Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 05/29/2008 2:57 pm

Monica Crowley to Scott McClellan: 'Not Cool' to Kiss 'n' Tell With Bush Still in Office

Editor’s Note: Monica Crowley, Ph.D., is a panelist on The McLaughlin Group, the host of the nationally syndicated radio program, "The Monica Crowley Show," and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

It used to be, back in the day, that those who served their country in high positions — positions of authority and importance — would honor their offices and the office they ultimately served: the presidency. Even when they may have acted dishonorably in office, they kept the dirty linens to themselves. That’s what was expected of them, and that’s what they did.

They didn’t write kiss ‘n’ tells. They didn’t spill the beans. They didn’t tell tales out of school.

They kept their counsel, and went to their graves with the stories that gentlemen simply did not tell.

Good-bye to all that.

The unspoken rule of political memoirs once was: you can write what you’d like, and you can express disagreements and even once-confidential conversations (provided enough time had elapsed so as not to imperil national security secrets or anyone’s reputation), but you must only do it once the presidency in which you had served had ended. There was to be no memoir writing while the president for whom you had worked was still in office.

George Stephanopoulos was the first high-ranking White House official to publish a tell-all while his president was still in office. All Too Human was a scathing look inside the highly dysfunctional Clinton White House, published nine months before Bill and Hillary backed up the moving van and made off with the White House furniture.

Was it salacious? Yup. Was it delightful? You bet. Was it proper? Not really.

Now a new memoir is hitting the bookshelves, written by former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan. In it, he blasts the president for relying on "propaganda" to sell the Iraq war, which he now deems "unnecessary." He attacks the vice president and Secretary Condi Rice for incompetence and arrogance, and goes after the president for being stubbornly attached to certain positions.

Some of these criticisms may have merit. The events we are in the midst of now will one day be history, and the history of the administration will be looked at from many angles and with many sets of eyes.

But for someone who was once the president’s confidante, someone he knew and trusted, someone who gave him the opportunity of a lifetime, to write a tell-all while that history is still being made is not cool. There will be plenty of memoirs coming out of the Bush administration. Most will be cover-your-tushy affairs, as memoirs often are. Some will paint a glossy picture. Some will be critical. But their timing is crucial.

McClellan could have published this book in eight months, when Bush was on his way out the door. But then, he wouldn’t have sold as many books. Publishing now may make him a bit wealthier, but it’s simply not cool to do to your former boss and your president. Not cool at all.

