Man, I hate to post anything after I’ve posted my Friday booze picture (see below the raccoon and bee), but this awful woman, who already has a shitload of hate mail at the Trib, is talking more trash, and I can’t stand it. Regarding McClellan she says:
Although I’m a true believer in the confession of sin, I think it’s better to confess when you can make a difference and even, perhaps, save lives. ‘Fessing up when it’s too late only to line one’s pockets is something less than honorable.
I haven’t read all of the many many many books that have been written by people who have left the Bush Administration over the years, but I know that there is common theme that ties a lot of them together, and that is the lack of communication and/or receptiveness of dissenting voices. Richard Clarke, David Kuo, and Paul O’Neill’s books come to mind, but there are more.
In each case, they were insiders who met resistance or rejection within the system and found that, at some point, like The Dude, they could not abide. Whether McClellan voiced his concerns to the inner circle, I have no idea, but it appears that one of the reasons he did such a shitty job as press secretary is because he was being lied to, and in turn then lied to the American people. I mean, it’s his job to lie, or spin, or misinform; that’s what a press secretary does. But he was extraordinarily bad at it. I mean, this guy sucked at it.
Make no mistake, I think this guy is a total dwelshbag. But to say that he (or any of these other ex-aides) could have done something while still within the confines of this White House is complete bullshit. History is only beginning to tell this story, but it’s already a running thread in the “Bush Loyalist’s” stories: keep your opinions to yourself, unless they match ours. And if you don’t believe that then you probably don’t believe they would out a CIA agent in order to discredit unwanted information either.
UPDATE:
Oh god, and now I’m quoting Peggy Noonan, but hey, she’s right:
The right will—already has—pummel him for disloyalty. But those damning him today would have damned him even more if he’d resigned on principle three years ago. They—and the administration—would have beaten him to a pulp, the former from rage, the latter as a lesson: This is what happens when you leave and talk.
She also notes that “the implication of his assertions and anecdotes is that Mr. Bush is vain, narrow, out of his depth and coldly dismissive of doubt, of criticism and of critics.” Like I said.