Scott McClellan to testify before Congress

Just hours after the House Judiciary Committee requested that former Bush White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan testify before Congress, McClellan has agreed.

Without question, things are going to be awfully interesting in our nation's capital this summer. McClellan is expected to testify on June 20, which, unfortunately, give political talking heads a full 11 days to debate, pontificate and interview each other in order to engage in wild speculation about what he will say.

I don't know what I'm looking forward to most - McClellan's testimony, the media circus that will no doubt ensue, or how the Bush White House will attempt to paint him as the most treasenous American since the Rosenbergs.

His testimony is expected be centered on the outing of Valerie Plame, but he is also expected to offer some insight into the blatant propaganda that the American was subjected to during the run-up to the War in Iraq.

Earlier today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) sent a letter to McClellan requesting his testimony.

HuffPo:

"I have extended an invitation...after discussions between Committee staff and his attorneys," wrote Conyers. "In his book, Mr. McClellan suggests that senior White House officials may have obstructed justice and engaged in a cover-up regarding the Valerie Plame leak. This alleged activity could well extend beyond the scope of the offenses for which Scooter Libby has been convicted and deserves further attention."

The power of a president to pardon is unconditional in the Constitution, but I will go to my grave believing that Bush violated the spirit of what a presidential pardon is supposed to be. A just and forgiving society has to give its leaders the power to forgive, but that doesn't include the power to obstruct justice and to cover up criminal wrong-doing by an administration or its employees, and that's precisely what President Bush did by pardoning I. Lewis "Scotter" Libby.

I also have little doubt that Bush will pardon a whole bunch of scofflaws from this administration on his way out of the Oval Office next January. What's worse, Constitutionally, Congress is limited in what it can do to stop him, from how I understand it. However, by beginning impeachment proceedings against him, I'm pretty sure in assuming that he would not be able to pardon lawbreakers in this administration.

As if our political world needed any more drama this summer, it's getting a pretty big additional side order of just that. Not that I think it's a bad thing, but it's going to be a long, hot summer in our nation's capital.

Here's hoping that justice is finally served in the Valerie Plame case.

BOR & McClellan spar over Scott's book

It's little wonder that I despise Bill O'Lielly as much as I do. The footage above is a great example of why. To BOR, only one person has an accurate and proper memory of anything, and that's him.

He's so full of it about what pushed the case for the War in Iraq over the top. According to O'Lielly, it was Colin Powell's speech at the U.N. That's BOR's partisan, myopic view, and it's about 1/8th accurate. I distinctly recall people like Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice (then National Security Advisor) mentioning "mushroom cloud" and "Iraq" in the same sentence, and President Bush doing the exact same thing. Just so you don't think my memory is as good as O'Reilly's, here's on clip of our esteemed president, pre-Iraq War, at his propaganda spewing best:

Anyway, here's a partial rough transcript of the top video, via C&L, of O'Reilly's (attempted) grilling of McClellan:

O'Reilly: You said they used propaganda and that is a loaded word.

McClellan: The White House Iraq group, the White House Iraq group was set up, it's a marketing arm for selling the a war. That was a specific purpose that I talked about in the book

O'Reilly: Because they fervently believed that the guy was a danger and could hand his weapons off.

McClellan: No because the President had a bigger driving motivation which was to transform the middle east.

O'Reilly: You telling me that President Bush didn't believe they had the...

McClellan: No, he did too. He believed that too.

OReilly: That's not propaganda then, that's not propaganda.

McClellan: It is when you package it all together—over sell it and over state it to the American people. That is propaganda.

Ooo - O'Reilly's pretty touchy about the "P" word, isn't he?

O'Reilly's rolling George Tenet footage doesn't exactly boost his case in this debate, either. Tenet is hardly a credible source when it comes to any sort of intelligence relating to 9/11 OR the War in Iraq.

Good on McClellan for bringing up about the White House Iraq Group and its role in pimping the Iraq War to the American people via an all-too-subservient corporate media.

I give major kudos to McClellan, Bush's former propaganda minister turned whistle blower, for appearing on State TV to spar with one of Bush's many current propaganda ministers, Bill O'Lielly.

Scott McClellan's book raising plenty of press issues

Scott McClellan's book is touching off lots and lots of important issues, and at least for that, he's to be applauded (cue the cliché Better late than never). One of the big issues that has received a great deal of coverage from this past week from his book is the press' coverage of the Bush administration leading up to and during the War in Iraq.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but thE four-minute video clip above is one of the most outrageous I've seen during these last eight years. I don't mean to interject some Keith Olbermann hyperbole here - I don't write a sentence like that lightly. But, there are some pretty serious assertions brought up in this piece, specifically by Couric, where she says (I'm paraphrasing) that someone from the Bush administration called to complain that he didn't like the tone of the interview questions during the run-up to the war. According to Couric, she said, "well, tough," and the unidentified person said that access would be restricted when the war began. In one word: OUTRAGEOUS.

