CNN’s John Roberts wasted no time to herald Scott McClellan’s "revelation" on how the Bush administration supposedly used "propaganda" to push the Iraq war. After reading an excerpt from McClellan’s book on the issue, Roberts responded, "He finally articulates what we all came to believe... and further goes on to say that this war was unnecessary."
Roberts, who, during McClellan’s time as White House Press Secretary, was the White House Correspondent for CBS, made the comment during an interview of the Politico’s Mike Allen, who broke the McClellan story on Tuesday. Allen, like Roberts, was a White House correspondent during McClellan’s time as Press Secretary, first for the Washington Post, and then for Time magazine.
Allen, in reaction to Roberts’s commentary on McClellan, replied, "Well, John, I think that's right, that these aren't particularly novel observations." He continued that McClellan "has put on a new hat. He's put on a historian's hat. He's not an administration flack anymore...."
Roberts must have "come to believe," to use his own phrase, the liberal talking points about the Iraq war pretty early on. During the broadcast of CBS Evening News on June 9, 2003, Roberts repeated the liberal finger-pointing already being pushed after the invasion of Iraq: "Accusations are being leveled that at the very least, administration officials embellished the evidence [of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction] – at worst, misled the world....It could be a significant scandal for the Bush White House, potentially worse than Watergate, says one man who remembers that era well."
Almost two months later, during a July 30, 2003 press conference, Roberts made a similar statement before a question he addressed to President Bush himself : "The world is a better place, and the region certainly a better place, without Saddam Hussein. But there’s a sense here in this country, and a feeling around the world, that the U.S. has lost credibility by building the case for Iraq upon sometimes flimsy or, some people have complained, nonexistent evidence. I’m just wondering sir, why did you choose to take the world to war in that way?"
Later on in the segment, Roberts ran a clip of former Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend attacking McClellan, and commented afterwards that "not only is he [McClellan] being thrown under the bus, but they're backing up the bus and they're running over him again."
The transcript of the relevant portion from Roberts’s interview of Allen on Wednesday’s "American Morning:"
JOHN ROBERTS: Mike Allen of Politico.com broke the story late yesterday. He joins us now live from Washington. Mike, this is an extraordinary book, and you could certainly tell by the level of pushback coming towards Scott McClellan from administration officials or former administration officials.
MIKE ALLEN, POLITICO.COM: Well, John, that's right. And you hear Republicans saying things like 'pathetic' and even making fun of the title, saying that instead of being called 'What Happened' it should be called 'What Happened?'
ROBERTS: He claims that President Bush used 'propaganda to sell the war.' Let's look at what he says in the book. 'And his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war.' He finally articulates what we all came to believe, Mike, and further goes on to say that this war was unnecessary.
ALLEN: Well, John, I think that's right, that these aren't particularly novel observations. But -- and as you and Karl suggested, who knew that there would be coming from Scott, and that's the power of them, is that they come from someone that was -- no one who's closer to the President. He's taken -- closer personally, as you know, was one of the first to come with the President from Texas, was with him since '99, traveled with the President on the campaign plane in 2000. But John, now Scott has put on a new hat. He's put on a historian's hat. He's not an administration flack anymore, and that's why there's such great unhappiness with him, and people saying that he's given up the only good quality that he had, in their view, which was loyalty.
ROBERTS: Right. He's getting ripped not only by Karl Rove but by Fran Townsend, the former National Security Adviser to the President, or the Homeland Security Adviser to the President rather. She's now a CNN contributor. Let's listen to what she said last night about this.
FRAN TOWNSEND, FMR. BUSH HOMELAND SEC, ADVISER: People need to understand that as an adviser to the President, I or Scott have an obligation, responsibility, to voice concerns on policy issues. Scott never did that on any of these issues, as best I can remember, and as best I know from my White House colleagues.... So for him to do this now, frankly, strikes me as self-serving, disingenuous, and unprofessional.
