What Happened?!?! - Scott McClellan
My daughter, her husband, and my grandchild got me this book for Father's day. Of course, my grandson is only a year old, so I'm sure he just pointed to the book cover & aid "that one". I read in Newsweek that this book was only written for democrats, so I wasn't going to read it. But since it was a father's day gift...
It took me several weeks to read it all the way through. For those who keep track of literature, this is not a very literate book. The sheer amount of repetition is horrendous. I'm thinking that Scott is thinking one of two things. He could simply be feeding out propaganda, which means if someone repeats a story enough times people will assume it's true. Of course, that doesn't work with readers, so I'm thinking he's got a different idea. People will be quoting small pieces from this book, so he wants the fact pertaining to that section to appear in the quote. There is a third possibility. Could be he expected no one to read it all the way through in one setting, so best to keep things fresh by repetition. What happened for real? He ain't telling, but only because he refuses to speculate on things he was not a party to. That's reasonable.
That aside, it was still fun to read because Scott was in the middle of a lotta crap so it's good to see his viewpoints. Turns out this is not a book for democrats only. Scott goes way out of his way to insist that Bush is honorable and not stupid. Misinformed, and not willing to listen to other opinions, but still a decent man. That's kinda good to hear because I not only have thought for 7 years that the man is stupid, but quite literally insane. Of course, I wasn't there, and Scott was, so it's good to hear that view. A lot of what he says I agree with. For example, his assessment of Bush's pardon of Libby "sent an unfortunate message to America and the world - that in the United States criminal behavior on behalf of a political cause may go unpunished. . .those in power have access to a different system of justice," is fully in line with my opinion. What political party does that make me a part of? Hopefully, in my view, members of all political parties would consider that pardon completely over the line and inexcusable.
On pages 145 McClellan actually addresses people like me that have considered Bush stupid. He says "Bush is plenty smart enough to be president." But then he notes that Bush's "leadership style is based more on instinct than deep intellectual debate." How is that different than stupid? Anyone who picks a wrong course and then refuses to acknowledge it over days, weeks, months and years - is "intellectually incurious", and some of us still consider that plain stupid. I don't mind people making mistakes. But not learning from them doesn't make one very smart. Scott puts it this way on the next page, "in light of today's situation, it has become reasonable to question his judgment."
There's some real fun in the book. Some of it is unintentional. Early on, on page 129, Scott is showing how the president uses his brains to the benefit of mankind. "As President Bush likes to say, free countries are peaceful countries that don't go to war with one another." Scott throws that out without one iota of irony, failing to comment on the hypocrisy involved in that statement. Of course, it makes one wonder just how free we are as citizens because it's obvious we have started and continued an unprovoked war - using funds to be earned by my grandchildren and great grandchildren. How free are we really?
A few pages later Scott quotes another speech by Bush that clearly outlines the true reason for the war in Iraq. "Our planning will make sure there is no oil disruption; we are looking at all options to enhance oil flow." And, it goes without saying, oil profits.
Most of the book centers around the plot by Cheney to make Robert Wilson look like a fool because Ambassador Wilson was willing to speak out publicly about some lies the administration was spreading about Iraq and Africa. What bothers me about the book and all the public discussion is that no one faults the vice president for openly spreading lies about a political enemy in order to discredit him. This is accepted as a normal way of doing business in Washington. No one gets upset until Wilson's wife is exposed as a CIA agent. Sure, I agree that's bad, and legally a very bad thing to do. Libby and his friends should have gone to prison for their action. But morally, isn't it just as bad to openly and purposefully lie and spread propaganda about an Ambassador who is willing to share his true knowledge and intellect with the American people? Kinda scary that no one else seems to think so.
Interesting book, a bit self-serving, but all autobiographies should be that. I'd recommend it to anyone who has an interest in seeing things from an insider's viewpoint. McClellan does offer some suggestions to make things better. The simplest idea is perhaps the best and would make life a lot more fun again - we should expect partisan bickering during an election year - that's historically been our heritage - but after the election, the folks in Washington should come down off thier own press-released covered high horses and simply work together to make life work for the good of all Americans. Kinda simple? Why not? Used to be an old saying before Clinton's era: KISS - Keep it simple, stupid. Clinton changed that to "It's the economy, stupid", and Bush has changed it to "I have to make my friends richer, stupid". However, is is just possible that we could someday return to a more open, enjoyable society? We'll see. Looks like in the next few years we'll all need to re-access our careers and futures if we simply want to stay afloat financially. But that's another story.
