Truth rears its ugly head

(AP Photo of Scott McClellan)

I wasn't expecting Scott McClellan to tell the truth. He and his brother have been Bush cronies for years. So that was a surprise.

The truth, to be published in what Politico calls a "scathing memoir" next week, contains a number of particulars regarding the Bush administration's lack of veracity. Without saying, "I (we) told you so," McClellan's revelations are not new.

We knew from the start that Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the Iraq adventure to the American people, which is a less harsh way of saying the SOB straight-out lied to the American people! McClellan says the MSM let Bush off the hook time and again. We knew that, too, and with the exception of Helen Thomas, wondered what happened to our vaunted "free" press.

Not having read McClellan's "memoir," I'm merely repeating what others, who have supposedly read the book, have said: such as Scott's characterization of the Bush response to Hurricane Katrina - "one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency." Or that the Iraq war was "unnecessary."

I love the way he calls his old boss, "Bush."

It seems that one thing especially irked Mr. McClellan: He was used over and over again to publish lies promoted by the people he worked for; sometimes willingly: "I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood..."


There's much more and stories are appearing in media around the globe. Politico has a fine article here.


Two things:

First, I think and hope I'm right, that Scott McClellan is the first of many Bushites who will be coming out of the woodwork to cleanse their souls and clear their consciences. We can, I believe, look forward to a spate of books and other "memoirs" detailing the deviltry that Bush and Company cooked up during their two terms of terror.

Secondly, it is to be expected that the White House is "firing back." Typically, though, reflecting the usual Bush modus operandi, they are not so much disputing the truth of what Mr. McClellan says as they are engaging in assassination of his character.

The implication is that poor Scott, has lost his mind; that poor Scott is a traitor, a turncoat, and therefore cannot be trusted; that poor Scott is a hypocrite for not saying these things while still in the clutches of the Bush demons.

Dana Perino, the Bush press secretary, whined that "Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad - this is not the Scott we knew."

Notice how poor Scott is "disgruntled about his experience." Actually, it would appear the Scott is not so much "disgruntled" as he is truly pissed at being consistently lied to and at his culpability in those lies. Perino says the White House folks are "sad," the implication being that they've been betrayed, unfairly, of course. And this just isn't the Scott they knew, meaning that he must have gone off the deep end, perhaps he's even a little nuts!

Others have accused him of wanting to make money on the backs of the Bushites. And Fran Townsend, who at one time headed the White House counterterrorism office, said that Scott is "self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional."

And Karl Rove never heard him complain once.


Let the memoirs roll while historians write!

Oh wait - I saved the best for last.

Perino said that Bush has had reports of the book described to him, but "He has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers." Right. As if Bush can read!