ROBERTS: Mike, not only is he being thrown under the bus, but they're backing up the bus and they're running over him again.
ALLEN: But we did see in this book glimpses of things that we might have imagined, but nobody had seen. For instance, in here, Scott says that he is the one who told the President this was definitely an undesirable task, who informed the President that the Chief Economic Adviser, Larry Lindsey -- remember in the run-up to the war -- had told the Wall Street Journal that it could cost $100 billion to $200 billion. Now, that turns out to be the low ball of all low balls, but at the time, that was heresy, and he says the President was steamed, clearly irritated. And, John, when they say the President is clearly irritated, you know what they're talking about there.
ROBERTS: Yes....
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
John Roberts admitting
May 28, 2008 - 10:53 ET by Matthew Sheffieldwhat we all came to know about his extreme bias.
Matthew - and how about McClellan's bias?
May 28, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Dee Bunkthat is the most startling revealing thing to me in all this. No wonder he was such a bumbling idiot who couldn't articulate the Presidents positions. We all sat around wondering how he couldn't when us inexperienced people new how to give an argument better than he did. Now we know.
McClellan either used this position to sabotage Bush or just really embarrassed at how stupid he was and now wants to try and save face and make lots of money. Ari Fliecher and Tony Snow had no problems articulating Bush's message. One before and one after.
As if we needed more proof
May 28, 2008 - 14:38 ET by DEVILDOCMOMof his extreme bias Matthew.
This comment "ROBERTS: He claims that President Bush used 'propaganda to sell the war.'"...would this guy (roberts) like to go back and study some history ie Roosevelt and pre World War 2. There was a huge amount of propaganda and more then.
the enquiring msm doesn't want to know
May 28, 2008 - 15:38 ET by TruthMongerjust tell roberts that one mans propaganda is another man's freedom fighter:)
the MSM stands thoroughly vindicated on Iraq - by a former WH press secretary - wow
and even the National Enquirer backs it all up i bet, hey scott toss in some proof of roswell aliens running area 51 while were at it...
Truth
May 28, 2008 - 23:20 ET by DEVILDOCMOMit will only be in the book if he can blame it on Bush, don't forget. :)
I wonder if this McClellan
May 28, 2008 - 11:00 ET by mattmI wonder if this McClellan is related to George B. McClellan, the Civil War general who prolonged the war by doing absolutely nothing, and finally had to be fired by Abraham Lincoln, and who later ran against Lincoln as the Democrat presidential candidate running on a pro-confederacy platform...
They are loving this!
May 28, 2008 - 11:01 ET by americaneagleScott McClellan has made himself the most popular Republican in the media universe by making these "revelations". Having this mope around shows just how badly GWB can misjudge character, because this is about as low character a move as you will see.
As for the media coverage, this is no surprise. Anything that supports their preconcieved notion of GWB as a liar or incompetent is going to be treated as gospel truth. Nevermind that it is the memoirs of a fired former member of the Bush team, because he couldn't have ANY axe to grind! Right?
i didn't think anyone could
May 28, 2008 - 15:46 ET by TruthMongeri didn't think anyone could top RINO McCain...
he's been way schooled now
McClellen could even be (gasp) running Newsweek in a month or two - he can write his own ticket now...
Option the HBO film deal quick!
Call Mattell - re: McClellen action figures...
American Idol appearance - oh they're done for a while...
Cover of Vanity Fair - with Plame and Wilson this time - McClellen in the back seat maybe - french kissing valerie? wardrobe malfunction? let's do lunch...
Keynote speech at the DNC convention...
VIP tour of old Europe, invitations pooring in from Chavez, North Korea, Bin Laden's cave...
McClellen needs a press secretary - someone trustworthy tho - no backstabbers looking for book $$$$, dammit:(
"VIP tour of old Europe,
May 28, 2008 - 16:02 ET by Chris Norman"VIP tour of old Europe, invitations pooring in from Chavez, North Korea, Bin Laden's cave..."