273 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

eleanor roche
Remember Richard Clarke was also in the Clinton Administration, making his arguments even more questionable. Bush should have purged his Administration of the Clinton holdovers from the very beginning, starting with the Justice Dept. If he had followed Clinton’s example, and replaced ALL the federal prosecutors in 2001, we would have been spared the circus of righteous indignation that windbag Chuck Shumer served up following the subsequent firings. The Dems constantly twist the law to suit their own needs—the president has the authority to fire any federal prosecutor at any time, period. He doesn’t have to explain why. Another big mistake by the Bush Administration, constantly placating the libs, it is sickening to watch. Does anyone even know who Richard Armitage is—second in command at the STATE DEPT. under Colin Powell—the person who actually “outed” Valerie Plame. He admitted it for God sakes!! Yet we still hear how Rove and Libby—and the WHITE HOUSE—conspired to take down Wilson by “outing” Plame and poor Scott was caught in the middle. Fitzgerald KNEW Armitage did it BEFORE the trial began. What happened to Libby was a travesty of justice. But, I guess it doesn’t matter since someone has to pay for what Ken Starr “did” to Clinton. This hatred of all things Bush stems from the perceived injustice done to Clinton. I know you all wanted Rove to go down in flames, but hating someone is not grounds for prosecution.
By eleanor roche on 05/31/2008 6:52 am
Elizabeth Bennett
First, I do not hate Bush. I do not think he was ever qualified to be President. I do think he was never elected President, not by the voters. Not in 2000 and not in 2004. And I do think he has made a mess of it. And I hate many of the things he has done, such as bombing Baghdad and killing many innocent children. Such as condoning torture. Such as violating the Geneva Convention. Read some of John Dean’s books. Dean is a conservative. He is not crazy about Bush; he thinks his misdeeds are “Worse than Watergate.” I know who Richard Armitage is. Many people do. It does not matter if Armitage was the actual person who outed Ms. Plame, since what Libby was convicted of was perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to investigators, all crimes he committed with no assistance from Mr. Armitage. Evidently Libby also lied to Scott McClellan— why would you expect McClellan not to be upset by that? This has nothing to do with what Starr did to Clinton or to this country; what Starr did was waste taxpayers money. Libby committed his crimes without help from Starr, though he may have been helped by the Vice President. That the President commuted his sentence is an outrage. Crimes in the White House are serious. However, I do think that the horror of the ongoing investigations against the Clintons, motivated in part by anger at Hillary for working on the Watergate committee, has exhausted the will of most elected Democrats to try to hold Bush to account for all the crimes and misjudgments in his administration. It is a shame, because I think the Republican party might have survived had they permitted impeachment proceedings against Bush to proceed as they did with Nixon. However, by making this a partisan issue, the Republican party may well fade away. Average Americans whatever their political stripe, are not happy with seeing those who took oaths to faithfully execute the laws, maneuver to violate them. Libby’s crimes were not trumped up. They were not pursued for partisan purposes. Indeed, Libby’s prosecutor was appointed by President Bush in 2001 as U.S. Attorney.
By Elizabeth Bennett on 05/31/2008 12:43 pm
eleanor roche
Look, Fitzgerald KNEW that Armitage was the “leaker”, BEFORE Libby or Rove testified, yet he continued with his charade, wasting YOUR tax dollars. Once Fitzgerald knew Armigage’s identity, he should have closed the case. But, NO, he drags Libby and Rove in there, knowing FULL WELL they are not responsible for leaking Valerie Plame’s name to Novak. That’s the crime!! Why wasn’t Armitage prosecuted? Wasn’t he the one the committed the so-called crime for which the Special Prosecutor was called? Many others who were called to testify before Fitzgerald had “faulty memories” or conflicting testimony, but none of them were prosecuted. “It does not matter if Armitage was the actual person who outed Ms. Plame” ARE YOU KIDDING ME? That is the REASON the Special Prosecutor was called in!! Don’t you remember Chuckie Shumer yapping about “the crime”—a CIA operatives name was leaked—etc. etc. and now IT DOESN’T MATTER. If that is true, then apparently it was all a pretense and the witch hunt that ensued was the actual goal.
By eleanor roche on 05/31/2008 2:21 pm
Elizabeth Bennett
He was named special prosecutor to investigate the leak, but found when he started to investigate that people were lying to him. Armitage was not prosecuted because his leak was inadvertent, he did not try to cover it up, and there was no apparent malice involved. Libby was prosecuted and convicted of crimes that Fitzgerald said made it more difficult for him to get to the bottom of the matter. As journalists had had discussions with Rove and Libby about Plame, that was one part of the investigation. Novak was not the only one to whom her identity was leaked, there were at least two other journalists. I remember Schumer’s statements. But he was not too far wrong. There were people in the White House discussing Plame with journalists, even if Armitage was the one that leaked it to the journalist that printed it. There is a pretty good summary of the whole thing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_scandal Just because someone else was the first to violate a law does not mean that the second person to do it gets away. Even so, Fitzgerald did not believe he had sufficient evidence to prosecute Libby for the leak, so he prosecuted for the lie instead. As for faulty memories, I suppose for some people these are not dodges but the reality of busy lives. [Or most of the people I know over fifty.] For others, they may be fibbing, but if you can’t prove it, you can’t prove it.