It took me several weeks to read it all the way through. For those who keep track of literature, this is not a very literate book. The sheer amount of repetition is horrendous. I'm thinking that Scott is thinking one of two things. He could simply be feeding out propaganda, which means if someone repeats a story enough times people will assume it's true. Of course, that doesn't work with readers, so I'm thinking he's got a different idea. People will be quoting small pieces from this book, so he wants the fact pertaining to that section to appear in the quote. There is a third possibility. Could be he expected no one to read it all the way through in one setting, so best to keep things fresh by repetition. What happened for real? He ain't telling, but only because he refuses to speculate on things he was not a party to. That's reasonable.
That aside, it was still fun to read because Scott was in the middle of a lotta crap so it's good to see his viewpoints. Turns out this is not a book for democrats only. Scott goes way out of his way to insist that Bush is honorable and not stupid. Misinformed, and not willing to listen to other opinions, but still a decent man. That's kinda good to hear because I not only have thought for 7 years that the man is stupid, but quite literally insane. Of course, I wasn't there, and Scott was, so it's good to hear that view. A lot of what he says I agree with. For example, his assessment of Bush's pardon of Libby "sent an unfortunate message to America and the world - that in the United States criminal behavior on behalf of a political cause may go unpunished. . .those in power have access to a different system of justice," is fully in line with my opinion. What political party does that make me a part of? Hopefully, in my view, members of all political parties would consider that pardon completely over the line and inexcusable.
On pages 145 McClellan actually addresses people like me that have considered Bush stupid. He says "Bush is plenty smart enough to be president." But then he notes that Bush's "leadership style is based more on instinct than deep intellectual debate." How is that different than stupid? Anyone who picks a wrong course and then refuses to acknowledge it over days, weeks, months and years - is "intellectually incurious", and some of us still consider that plain stupid. I don't mind people making mistakes. But not learning from them doesn't make one very smart. Scott puts it this way on the next page, "in light of today's situation, it has become reasonable to question his judgment."
There's some real fun in the book. Some of it is unintentional. Early on, on page 129, Scott is showing how the president uses his brains to the benefit of mankind. "As President Bush likes to say, free countries are peaceful countries that don't go to war with one another." Scott throws that out without one iota of irony, failing to comment on the hypocrisy involved in that statement. Of course, it makes one wonder just how free we are as citizens because it's obvious we have started and continued an unprovoked war - using funds to be earned by my grandchildren and great grandchildren. How free are we really?
A few pages later Scott quotes another speech by Bush that clearly outlines the true reason for the war in Iraq. "Our planning will make sure there is no oil disruption; we are looking at all options to enhance oil flow." And, it goes without saying, oil profits.
Most of the book centers around the plot by Cheney to make Robert Wilson look like a fool because Ambassador Wilson was willing to speak out publicly about some lies the administration was spreading about Iraq and Africa. What bothers me about the book and all the public discussion is that no one faults the vice president for openly spreading lies about a political enemy in order to discredit him. This is accepted as a normal way of doing business in Washington. No one gets upset until Wilson's wife is exposed as a CIA agent. Sure, I agree that's bad, and legally a very bad thing to do. Libby and his friends should have gone to prison for their action. But morally, isn't it just as bad to openly and purposefully lie and spread propaganda about an Ambassador who is willing to share his true knowledge and intellect with the American people? Kinda scary that no one else seems to think so.
Interesting book, a bit self-serving, but all autobiographies should be that. I'd recommend it to anyone who has an interest in seeing things from an insider's viewpoint. McClellan does offer some suggestions to make things better. The simplest idea is perhaps the best and would make life a lot more fun again - we should expect partisan bickering during an election year - that's historically been our heritage - but after the election, the folks in Washington should come down off thier own press-released covered high horses and simply work together to make life work for the good of all Americans. Kinda simple? Why not? Used to be an old saying before Clinton's era: KISS - Keep it simple, stupid. Clinton changed that to "It's the economy, stupid", and Bush has changed it to "I have to make my friends richer, stupid". However, is is just possible that we could someday return to a more open, enjoyable society? We'll see. Looks like in the next few years we'll all need to re-access our careers and futures if we simply want to stay afloat financially. But that's another story.
posted by Cholla Needles | 5:31 PM
|
0 comments