The Defeatist Tour?
I will hold off judgement
May 28, 2008 - 11:07 ET by RESTLESS 1I will hold off judgement on McClellan until the book if released, but if what is coming out is true, then the guy is an idiot. If he had such reservation, he should have resigned his position, and come forward to the media then.
Also, they're throwing him under the bus? So, if the liberal media disagrees with what may be some legitimate concerns about the motives of McClellan, then he is being thrown under the bus?
Finally, Bush deserves a good deal of the blame for all of the "tell-all" books that have come out of former members of his administration. He should know you can never trust a liberal.
I suspect once the book is
May 28, 2008 - 11:13 ET by ArminiusI suspect once the book is available for everyone to read, we'll discover that McClellan's book has as many inaccuracies and falsehoods as Richard Clarke's book had. We cannot rely on the MSM to expose these inaccuracies and falsehoods, so we need to rely on talk radio and bloggers to get the truth out.
This reminds me of
May 28, 2008 - 11:30 ET by exLibTwo other stooges that got fired from Bush's White House that went out just before elections to try to loose elections for Republicans.The first was the finaince guy, Snow, I think. A total bumbler who the media made out to be some super financial genius who just couldn't get his wisdom heard by the "tin ear" Bush. That was only a scant 1-2 years into the 1st Bush term. Then came David Kuo (sp?) who came out just before the last election to disparage the Presidents reputation as a sincere Christian. He went so far as to tell committed Values voters to sit out the election because Bush and his staff were mocking Christians, not supporting them. He later tried to distance himself from some of those statements by saying he never actually heard Bush or anyone in his adminstration saying bad things about Christian voters. Now, a guy the media regularly hated and castigated as incompetent and a liar is totally believed because he "said what the media's itching ears wanted to hear". Once again, the media shows which side it's on and it's not the truth.If it's bad news for Republicans, forget the fact checker, let's get this out to public. If it's bad news for Democrats, it's time to really examine if they got all the facts straight, and make sure we take seriously any counter claims. Very sad that this dolt is taken seriously at all. I agree totally that this does show that Bush's judgement when it comes to hiring people and "reaching across the aisle" has really hurt him.
Fill me in
May 28, 2008 - 11:07 ET by MeanderingI have heard the headlines that McClellan has come out attacking Bush, but is any of his information credible? He was a white house correspondant and seems to be privy to insider information, but does any of what he has written about change anything? Is it true? What's his story? These questions I don't know, could someone fill me in. Thanks.
Truth doesn't sell.
May 28, 2008 - 11:29 ET by ScrapironI think everyone with an IQ above 10 knows that any book about President Bush that contained the truth would sell maybe 10 copies at this stage. Load a book with lies and half truths and every left wing nut, aka democrat, in the country will buy one or more. Too bad someone considered a friend would turn out to be a traitor, but then the entire democrat party fits that description so McClellan just joined the crowd. It's all about money to be made.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
True. A pro-Bush book would
May 28, 2008 - 12:16 ET by ArminiusTrue. A pro-Bush book would not be review by the NYT nor would it be featured on "60 Minutes."
Interestingly, if you check the publisher's web site (http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/) McClellan's book is featured right there with George Soros'. Amazon.com notes that people who bought McClellan's book also bought Valerie Plame's book and Keith Olbermann's book. Aren't you tired of these so-called Republicans who sell out? There has to be a way to discourage this from happening in the future.
You've read McClelland's
May 28, 2008 - 12:18 ET by balboaYou've read McClelland's book?
And why wouldn't all the Bush backers buy a book about him? There are more than 10 of them out there, right?
I had dinner the other night with a gentleman
May 28, 2008 - 11:59 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltwho worked for years as a broadcaster aside Carol Roberts in NY. He wasn't a guest of mine, but a guest of a friend whom with I had planned to have dinner. He said that she was a complete idiot.