By Elizabeth Bennett on 05/31/2008 2:45 pm
eleanor roche
Elizabeth— Armitage was THE LEAKER period. Novak would not reveal his name. Armitage saw the chaos that ensued and could have revealed his name even BEFORE the Special Prosecutor was called in—then it would have been over!! Instead, he let the chaos begin and only went to Fitzgerald when it was obvious others knew he was the source. Fitzgerald should have stopped his investigation right then and there. Finding the “leaker” was the ONLY purpose of the Special Prosecutor. Armitage was no friend of the Bush White House and had no problem hanging his misdeed at their feet. As to your analysis: Fitzgerald “didn’t have sufficient evidence to prosecute Libby for the leak”, obviously because he DIDN’T DO IT. Your argument makes no sense, why if he had had evidence to prosecute Libby for the leak, he would have, but he actually had evidence to prosecute Armitage but didn’t—this makes no sense whatsoever.
By eleanor roche on 05/31/2008 3:13 pm
Elizabeth Bennett
There was evidence that all three leaked, Armitage, Rove and Libby, to various journalists, including Tim Russert, Matt Cooper and Judy Miller. The journalists testified to that much. There was further evidence that Libby lied to cover up the fact that he had spoken to journalists about it and what other people knew about the disclosures, the basis for the obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to investigators charge. Fitzgerald had a press conference about this: “During his October 28, 2005 press conference about the grand jury’s indictment of Libby, Fitzgerald had already explained that Libby’s obstruction of justice through perjury and false statements had “prevented him [Fitzgerald] — and the grand jury — from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law,” due to Libby’s obscuring the facts of his own discussions about the then-still-classified covert CIA identity of Valerie Plame (what he had said to whom, when, where, and why.)” [source wikipedia] Armitage did not know Plame was covert, cooperated with authorities, volunteered that he was the probable source of the leak early on, before Fitzgerald was appointed, so he was not prosecuted. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR200609 Libby absolutely did leak Plame’s name, according to the testimony of three journalists. The jury didn’t believe Libby and neither do I.
By Elizabeth Bennett on 05/31/2008 4:28 pm
Everyone--into the Rose Garden
Elizabeth- Richard Armitage is the slimeball Iran-Contra felon he always has been…and he did leak to Novak but they were all in it. And it wasn’t “foolish” it was treason as Armitage says, it was treason on the parts of those who set this politcal hit on Wilson in motion. She was in charge of WMD. Here’s Armitage the Watergate Iran-Contra criminal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJCUZHZjV8 Here’s Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson talking about the hit job on them. The title of her book “Fair Game” came from Rove saying she, a covert CIA operative, was Fair Game. It was CONSPIRACY. Libby was convicted for lying about a CONSPIRACY. HER SHE IS SAYING WHAT HER JOB WAS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpImIG-PtF0 AS SHE SAYS SHE WAS BETRAYED BY THE ADMINISTRATION WHILE SHE WAS WORKING ON KEY ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND ON 60 MINUTES—-THE ADMINISTRATION BLOWING THE COVER OF A SPY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXbyG7SR-jM HERE SHE IS ON HARDBALL TALKING ABOUT THE LEADUP TO WAR CLAIMSINCLUDING COLIN POWELL’S UN SPEECH AND BUSH’S STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HetijpLyL5g&feature=related HERE’S MCCELLAN SAYING BUSH WAS INVOLVED IN THE PLAME LEAK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNHKwccCDE&feature=related VALERIE PLAME WAS THE CHIEF OF WMD OPERATIONS; HERE SHE IS ON OLBERMANN BEING VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFKPV07o5S0&feature=related WHAT THEY DID IS TREASON. AND NOW SHE SAYS THEYRE CHERRY PICKING INTELLIGENCE AGAINST IRAN IN THE VERY SAME MANNER. She’s moved to Sante Fe and says the public needs to be involved in their government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC9Btc8SbCY&feature=related
By Everyone--into the Rose Garden on 05/31/2008 5:00 pm
Frannie Em
Eleanor, In my recollection of following the investigation, Armitage was the leak. Bob Novak wouldn’t give him up publicly — but to Fitzgerald? But why Libby was pursued was because of some notes he made for himself and his time frame for all the discussions about the subjects didn’t fit. He couldn’t remember the exact process. Then he claimed he had heard it from Tim Russert and Russert denied that, so his story remained suspect. From what I understand, Fitzgerald is a real tough follow every clue guy. Don’t know what the motivations were. Seems like he got a bone that he got hold of and was just going to chew it down.
By Frannie Em on 06/04/2008 12:36 pm
Buh- Bye
