Most Helpful Customer Reviews
517 of 640 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
73% Disapprove For Good Reason, May 28, 2008
Scott McClellan was given information to relay to the press about the Valerie Plame incident. Two years later he became convinced he'd been set up to spread lies - maybe not directly by Bush, but certainly by Rove and Libby, and encouraged by Cheney. That was his apparent tipping point. McClellan rethought the whole tenure of his association with the Bush Administration in Washington, began to have epiphanies, and formed new opinions. He doesn't tell us much we didn't already know or suspect, but boy does he tell it. This time around it's coming from a trusted insider who followed Bush to Washington from Texas. Here are a few of his observations:
*Bush believes his own spin (better known as [...]) and demonstrates a remarkable lack of inquisitiveness.
*Bush favored propaganda over honesty in selling the war. Cheney steered war policy behind the scenes, leaving no fingerprints.
*Bush and his team repeatedly shaded the truth, manipulated public opinion, and sold the Iraq situation in such a way that the use of force appeared to be the only feasible option.
*Contradictory evidence was ignored or discarded, caveats or qualifications to arguments were downplayed or dropped, and a dubious al-Qaida connection to Iraq was played up.
*The Bush administration didn't check their political maneuverings in at the door after the win - instead, they maintained a permanent campaign mode, run largely by Rove.
*Presidential initiatives from health care programs to foreign invasions were regularly devised, named, timed and launched with one eye (or both eyes) on the electoral calendar.
*Operating in the campaign mode means never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also means never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising.
*Bush is out of touch, operates in a political bubble, and stubbornly refuses to admit mistakes.
*The press is partially responsible for giving Bush soft questions and enabling the president.
*Despite the expose, McClellan describes Bush as a man easily intelligent enough to be President, possessing personal charm, wit, and enormous political skills, who did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices.
*McClellan asserts, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary and the Iraq war was not necessary."
Let's analyze this a little. All administrations - all humans - try to present themselves in the best possible light, usually to the point of self-deception. Bush insisted from the beginning on certain points of discipline in his administration and under his guidance they did it better - in my opinion, beyond better, extending to abuse of executive power. I don't dislike all the items on Bush's agenda, but it's hard to tolerate a presentation so one-sided it borders on dishonesty. I think McClellan is right in that Bush successfully sold us a bill of goods on Iraq. Even Wolfowitz conceded, "Iraq's supposed cache of WMD's had never been the most compelling casus belli. It was simply one of several. For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, WMD's, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
So it wasn't WMD's. Bush was influenced by his war cabinet and others to invade Iraq to seize a valuable piece of real estate. This power grab was going to change the balance of power in the Middle East, change history, and create a legacy for Bush - but he forgot to read the history books. They demonstrate how many times we have attempted to democratize a country and failed - starting with the Philipines in 1898. After the Cold War ended, many democratized of their own accord - when they were ready. War is not a thing to initiate on a hunch.
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth or easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tide and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
- Winston Churchill
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
23 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Nothing particularly new, and not a visceral tirade against Bush as many people think..., June 12, 2008
Many people have assumed this book is a tirade against the Bush administration, a ranting and an epiphany. It really isn't. It's actually a rather tepid affair, and it doesn't really reveal anything we haven't already heard.
Scott McCellan sounds more sad and disillusioned than anything. In the beginning, he actually like George W. Bush and sincerely believed (quite naively) that Bush was going to end the partisan divide that engulfs Washington. He really felt that Bush could bring the country together, and felt, at heart, he was a compassionate conservative. Needless to say, Bush didn't govern from the center but from the hard right, and Bush became arguably the most partisan president in history. Knowing about Rove's hardball tactics in Texas, it's kind of silly that McCellan would actually believe that Bush would bring people together.
The book reveals that Bush lied about the war, that Bush isn't a particularly curious person, that there were no WMD's. Well, most of us who have been following the news over the last number of years know this very well, so the book isn't this shocking expose. Bush lied about the Iraq war, and it's a horrible thing, but at this stage of the game, it's not particularly revealing or shocking.
As a book, it's an OK read. For those who expect a visceral tirade against the Bush adminstration, look elsewhere. This one is still critical of Bush and Cheney, but McCellan is more disillusioned than angry here, and after all is said and done, it's a rather tepid book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
97 of 123 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An intrguing glimpse..., June 3, 2008
I'll admit up front that I'm not a G. W. Bush fan in the least. I didn't vote for him twice, and consider myself a true blue Democrat. So, you might be saying, "Of course, he's going to give the book five stars" because of his political beliefs. In actuality, as I will mention later on in the review, this book managed to somewhat change my picture I have of our current president for the better, all the while, giving an intriguing glimpse into his administration.
"What Happened", written by Scott McClellan, former press secretary to the Bush White House, provides a very interesting look at the operations within the everso secretive machinations of the house on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. McClellan describes in a brief and accessible way his experiences as he worked his way up to his position. The "secrets" he revealed aren't stunning to anyone who's spent time reading the newspapers or following the coverage on the Plame scandal, or the build up to the Iraq War. What's interesting is that someone who had inside knowledge, "was in the know" about so much of this, confirms and denies much.
I won't go through a laundry list of claims that Scott tells in the book. The overt coverage, and other reviewers, have done that enough. I will tell you that, despite his accusations and thoughts about his time in the White House, the story paints a far broader picture than these "stunning revelations".
As with many political memoirs, the author recounts his childhood life and his lead up to his current position in a slow, detail orientated, tedious way. Not McClellan. He jumps into the story feet first, and provides one, maybe two chapters dealing with his early life, and most of it pertaining to when he began to work with then Gov. Bush. Thankfully, 95% of the book solely focuses on the White House years.
McClellan fully admits, throughout the book, to what he saw and didn't see, knew and didn't know. People looking for evidence that Bush rushed to war right after 9/11 will be disappointed. I appreciated his candid thoughts about people still currently serving in the White House, from Condi Rice to Vice-President Cheney. His discussion on the Valerie Plame scandal is extremely thorough, mainly because he became press secretary during that time.
However, and this is near revolutionary, I admired McClellan's discussion on a topic covered extensively by the media: the personality of Bush. It's clear that at first he admires the man, and throughout his time, I believe that admiration deepens. But McClellan's admiration isn't blind; he's able to view Bush as a person, complex and whole. I spent the last few years demonizing the man, thinking his public persona of being inflexible and resolute, was truly what he was like. However, after McClellan telling about Bush visiting the military wounded, and other actions done in the privacy of the White House, I've come around a bit and (here is where I gulp), see Bush as more of a whole person now.
And for that alone, I give the book five stars. History will judge the Bush Adminstration for it's actions. "What Happened" gives us an inside peek at the man at the center of the storm, and what is a peek it is.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|