Because my friend (who knows I'm a conservative and he's a BIG liberal) likes to stir things up, he got his friend going on Fox News, about how they're just the Republican PR machine, etc, etc. He went on about Roger Ailes and how he's an idiot and so far to the right that he...blah-de-blah-deblah...
I said "Unlike Ted Turner, who's a reasonable middle of the road person, right?" Well, he said "That's different, because Ted Turner....." and went on to justify Ted Turner's extremeism.
They have their own rationale, and their extreme left positions are seen by them as facts accepted, not their view or their opinion. They have the baseline of truth as their beliefs, but anyone leaning right merely has distorted opinions and has been fed lies by the Bushies. They actually have no concept that each worldview is just as valid and what should come from that is reasonable debate and logical conclusions. They're strange creatures...
And my above point seems to be illustrated by Roberts': "He finally articulates what we all came to believe..." comment. It's just an unassailable truth, no other opinion about it is valid, much less possibly correct.
By the way, my friend the Lib...is the BIGGEST racist I know...always speaking of blacks in very derogatory terms and always using "n.....r". Lovely people, those Libs, so tolerant and full of acceptance, no?
Racist "liberals"
May 28, 2008 - 12:26 ET by iveseenitall"The BIGGEST racist I know." So true, WhoIsJohnGalt. I've posted the same observation many times. The "liberals" with whom I've been associated are over-the- top racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. And these are the very things they claim, in public, to abhor. Hypocrites all.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
I think someone really
May 28, 2008 - 12:21 ET by KillgraveI think someone really dropped the ball in assessing McClellan's integrity and loyalty when he got his speaking gig. Seeing how the White House and its partisan supporters are scrambling around is really giving off an air of incompetance to me.
I think this smells to high heaven with ALL of the people involved here, including the hapless narrator (McClellan), both partisan sides and their hacks, and the so-called objective media that is reporting it. EVERYONE is desperately propping up their own mythology.
It's almost funny.
Scotty wants to be rich!!
May 28, 2008 - 12:35 ET by upcountrywaterI wonder if selling books, will get you into, your Mc Mansion
Sleeping good are, ya! Doing all those 4 am talk shows, ya Book worm.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
The funny thing is that the
May 28, 2008 - 12:41 ET by ArminiusThe funny thing is that the same inarticulate and stumbling guy who was Bush's press secretary is the same guy who will have to do those book talks and other public appearances.
Well, if this story doesn't
May 28, 2008 - 13:01 ET by fitzfongWell, if this story doesn't illustrate the Peter Principle...that everyone rises to the level of their own incompetence...I don't know what does. First, you have the most bumbling, ham-handed excuse for a White House Press Secretary stuttering and stammering his way through an embarrassing stint in the Bush Administration. His incompetence couldn't even be charted. Now he's reduced to what he's good at...whoring himself out to the very media who broke him...and they are acting as his pimps. Meanwhile you've got a self-important intellectual lightweight working as a White House Correspondent...way beyond his competence...and he ends up a coffee clotcher on DNCNN's unwatched morning show. Here's a tip, John...an overabundance of pancake makeup and an addiction to the blowdryer do not make you appear more intelligent.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
What a reversal!
May 28, 2008 - 13:08 ET by billbNo, I'm not referring to Scott! Take note that the very same press that looked upon McClellen as a dufus, now hang on to his every word! It appears he has seen the liberal light, and now all is well with the world!
Little pudgy Scottie M. was
May 28, 2008 - 13:37 ET by bigtimerLittle pudgy Scottie M. was the absolute embarrassment for me when he came on about every day with the WH Press Breifings...he should of been fired after his first stuttering, stammering month....he was always afraid of the press and acted like it...now I see today he is their new bestest friend.
I don't know how people like him can look at themselves in the mornings, let alone sleep at night...
