Snively Scott McClellan

By Jennifer J. Foster

Everyone’s talking about Scott McClellan and his “bombshell” new book, so I wanted to get my two cents in on this while it’s still hot.

From CNN.com:

The spokesman who defended President Bush’s policies through Hurricane Katrina and the early years of the Iraq war is now blasting his former employers, saying the Bush administration became mired in propaganda and political spin and at times played loose with the truth.

Let me say from the outset, and in fairness, that Scott McClellan held the job of White House spokesman during a difficult—and perhaps the most difficult—period of President Bush’s administration.

OK, I threw him a bone. But now I’m going to beat him with it.

McClellan whines—a lot—about Bush, Bush policies, Bush advisers, the White House cook, Beltway traffic, D.C. weather (yeah, so I made up those last three, but I’m sure they’re in the book somewhere).

The truth is that Scott McClellan was doomed to failure from the start—not because of what he may or may not have known and when he might or might not have known it, but because, as the briefings made clear, he was sorely outmatched in the briefing room.

Here’s the thing about being the press secretary: Whatever your failings, you can’t be weak. And McClellan—for all his protestations of being “deceived” and for all his efforts to blame Bush advisers for his failures, McClellan was weak. Need proof? Watch NBC’s David Gregory kick him around like a hacky sack in this infamous exchange. You almost feel like going and getting the teacher, because the dorky kid is being beaten to a pulp on the playground. Seeing him in a gaggle, I sometimes forgot whether I was watching a post-briefing on C-SPAN or an Animal Planet clip of lions devouring zebras at some remote African watering hole.

(Keep in mind when you watch that clip that McClellan says in his new book that the Press Corps “wasn’t aggressive enough.” I couldn’t disagree more. McClellan suffers from a complete lack of even a rudimentary understanding not only of his role as press secretary, but also of journalists’ roles—and responsibilities—as part of the Corps.)

Bush adviser Fran Townsend pointed out on CNN last night that McClellan never raised any objections about Bush policy while he was part of the administration.

“No one stands on principle and resigns,” Anderson Cooper remarked. “Everyone waits and writes a book.”

Well, not everyone, Anderson.

One of McClellan’s predecessors at the podium was a guy who was renowned for performing well in strenuous circumstances and under fire from a similarly grumpy Press Corps.

I’m talking about former Clinton White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry. Feeding the press from 1995 to late 1998, McCurry was simply brilliant before the hungry piranha, earning rave reviews for his apt handling of the Corps. Later in his “term,“ he was charged with talking to journalists in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Faced with an increasing discomfort about having to go before the press with incomplete information, he resigned in October 1998.

White House journalists were – can it be? – downright sad when he left.

But where Scott McClellan whines, “I allowed myself to be deceived” about the Valerie Plame affair, Mike McCurry intentionally kept himself out of the inner circle to avoid being put in a position of having to provide inaccurate information to the press.

See the difference?

And when McCurry left the Clinton White House, guess what he didn’t do?

Actually, this question has multiple right answers. “Write a book,” “Go on a publicity tour,” “Sell out his former boss” and “Try out for the lead in a Benedict Arnold play” would all work.

The unfortunate thing about all this is that McClellan’s criticisms may be right on the money. But he’s developed a track record of – how to say this politely? – being a lying opportunist.

So, which Scott McClellan are we to believe: The one who allowed himself to be deceived and who then peddled those deceptions to the American public through its press? Or the one who now swears he’ll tell you the truth about the Bush White House (for $27.95, of course)?

We already knew from watching him in front of the White House Press Corps that McClellan was witless and hapless. Now, with the release of his book, we can add “sniveling,“ “unprofessional” and “disloyal” to the list. It seems that Bush’s errors in judgment, whatever they may be, now include his assessment of Scott McClellan’s character.

McClellan adds in his new book, “I still like and admire President Bush.”

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the feeling’s not mutual.