My thought when I heard Couric say this was, "Why are we only hearing about this now?" Scott McClellan is taking lots of heat (and rightfully so) for not standing up and saying something when he saw and heard many of the allegations discussed in his book. Fair enough. But, what about the press? As best as I can remember, save for a few isolated incidents where journalists were trying to make names for themselves by asking very probing questions, I don't remember any prominent anchor or reporter raising the issue that Couric asserts above.

There are many reasons and root causes for the War in Iraq, and plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political aisle (but more on the GOP side, without a doubt), but the press is complicit, too. Hopefully McClellan book brings more of these facts to light, and lots of analysis about how our supposed free press failed America, Iraq, and quite frankly, the rest of the world, too.

As for Charlie Gibson, he's either mixing medications, or he slipped and bumped his head. "All of the questions were being asked," Charlie? C'mon - I'm not even going to dignify that remark with any sort of response, other than to say that with that attitude, it's little wonder why the ratings of network news have been free falling for years.

Tom Brokaw joined the "Who, us?!?" chorus during an interview the other night on the broadcast he used to host, NBC Nightly News...

This is a pretty disgusting interview given by a once respected journalist news anchor. (People who sit behind desks and read off of teleprompters aren't journalists in the traditional term, in my book.) "All wars are based on propaganda," Tom? Wow, I'll file that one away. Brokaw has a firm grasp of the obvious, but the big elephant in the room when he's talking about war propaganda is that the press is under NO responsibility to disseminate that propaganda, which our corporate media did so willingly before and during the war (& actually, it's continuing to do to this day).

I got pretty angry watching Brokaw blamestorming all sorts of individuals and groups who were responsible for the war. It's too bad that even after he's given up the NBC anchor desk, he couldn't be open and honest about his network's (as well as the press') shortcomings on covering the war. Instead, we just get more spin and obfuscations. Who knows - with this ability to banter & bullshit, maybe we're looking at Bush's next press secretary. As Crooks & Liars' John Amato so succinctly pointed out the other day, members of Congress & others certainly bear some blame in this war, but members of Congress aren't responsible for the press' coverage of this war.

Brokaw is correct in bringing up the context of the time following 9/11, and that's important. But, it doesn't explain away all of the cozy press coverage that the Bush administration received on the eve of war. There was strong pressure in most aspects of American society, not just from this administration, to "go along" and "support the president." I experienced this a great deal in my own life following 9/11, when I was critical of Bush on some occasions - some of my friends and family were livid at me for having the temerity to question Bush's motives & conduct. I had three words for all of them - Too freakin' bad. Anyway, the context and political climate do explain away a small part of the press coverage before & during our invasion of Iraq, but it doesn't even come close to explaining away everything.

Color the above video clips as the 8,422,900th reason to not trust our corporate media, and to get your news and commentary from multiple sources.

Colbert hits a trifecta

Is there any wonder why Stephen Colbert's Colbert Report won a Peabody Award? This latest clip is one of his wittier ones in recent memory, as he hates on the Myanmar junta, Michelle Malkin and Scott McClellan. That's quite a trifecta.

As angry as I get over Malkin and McClellan, Colbert brings me (and millions of others, presumably) back down to Earth with just the right amount of sarcastic humor.

By the way, I'll have much more about McClellan later tonight - the press has been in a feeding frenzy, and the way he's hitting the talk show circuit, you'd think he was shamelessly plugging a book full of ideas that he should have said years ago when he was really in a position to make a difference.

Oops.

CNN's Jessica Yellin on our corporate media

For all of the heat the former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan is taking for his book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, there's little question that a great deal about what he says in the book is true, and I'm only going from memory going back to the beginning of the Iraq War. The press simply laid down and reported what the administration wanted it to support, in the time of militant and belligerent patriotism. People like CNN's Jessica Yellin (and McClellan) are now beginning to step forward to reveal to what extent this took place.

Good for her. I really do like Anderson Cooper - he's one of the few shining stars that CNN has right now, but his surprise at Yellin's comments is borderline laughable. Surely he was exposed to at least a little pressure from network bigwigs at CNN to cover the GWOT in a favorable light during the run-up to the War in Iraq. I can't think of a domestic-based major media outlet that raised sufficient questions about why we were going to war. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any. And I'm including traditionally viewed "liberal" outlets as well - the New York Times, WaPo, CNN, etc. Okay, Air America Radio is one, but that doesn't have the reach that major media outlets enjoy.

This will be an emerging story in the years to come, without questions. Especially now that the Bush administration is coming to a merciful end, and there's money to be made selling tell-all books.

I believe I'm stating the obvious here, but I haven't heard this point nearly enough in the media, but it's now pretty clear that Iraq is to Bush as Vietnam is to LBJ. The Vietnam War left the Johnson presidency in tatters, along with his presidential legacy. I don't think there's any question at this point that Iraq will do the same thing to Bush in the years to come (with a big assist from lots of smaller failings, led by Hurricane Katrina).

Easily the cartoon of the week

It doesn't get much better than this. Like I wrote yesterday, it's too bad that civil servants no longer have the courage to put their asses on the line when they see something criminally inept, like the Bush administration's justifications (and execution) of the War in Iraq.