Roberts and all the rest of the talking heads were nothing but echo chambers with the same ol' questions on the same ol' subject whatever it was that day...one thing their goal was everyday, to slam the President and the administration, especially the war with Helen Thomas leading the whining way.
By the way Little Scottie is a liar...he fits right in with the leftists now...something to be proud of eh?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
BT - Remember how we were all constantly amazed at how
May 28, 2008 - 14:03 ET by Dee Bunkstupid he was? Now it makes sense. No one is that stupid. We should have known, Bush should have known. This guy took advantage of Bush's loyalty to his sorry ass. Just like Brownie, who comes out blaming Bush who stuck up for him publicly despite the heat he would take for it.
They know the easiest road to forgiveness for their incompetence is to go to the media trashing Bush. It's so obvious and calculated to any logical person.
Yeah Dee...real loyal
May 28, 2008 - 14:27 ET by bigtimerYeah Dee...real loyal friend all these years to the Pres. eh?
As the old saying goes, with friends like these...who needs enemies...
Pretty pathetic person Scottie M. is....
The msm is going nuts with this, talk about maddening...and you can be sure Matthews and Shuster are going to go on and on and on about it and feel vindicated somehow by all the months of lying breathless blather...let alone be proven wrong time and time again.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Yeah, I too was amazed at
May 28, 2008 - 14:32 ET by MidAmericaYeah, I too was amazed at how fast Michael Brown, the FEMA director during Katrina, was taken into the caring arms of the media once he was willing to blame President Bush for the slow aid response. They had their knives out ready to eviscerate brown, when to save his own hide he started saying things the media could use as headlines and talking points to put all the blame on Bush.
Interesting how McClellan can say...
May 28, 2008 - 14:03 ET by Prester John...that "the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder" while at the same time nothting that "No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact"?
http://www.ajc.com/meetro/content/news/stories/2008/05/27/mcclellanbook_0527.html
Its seems to me if were honest he would've said, "While it appears today the decision to invade....".
Intellectual honesty, where art thou?
A Twit, not a Historian
May 28, 2008 - 14:05 ET by CellaMcClellan was the little fat guy in high school who couldn't get a date.
When Scott was on the White House staff, I wonder if he felt as if he had crawled over the fence when no one was looking and didn't belong there. That's what I always felt about him.
And then, the resplendent Tony Snow. What can one say?
They'll be high-fiving galore...
May 28, 2008 - 14:25 ET by SickofLibsFirst "Recount" and now this "bombshell" all in one week?
I hope someone can get some video footage of all these MSM a-holes buying each drinks and celebrating at their fave bar tonight, ala the Hill Street Blues cop bar.
How many?????
May 28, 2008 - 14:28 ET by ScrapironHow many have read the book? How many are re-lying on the lying media for their comments? I have serious doubts that most liberal can read and understand what they read. They use the Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Good point. The onus is on
May 28, 2008 - 14:52 ET by ArminiusGood point. The onus is on McClellan to provide proof for his claims. Thus far, media reports have not shared that proof. If the proof is not in the book, then the book clearly does not warrant the attention it has been getting.
I said the same thing on
May 28, 2008 - 15:02 ET by RESTLESS 1I said the same thing on another thead. From what I have read, McClellan has facts wrong in regards to the Plame-Wilson affair.
glimpses of things that we might have imagined
May 28, 2008 - 14:31 ET by wizardjrOnce again: "Fake, but true."
This clown failed miserably as Press Secretary so now he extracts his revenge. He makes himself out to be part of the Inner Circle. What President in his right mind would have some lip mumbler in meetings of State? In his dreams. Like I posted on another site, "Tell All" and "Dirt" sell books. As someone above said, if he had published a book praising President Bush it would have sold 10 copies - the ones he bought for friends.
