People have a lot of nerve to call Scotty a coward. The whole press, Congress and half the electorate drank the Kool-Aid. I get a kick out of people saying he’s got bad motives or should have spoken up earlier. He’s the freaking Press Secretary. He was the Chearleader-In-Chief’f chief chearleader, for chrissakes. When you’re on the team you don’t tell the Captain that the steroids he’s on are illegal, you tell him he’s looking pretty jacked. How about the press should do it’s job and put 2 and 2 together. When most of Europe and the Middle East says they don’t feel threatened by Sadaam and you’ve got rummy saying there are no good targets in Afghanistan, etc., etc… Come on people. We have been sold a bill of goods that stank a mile away. Anyone who doesn’t say right on, good for you, bout time you got your soul back to old Scotty just isn’t paying very close attention. Rove is a greasy lying political machiavelian genious and cheney is the same, but internationally, too. Fool me twice…don’t get fooled again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Second answer: I read this comment on another site. It compared him to the people who were in Scientology, but left, and are speaking out against it today. “If it was so bad, why didn’t they say something then?” Control, environment, etc. Sometimes you have to get some distance in your life from something before you can get your perspective. Reworded: He drank the Kool-Aid. After he left, the reality distortion field of Kool-Aid wore off.

It SHOULD carry little weight at all, in so far as it lacks evidentiary value. It WILL carry as much weight as people who believe it give it.

And no, I didn’t believe the post-Clinton tell-alls either. Credibility declines when money is involved, and no one gets paid for writing a boring memoir that doesn’t stir the pot and generate sales.

Actually, what I meant was, if he spoke up at the time, news media would have had the opportunity to investigate his claims while we were still preparing for war.

Ahh, I didn’t realize you were talking about so far back. But that’s kind of moot in this argument since he left in 2005, yes? It should be around that time we’re talking about since that’s what actually happened.

As far as whistleblowers go, do you think they’re worried about actually revealing classified information and facing serious criminal charges if they do it before the fact? Also, how can you prove half of this stuff? Most of it is opinions from insiders, and as such should carry the amount of weight you let it.

-Scott McClellan

Actually, what I meant was, if he spoke up at the time, news media would have had the opportunity to investigate his claims while we were still preparing for war. Waiting until years later insures that this can’t really be much more than a he said/she said situation. The whistle-blowers in the Bush administration all seem to blow their whistles after it’s too late.

McClellan’s alleged remarks about Saddam trying to by uranium from Africa are contradicted by the 2004 Butler Commission Report.

As is, he gets to tell his story, and gets paid for it. So what? I don’t really have any sort of actual affirmative evidence that suggests that Mr McClellan’s conscience is not clear. People playing politics LOVE to use questions of timing as license to launch innuendo, such as you have here.

But the stubborn fact is that, absent actual evidence, transcripts, and tapes, we all have to make the individual choice about whether to believe McClellan, based primary on whether his accounts have the ring of truth to them. Ultimately, timing doesn’t really tell us anything. We don’t even know, really, whether he delayed as a FAVOR, or until he was sure about how he felt, or solely at the behest of greedy publishers, or what.

Maybe what McClellan has written is completely true. But because he waited until now to make his accusations, we’ll never know for sure.

Ehhh…I think that’s some particularly shaky logic. If he would have written a tell-all right after he got out, it would have been perceived as more true? Highly doubtful. Actually, it probably would have been seen as him trying to cash out quicker.

Also, I think the White House’s spin is telling. They’re saying “this is not the Scott McClellan we knew.” Both Karl Rove and Dana Perino have said the exact same thing now. These people know how to paint McClellan as a money-grubbing opportunist and they’re already doing it. Because let’s not forget what they did to Richard Clarke, in conjunction with Fox News. Everybody asked, “Why write a book?” Well, people write books because there’s a lot to say and they want a verifiable written record that somebody can point to. Yes, there’s money involved, but money doesn’t make accusations false…it just makes them easier to discredit.

You know what I’m waiting for? Somebody who has the means to write a book like this and donate all their royalties to Walter Reed hospital.

One other thing…it’ll be telling to see how many tell-alls are written after this next Presidency. Because if not, it makes the ones about Bush all the more vibrant.