Trouble is the neocon’s cost in its attempt to chisel a bust of Bush on Mount Rushmore, has lead to Iraq close to ruins, our treasury and military depleted and more importantly 4000 of our best dead.
25. neocon | May 30th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Let’s look at this:
In 2006, Scott didn’t make a dime for his comments. Now, his comments will stand to make hime millions. I wonder where his motivation came from?
Also, Scott may be a heck of a lot smarter than the libs give him credit for. He seized on their BDS, wrote a book, and now will retire off of their purchases. I think he got exactly what he wanted from them.
26. Pain | May 30th, 2008 at 10:22 am
25. neocon | May 30th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Scott McClellan received $50 831 in compensation between 1 January 2006 and his departure date of 26 April 2006.
27. Dean | May 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am
McClellan reportedly got a $75,000 advance for the book, which is big for a first-time author, but piddling for an ex-administration insider. Tenet got way, way more than that. And it looks like McClellan was getting more as a press secretary, too. Supposedly they printed 65000 books, and they’ve upped the run to 130000. First time authors typically get only a small share as royalties, so McClellan is unlikely to make ‘millions’. He’ll probably get, oh, maybe two years salary or so. Hardly retirement money.
Lying then or now? Then, for sure. He was fed lies and half-truths. It was his job to tell them. It’s not a job I could do, for sure.
On balance, it seems extremely likely that he’s telling the truth. Sadly, the damning evidence will largely be ignored.
28. Dean | May 30th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Here’s the url for the print run/advance numbers:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ikD3jNX4HCmyUMPGLaTM2f2srTlwD90VOCU81
29. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 11:36 am
SAR,
He’s saying what people suffering from severe BDS know - which, of course, is entirely BS from start to finish. Neocon might really be on to something here - I had, once upon a time, thought about writing an anti-Bush polemic as a hoax in order to make bags of money off the left…McClellan might have decided to just go ahead and write what the Bush-haters want to hear, knowing that they’d eagerly gobble it up, and shell out big money for it. Regardless of what money he’s going to make on this book (and it is more than you might think - the low royalties become high royalties the more the book sells), to have as his first book a best seller will make his advance for his next book pretty hefty.
30. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Extra,
This part:
Is un-necessary if all you’re doing is gracefully exiting…he called them “terrific”, “talented” and “good”…now he’s calling them a bunch of liars…he was either lying then, or lying now…and as the book deal came some time after departure, the likelihood is that he’s lying now.
31. Some Assembly Required | May 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Mark,
Though I agree a primary reason for him coming out with this book now is for profit (A true Capitalist if you will). Your implication of him pandering to people with ‘BDS’ is ridiculous. By your assertions, 70% of the country has ‘BDS’. More and more it’s beginning to look like that term needs to be re-defined and applied to the other 30%. Instead of ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’ it should be ‘Bush Denial Syndrome’.
Also, it’s no great secret that the US was lied into war… WMD’s for crying out loud. Or that Iraq is a complete strategic failure and a Succubus on our Economy. Unless of course you live in a gated community in the Hamptons and get someone else to pump gas in your cars.
32. Dean | May 30th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I knew I could count on you, Mark.
I’m going to buy McClellan’s book, because it is my policy to reward those who tell the truth.
Who knows, maybe the book will hit the bestseller list? If it does, it’ll get second, third printings, and McClellan likely has language in his contract that will up his royalties. So he might make a bundle…
if he’s telling the truth. Because the Bush loyalists (of which you are one of the most blindly faithful) will attack the book, and any weakness, any flaw, any little slip, will be exploited. So the book has to be true. I’ll bet that the fact-checkers went through it with a flea comb.
McClelland is finally telling the truth, Mark. I think at some point even most republicans will accept that, the way they finally accepted that Nixon was a crook.
(I have to say, I like your anti-robot widget. Most of the verifiers use random strings of letters and they’re hard to type. This is much better.)
33. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
SAR,
Hardly - I know you take President Bush’s disapproval rating and go, “that means that all those who disapprove of him 100% agree with me!”, but the fact that Obama and McCain are neck and neck and there still isn’t the political power in the US to pull out of Iraq shows that, just perhaps, that while large numbers of people disapprove of President Bush’s performance, it doesn’t follow that they all agree with you.
This book is just mind candy for people with BDS…no one who is free from that affliction will even give the book a second thought. It will sell very well, to BDS-sufferers, and then not be read…and will eventually just become a talking point for the left.
34. Pain | May 30th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
29. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Just two things Noonan
1) If Bill Clinton had done exactly what George W Bush has done as president you would have supported him
2) How does Scott McClellan compare to John Dean potentially?
35. Some Assembly Required | May 30th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Mark, when Obama is the Dem. nom. and Hilary is entirely out of the race You’ll see a completely different spin. From what I have witnessed, McCain does not stand a prayer against Obama come the General. People on the whole do not agree with his / Bush’s economic policy. If it was working, things wouldn’t be so bad economically right now. Not to mention, the majority of us want out of Iraq. Abortion and Gay Marriage will not hold water in November. I think McCain realizes this and is shifting towards a more moderate campaign. I don’t take much stalk in polls, but when poll, after poll, after poll… even ones from ‘realclearpolitics’ show bush’s approval ratings in the (expletive deleted) there is no denying it. Call it ‘BDS’ all you want but the Country does not like President Bush. Therefore your implying the vast majority of this country are suffering from a ‘Derangement Syndrome’… I guess that would explain why we went into Iraq and why Bush is serving a second term in Office.