I’m reading Fair Game right now. I was under the assumption it was considered treason to betray national security. Rove, Libby and Armitage should all be behind bars. Especially Rove. Novak should’ve known better.
By Buh- Bye on 06/01/2008 1:26 am
Everyone--into the Rose Garden
Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson are national heroes. Hopefully, they’ll win their civil suit against Cheney et al that was thrown out at the onset—thanks to Bush stuffing the courts. They added Armitage to the suit and filed an appeal 5/6/08…it’s been in the courts nearly two years and Judicial Watch has filed an Amicus Brief: http://www.wilsonsupport.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2…
By Everyone--into the Rose Garden on 06/01/2008 1:55 pm
eleanor roche
Elizabeth— Your response here supports my assertion that liberals are not equally outraged when “their own” commit a crime. Lest we forget, Bill Clinton LIED UNDER OATH, that is why he was impeached. It is a FACT, he LIED, period. No one gives a damn about Hillary’s “role in Watergate”. I know it may be hard for you to understand, but some of us just think it is wrong—not to mention a crime—for a sitting President or any President for that matter, to lie under oath. You are so quick to hang Libby for “perjury” , yet you have no problem with Bill Clinton’s lies? No one forced him to lie either. This is liberal hypocrisy at it’s best!
By eleanor roche on 05/31/2008 2:48 pm
Maurine H
Eleanor, I’m jumping in here because I’m having problems understanding what it is you are defending and what you are attacking. Are you just angry with liberals in general because you aren’t one? Or are you defending the Bush administration because you think they committed no wrongdoing in the Plame case? The facts are that Valerie Plame was outed and she should not have been. If Armitage was the only person who did so, his information, which was protected by the highest levels of government, had to have come from someone who knew what he was not privy to.. There was strong motivation to damage Joe Wilson’s reputation because of his disagreement with the Bush White House about the supposed WMD’s in Iraq. Plain and simple, the motive was there and the outing of his wife was the avenue for damaging Wilson. These facts are not difficult to understand. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal the conclusion is obvious. What followed after Valerie Plame’s cover was blown was the tangled process that led to Libby’s prosecution and his subsequent pardon by the President. Eleanor, from your writing I must conclude that you see the world only in terms of right and wrong and you believe that you know what is right. It is absolutely not that uncomplicated, and the current government has done whatever it can to make certain that insinuations, innuendos, accusations -true or not- cloud any issue that conflicts with White House perspective and policy. This is not a partisan argument. The Plame outing and what followed are examples of what happens when truth and integrity are sabotaged by those whose blind ambition and greed are their operating standards.
By Maurine H on 05/31/2008 6:07 pm
eleanor roche
Well, Maurine, you are just flat out wrong. Plames’ name was not “leaked” by the White House to discredit her husband. Her name was first mentioned by Novak in his article about Wilson’s mission to Niger. Novak got the information that Wilson’s wife was in the CIA from Armitage and Novak found her actual name from a Who’s Who on Wilson. I know what the liberal paradigm is with this story, and Armitage’s role does not fit neatly into it, but these are just the facts. The Dems took their opportunity to turn it into a partisan witch hunt—they never cared about the “leaking” of Plame’s name. If her cover was “blown” then why was no one indicted for that supposed crime? I’ll tell you why, because Fitzgerald could not find any evidence that anyone—including Armitage—violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. She was not “covert” according to the IIP Act, therefore her “cover” could not be “blown”, therefore mentioning her name was not a crime. And you are right, it is absolutely not that complicated, if you have the facts.
By eleanor roche on 05/31/2008 6:46 pm
Maurine H
Eleanor - thanks for answering; however, you misquoted me. I said, “It is absolutely not that UNcomplicated” when I was describing seeing “the world only in terms of right and wrong.” You also failed to answer my questions: 1) Are you angry with liberals in general because you aren’t one?” 2) Are you defending the Bush administration because you think they committed no wrongdoing in the Plame case?” Further, elaborate detail regarding the Wilson/Plame betrayal was provided by another writer. Novak’s information from Armitage does not explain Armitage’s source, and finding Valerie Plame’s “acutal name” in Who’s Who does not mean that her CIA status was revealed. (I admit I haven’t read the Who’s Who article that Novak cited). I believe in the not too distant future we will discover that the order to “out” Valerie Plame came from someone in the White House. Then we’ll see how “flat out wrong” I was.
By Maurine H on 05/31/2008 8:25 pm
Maurine H
Eleanor-For your edification - McClellan went on to say President Bush had personally told him he authorized the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. McClellan says he asked President Bush aboard Air Force One if he was the one who approved outing Plame to the media. McClellan says Bush replied, “Yes, I was.”
By Maurine H on 05/31/2008 11:15 pm