Better late than never, eh, Mr. McClellan?

He's laughing all the way to the bank, without question.

He's not a totally unsympathetic figure, however, especially watching and listening to just about everyone who is still under Bush's flag attack and vilify him. I'll confess, I'm definitely reading it... when it comes out in paperback.

Cartoon via Attytood (the best of the Philly blogs)

McClellan's book a stinging defection for W

Ron Ziegler's Scott McClellan's book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception is turning into one of this summer's must-reads for political buffs, yours truly included. And, when the smoke clears, there can be absolutely no doubt that McClellan, Bush's former White House press secretary, will join the lengthening list of former Bush administration officials who will be attacked, vilified and crucified as if they have committed the worst, treasonous acts by another human being by just about any current member of the Bush cabal. (Richard A. Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Colin Powell, and there will undoubtedly be many others.)

I'll get to some excerpts in a minute, but having only read some excerpts from the book, I have to at least tentatively give McClellan some credit for having the courage to stand up and call out the Bush administration. However, my big question is, while all this was happening, why didn't he stand up then? It takes considerably less courage to stand up to a president when your ass isn't on the line. Courage in presidential administrations is so rare these days. It may happen behind the scenes somewhat, but I can't even remember the last time a high-level man or woman in an administration said, "I resign" over a decision made by a president. Gone are the days of people like Jerald terHorst, President Ford's press secretary, who immediately resigned when he learned that Ford, in a controversial move to this day, pardoned President Nixon.

Yesterday, The Politico ran some very interesting excerpts from the book. Among them:

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: "Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign." The offer "was rejected almost out of hand by others present," McClellan writes.

• Bush was "clearly irritated, ... steamed," when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: "'It's unacceptable,' Bush continued, his voice rising. 'He shouldn't be talking about that.'"

• Instead, McClellan's tone is often harsh. He writes, for example, that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House "spent most of the first week in a state of denial," and he blames Rove for suggesting the photo of the president comfortably observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover. McClellan says he and counselor to the president Dan Bartlett had opposed the idea and thought it had been scrapped.

But he writes that he later was told that "Karl was convinced we needed to do it - and the president agreed."

"One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term," he writes. "And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath."

Of course, the ideological buzzards are already circling McClellan's political carcass, ready to rip him to shreds. Actually, it's already started, and there are only excerpts out right now.

Keith Olbermann offered come commentary last night on McClellan's book, along with Air America's Rachel Maddow...

Probably my favorite part of the above clip is when Olbermann and Maddow mention what McClellan writes about propaganda and its role in selling the War in Iraq to the American people. Propaganda?!? In a time of war? Wow.

Below is Karl Rove McCain campaign consultant, political commentator for Fersatz News Channel, throwing McClellan to the wolves.

It's amazing how someone who was Bush's press secretary for so long is now all of a sudden an imbecile, just because he now thinks it's appropriate to speak out against all that Bush has done.

So, let's get this straight - every single word Scott McClellan wrote is a total lie, and Karl Rove is completely innocent. RIGHT! Is there anyone who honestly believes that? C'mon...

McClellan will be on NBC's Today Show tomorrow morning, so set your DVRs, or your alarm clock, because it should be a good interview. Here's hoping that Matt Lauer brings his A-game.

Actually, my favorite reaction so far is from the GOP toad and mouthpiece, Matt Drudge...

Bitter beer face, Drudge. It kills me that Drudge keeps up the act that he's a "non-partisan" site, that he "goes where the story goes," yet that's a screen shot from his site this morning, bemoaning McClellan's book "snitching" on the Bush administration. Notice it doesn't say "Scott the Liar" - he's merely a "snitch." Draw your own conclusions.

Scott McClellan resigns

So, we're getting a new PR hack to parrot Bush's lies and deception. Yipee! I guess I'm being a bit unfair, though. Honestly, I won't like just about anyone the president could pick, because a White House press secretary only divulges and says what the president wants him or her to say, and I don't agree with just about all of the president's policies. But, on the other hand, I liked and admired Marlin Fitzwater, Bush 41's press man. Neither of Bush's PR guys could hold Marlin's pen though.

In light of McClellan's resignation, Bush was hardly overwhelming in his praise, saying McClellan had a "tough assignment. I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity," the president continued. "It's going to be hard to replace Scott, but nevertheless he made the decision and I accepted it. One of these days, he and I are going to be rocking in chairs in Texas and talking about the good old days."

The "good old days"? I guess the case of lost WMDs, 9-11, tax cuts for the rich, escalating gas prices, marginalizing Cindy Sheehan, impuging the war record of John Kerry and covering up the Valerie Plame mess, the inability to find Osama bin Laden and the unjust and immoral war in Iraq qualify as the "good old days." Oh, and have I mentioned his environmental record? I hesitate to call it a record, because that implies that he has one.

So long, Scott. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I'm going to miss you about as much as I miss Ari Fleischer.

1,007 Days to go.