McClellan's Bush Bash

When the news of Scott McClellan's book came out, I wasn't surprised on a couple of levels. If you haven't heard, the book is a tell-all from the former press secretary, and so far it looks like he disagreed with Bush on a ton of issues, and is willing to talk about them in detail.

The first reason for my lack of surprise is that loyalty doesn't mean much these days. Money talks, loyalty walks. I was amused to hear pundits say "thank you" to McClellan for giving us the dirty details on the Bush presidency (the jury's still out on the book's accuracy, with some calling it crap, others calling it exaggerated). But whatever the case, people are thanking McClellan for his disloyalty to his old boss.

I have a problem with that. If I spent three years with an advisor, it would be a massive stab in the back to have the guy write a book smearing me with his inside scoop. I have a hard time believing that you wouldn't feel the same way.

Let's not kid around, McClellan's book was written for money over honour, plain and simple. A tell-all book without dirt doesn't sell, and an honourable man doesn't smear his former boss for cash. But such are the times we live in, and that's why the book comes as no surprise.

On another level, it's no surprise to see a disgruntled press secretary. They're the lowest of the low in the Oval Office, usually the last to know anything. Pierre Salinger was kept in the dark by the Kennedy Administration during the Cuban Missile Crisis, because they were worried he'd spill some beans, be forced to lie, or screw something up that the Kremlin wouldn't understand. Salinger wasn't happy about it, and JFK didn't care. Nixon's press secretary Ron Ziegler was equally in the dark over Watergate, and I'm sure he was glad to be.

Now we have Scott McClellan, but with this difference: among other charges, McClellan's book apparently says that he knew Bush was making mistakes in Iraq and after Katrina, but he didn't say anything to anyone inside the White House. He also feels he was forced to bend the truth, and that he didn't feel comfortable with Bush's decisions. And that is what seems to have Bush and his other advisors so perplexed. When McClellan left office, Bush said he'd miss him and that the two of them would one day be sitting on the porch telling stories. There was not a trace of bad blood. Why the book?

Easy. Again, I was not surprised when I saw this bit from the AP: "[McClellan] reveals that he was pushed to leave earlier than he had planned, and he displays some bitterness about that as well as about being sometimes kept out of the loop on key decision-making sessions."

That's probably a line you could find on every press secretary's resume if they leave office before the end of their president's term. Only natural. A press secretary is someone who speaks for the president. He isn't like the other big-dog secretaries, of state and defense. He's a mouthpiece. The other secretaries get to make some policy decisions, and quite often they do it without the president's knowledge, only telling him about it later in the day. The secretaries of state and defense have clout, while the the press secretary only has a mouth.

I remember a fascinating transcript from the Nixon years, where Kissinger is on the phone as secretary of state, trying to calm things down in the Middle East. They're transcripts of phone calls between Kissinger and all kinds of Middle East big shots.

The next transcript in the book is between Kissinger and Nixon. The whole thing is Kissinger telling Nixon what he'd said that day to all of these world leaders, while Nixon throws in an "All right, Henry," every few sentences.

Presidents are busy. They need their secretaries to do that sort of thing. Except for the press guy. He doesn't set any policies, ever, and if he did, he'd be gone. Because he's not just speaking to some reporters, he's speaking to the world at large. There is no "backdoor channel" with a press secretary. His channel is a global one.

That must rankle. I can imagine there are many people out there that would like to be a press secretary, thinking they'll be rubbing shoulders with the people in the Oval Office and helping to decide the fate of the nation. Then they learn what the job's really like: you say what we tell you to. No more. No less. Stay on message. Don't send mixed signals. And your input isn't that important, so for God's sake don't improvise on policy.

Good press secretaries are not good thinkers or policy makers. Their true talent lies in the ability to field the same question 100 times without changing their answer.

It sounds to me like McClellan didn't like the job. He let things stew from 2003 to 2006, and then he blurted it all onto paper after he left his post. Most of the quotations from the book are very "I would have done it this way."

Unfortunately Scott, it didn't matter what you thought. Perhaps you think it does now?

Photo: AP/Ron Edmonds