I’m glad to see you have your talking point regarding Scotty. Though forgive me, and say 70% of Americans if we don’t take anything you say seriously anymore. First you guys call him a liberal, but since that was tried before and failed now you say he was perpetuating a ‘hoax’ to sell books. So I ask you sir, how come no one is bringing him up on slander charges? Would the publishers fact checkers let such a thing slide and face the repercussions of various lawsuits possibly in the millions of dollars? Your arguments don’t hold up under the simplest of questions. Yet you wonder why 3 - 5 year old talking points are still being used…
Once you loose credibility it is damn near impossible to get back. I wish you the best though.
36. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
SAR,
You are, as usual, not paying attention to what I’m saying…you just rush right past it an insist upon arguing against things I haven’t said.
Try again - this time read what I’ve written (and get a dictionary out if any of the words are too difficult); comprehend it (as help from friends and family members as needed) and then comment. As it is, I can’t respond directly to what you just wrote because it bears no real relation to what I’m talking about.
37. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Pain,
Given that John Dean rolled over on Nixon in order to try and save his own butt, I’ll still put McClellan a bit higher than Dean.
As for what I would have done had Clinton did what GW did - impossible, of course, to know existentially what I would have done, but the plain fact of the matter is that it was 9/11 which turned me from Isolationist to Interventionist. As Clinton was pre-9/11, I was working from a different set of information than I was working with after 9/11, with President Bush in office. Had Clinton been President on 9/11, I would have very likely been in favor of just what happened - a liberation of Iraq…but, given the nature of Clinton, Iraq would not be liberated today…and, perhaps, neither would Afghanistan.
38. InDaVa | May 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I’d say lying then….It was his job to tell the people what the administration told him to say, as are all in that position. People are talking like he will be set for life with this book…hardly.
Alot of political figures write books and to say they only do it for the money is disingenuous, Danish Artist.
His book is probably has some truth to it. I’m won’t be sure until I actually read it.
39. jayhay | May 30th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Mark: “what makes you so certain he was lying then, but is telling the truth now?”
Because was being paid to tell someone else’s story back then, fer crissakes. Now he’s giving his own views. Still it’s amazing to watch you guys crucify anyone who steps out and states the obvious… That poor guy is going to find out who his real friends are.
40. Some Assembly Required | May 30th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Ok Mark, I’ll slow it down a bit for you. When you say McCain and Obama are neck in neck, the only thing you can be referring too are polls, how else would they be neck and neck at this point. Unless you say their neck and neck because they are both running for president in which case do I need to point out the absurdity of that?
As for no political power to take us out of Iraq, your correct. BUT, when Obama is president, there will be a majority and any bill put forward regarding withdrawal or a reduction in funding will in Iraq not be vetoed. Granted this won’t happen day 1. Even Obama has said that.
Hate to break it to you, but if you disagree with bush’s performance, chances are it’s because of his policies or the way in which he goes about them. Now when you have a candidate talking about furthering those policies, well…
And Finally, you say the book is mind candy for people with BDS and no one who doesn’t have BDS will give the book a second thought. I ask you one very simple question, Why is it making headlines? Even on Fox News. Another one, why is the administration clamoring over themselves to discredit Scotty in anyway they can?
Incidentally, I do agree that this book will become nothing more then a talking point. I believe I already stated that in an earlier post, just not in so many words.
41. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
jayhay,
Don’t know about that, but President Bush is sure finding out who his friends are these days…
42. Mark Noonan | May 30th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
SAR,
Geesh - I’ll slow it down even more:
I said, “President Bush is unpopular”
You said, “no, Mark, President Bush is unpopular”
I said, “unpopularity of Bush doesn’t mean agreement with leftwing”
You said, nothing…
43. Some Assembly Required | May 30th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Mark, anyone who disagrees with Bush you tend to claim BDS before even looking at the matter.
It stands to reason, if you disagree with a man because of his policies then you’ll disagree with the man who wants to continue them. People with BDS (leftwing) disagree with Bush because he is Bush. Others of the more reasonable nature disagree with him because of his failed policies. Others disagree with what the republican party has become under a Bush administration. In any event, do you really think anyone believing that will vote another republican who thinks Bush’s tax cuts are a smart idea into the white house?
44. Tractatus | May 30th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“Feeling for Scott McLellan. Nice getting savaged for saying what everyone knows to be true anyway.”
-Bush-Cheney eCampaign Director Mike Turk
Everyone, that is, except the Bush dead-enders around here. Not that that’s a surprise to anybody.
45. InDaVa | May 30th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he has shaped his views to the marketing pressures of the publishing industry. If so, it is a shameful end to an undistinguished public career.”
What a load of horse crap …..
46. What? | May 30th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Mark writes,
I like you, what, as a commenter - but mostly because you are polite and never nasty…this is refreshing; but I can’t recall anything you’ve ever said which surprised me in the least.
What an odd thing to say?
So you are critisizing me for putting forth well known arguments that oppose your positions?
Admittedly, my arguments are not always original, but neither are yours. That doesn’t make my arguments any less valid. You still have not adequately resolved many of my arguments against your positions.
Also, simply because I hold many views of the left doesn’t mean I did not come to them independently. You are merely speculating to make yourself feel better. Also, saying such views are foolish is a childish insult, not an argument. C’mon Mark, work harder. Convince me my arguments are foolish instead of simply labelling them so.
You should not accuse left commenters on here of acting like sheep. Have you read some of the commenters on your side. They are taking their marching orders directly from the right wing media. That is what you are doing with this Scott Mcllehan book. You have adopted the WH’s storyline. Perhaps you should think independently.
I think my take on this book is rather unique. He looked demoralized when he left the job. I think his beliefs turned to anger at some point over the past three years and he felt a need to vindicate himself. I don’t respect him and would have liked him to tell us these things earlier, but I don’t think he is doing it for the money. As a former press sec, he could have made a lot more working for FOX News.