The KOS nuts and Soros mob will eat this stuff up. The ghostly hand has written upon the wall The Truth for all to see as provided to you peons by His Exaltedness, the (ex)Whitehouse Press Secretary. [pardon me while I kack]
Scott seems bitter and
May 28, 2008 - 14:36 ET by bassndudeScott seems bitter and devoid of any type of loyalty. He was fired for the inept way he went about doing things. As in most positions, when you dont make the boss happy, your out. Seems Scott was unable, or unwilling to make the boss happy. We all knew this was comming when he was fired. Bush should have seen it comming to, and I am sure he did. The bottom line is, he was sub-standard then, so what makes him so above standard now? The answer is, the standards of the media and the left are lower. Truth is not a prerequisite for either one. If I had my guess, there will be as many inaccuracies and self-embellishment in this book, as in Wilsons.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Is McClellan smart or stupid (or just greedy)?
May 28, 2008 - 15:12 ET by 911isbusyI remember watching McClellan getting reamed by the likes of Helen Thomas and the other MSM. He was a joke to watch: just stood there with his tail between his legs. When White House journalists viciously attacked the Administration at the press briefings, he treated the attacks as if they were legitimate questions and not predetermined conclusions. So now it appears that he was a liberal all along. The question for me is how long before he took the job was he a Bush-hating liberal?
If you're a liberal and you get asked to be Press Secy for Bush, I would presume your answer would be a resounding "No", but then again if you really hated Bush you might respond with a resounding "Yes". Is McClellan so cunning as to have planned the sabotage all along?
But then I give McClellan too much credit. I suspect he figured after his debacle as Press Secy that he would never work again in any profitable capacity, especially if everyone thought of him as a Bushie. Therefore, he needed to remake himself. He knew he would get incessant MSM press coverage (and ultimately alot of $$$) if he came out with a book attacking Bush. Without having read the book, I venture to guess it is rife with simple sentences; so much so that all the ignorant masses can understand it. His audience will overlap with Katie Couric's after all.
Those who have not swords can still die upon them.
I'm sure someone here has
May 28, 2008 - 16:52 ET by Chris NormanI'm sure someone here has mentioned the 2004 quote from McClellan that Rush Limbaugh cited today, where McClellan, as WHPS, critcized Robert Wilson for making the charges he made against Bush just to sell his new book, waiting for a 1 1/2 years after leaving his post (in an election year), and for not making his feelings known while working in the administration - sound familiar? Maybe McClellan got the idea from Wilson - he got no love as press secratry - now he'll be feted.
Rule Number 1:
May 28, 2008 - 16:47 ET by aeroveloNever believe the guy that writes a tell all book about the boss that fired him.
Rule Number 2: Ones crediblity is inversely proportionate to the number of years worked (3) under that boss while later claiming how corrupt, inept and evil he was. All the while getting behind the podium and apparently conspiring with one's boss by being his spokesman (?!).
This guy had better hire a few bodyguards, because what he has done is just outright treason. Im sorry, but he worked as the President's spokesman for 3 full years! How did he get up every day and do his job? Why didnt he quit after the first few weeks? Hed have been a hero had he done that!
---
Ask yourself: Do I want a good paying job, or do I want a government hand out. Its that simple!
Seriously, is stupidity a
May 28, 2008 - 16:56 ET by ckc1227Seriously, is stupidity a requirement for working in Washington?
I guess the next question is was he lying then, or is he lying now? Of course, it doesn't really matter. All that matters is knowing that "Bush lied, people died", lol.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/as-scottie-sowe.html
Revenge
May 28, 2008 - 17:15 ET by rammingspeedScott McClellan was inept in his job, people saw it right away, knew it all along, and pointed it out all along. He was burned time after time for his lack of ability to explain that some things he just wasn't privy to, then taking a bad guess, and looking like a fool. He left looking bad and was, at least subtley, personally rejected.
Now he takes his revenge. One powerful measure of an issue is timeliness: are bad things being reported at the time they happen, or later when you're getting even and flinging feces?
What we all came to know ...
May 28, 2008 - 18:49 ET by 10ksnookerBDS is an easily diagnosed disease.