What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception

• #4 in Best Politics Books

204 Reviews

Sort by: Most Helpful ▲ Date Rating

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

NOTE: This is a final edited version of the "diary" review I began last week. My local mall bookstore had the book on their shelves less than one week before the official release, so I purchased it and began reviewing it here. In lieu of the drawn out, repetitive "diary," that was previously here; having completed the book I am re-working the review so that it is more cohesive.
Originally I was compelled to join this discussion for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that most of the other reviews at the time (and still) are/were very partisan and from folks who obviously have not read the book. Secondly, over the years my political leanings have changed towards the center. This is a key part of McClellan's book which is obvious to anyone who has read it. The author is a Republican, and has many good things to say about W. Bush and others, and, as you might typically expect from a Republican, negatives about the Clinton Admin. Yet (as we all know) he also criticizes aspects of the current Administration; yet rather than a best-selling "gotcha" work by a Coulter or Franken, he offers up an honest look at the good, the bad, and everywhere in between of all sides of our current political situation.
The book is well structured. It does not begin, as so many of these recent books do, by with 9/11, but instead begins with a look at McClellan's work in the White House, then shifts to the author's beginnings in the political world as the son of one of the nation's first female Mayor's (of Austin, Texas), and relationships with family members such as his Grandfather who was the highly respected Dean of a Law School. This helps the reader become grounded in the moral and ethical upbringing of the author.

The reader sees early on that the author is qualified for the White House job as he served in a like capacity for then Governor George W. Bush in Texas. During this portion of the book, as well as others, the reader is also availed of many of the positives of George W. Bush that helped him to be elected both as a governor and president. He had a record in Texas of reaching across the aisle and working with others for the good of the state. From the author's detailed, yet readable (meaning not boring) accounts of his upbringing the reader can understand right away how he likes the idea of working together for the good of the country. He admits that bare knuckle campaign tactics are used when people run for office, but remembers a time that once the dust had settled, our country used to come together and move forward.

What makes this book even more interesting and enlightening is to be reading it while listening to the all the support/attacks on it from those who have not read it. For instance as McClellan talks in depth about his experience on the campaign trail with W and his (McCl's) part in the Florida recount, the reader sees a loyal Republican team player.
It is around Chapter 5 where the core political analysis from McClellan comes in. He introduces from different books about the concept of "the permanent campaign" - which that chapter's title. Here the book goes from bio to an in depth look at the modern political culture by paring down the various traits i.e. "gotcha politics" and spin machines and more. He ties this into the overall reach of the book by beginning to point out where the new W. administration began to be flawed. He writes on page 72 "Unfortunately, the incoming Bush administration learned some of the wrong lessons by watching the Clinton White House. As they planned for the new regime in Washington, they did nothing to change the status quo." He goes onto explain the "everyman, reach-across the aisle" politician that W was as Governor; they same theme that W campaigned on as president was not appropriately carried over as the people surrounding the new leader of our country decided to play the game by the same Washing rules used by the Clinton's folks (adding that the current administration took that brand of politics a step farther).

The biggest shift in policy of course begins appropriately with 9/11 where we get his interesting insight and perspective to that day and period. Again the author continues with a (in my humble opinion) non-partisan balancing act as he criticizes Carl Rove as the first to make 9/11 a partisan issue, but at the same time has no kind words for one Sen. Clinton who, although not the first, made a big partisan move from the other side of the aisle. It is around this period that shatters the image of hope that McClellan had for the W. Bush admin - one that could break the partisan stuff and work together. He sees 9/11 as a time where we could have built on that, but people went back to their play books.

The book continues with the thesis of what Bush wanted the administration to be but what it became instead, due in no small part to running of the "permanent campaign" which relies too much on propaganda and less on an open sharing and questioning of the issues. Added to this (as we have heard) is the press' blind following of the former, and not earlier on strongly questioning the reasons for going to war with Iraq.
What Happened continues on this vein trough the rest of McClellan's tenure in the administration. I found this to be an open and honest read by a credible person and one that is good for all who have an open mind to pick up and read. The current political game being played out in our time is being played by both parties and the author gives food for thought looking not only at who is to blame (and remember he goes to B0TH sides of the aisle for this), but also what all of our future leaders, including new Presidential Administrations can do to alter this negative course of "gotcha" politics which our country is currently engaged.

since words of this book came out, the "red guards" of bush are questioning scott mcclellan why didn't you say so back then?(so we could fire you years ago?) you supported bush before, now you are criticizing bush government. if you didn't support bush, you shouldn't work for him. etc.

this further proves what this book says is very close to the truth and the bush people are totally pissed. they can't deny facts so they have to find something to attack so they don't look like a bunch of donkeys which they are.

even all those attacks were true, mcclellan indeed worked in bush cabinet againsted his political opinions, even he's writing the book just to make some bucks, so what? bush cannot deny he dragged this country into a stupid war for nothing. he says there were WMDs, oops wrong. he says they were linked to al-qaeda, oops wrong. he says mission accomplished, oops wrong. he says we need to bring democracy to iraq, oops not happening. he says we need to continue to spend BIG money and stay there, oops you are out of office. one thing he accomplished well, 1,000,000 iraqi civilian killed, 4000+ us soldiers killed. and counting.

Well here we are again, another insider book, and a stream of "no it did not happen that way." Well many of us who had an ounce of scense knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, and we knew this was a war started for politicial gain. Without this war, and the constant massaging of 9/11, to keep America on edge, and the most stupid president in recent history tricked himself into a second term. No the book does not accuse this "NUTT" of trickery in the election campaign, but again clear thinking individuals know there was trickery in both New Mexico, and Ohio. If you did not you were asleep.

As the book reveals it was a slide from the the truth in the very begining. Bush as his gang of non caring "Neo-Cons," went on to murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, not to mention the thousands of American who were murdered, and the tens of thousands who have been crippled. In a war for politicial gain. Yet we are hearing those "Neo-Cons" are screaming at the tops of their lungs "stay the course." Because to quit now would dishonor those who have given their lives, on behalf of America. So how many more young men, and women need to be slaughtered, or crippled so that those who have already died, or been crippled will not have been crippled or murdered in vain?

Mr. McClelland makes it clear this President LIED to America, at every turn. He lied to our allies, and most never took the bait. Then we America pitched a bi*ch at France for not going along. For not wanting to feed it's citizens into the "Buzz Saw" that is Iraq. So a former State Department employee decieded to check things out for himself, went to Niger and found no evidence to support Bush's claims. So those Neo-Cons outed a CIA agent. The wife of the so called nosey former State Department employee. Then claimed she was not a covert agent. But the understanding is you never under any circumstances ID an agent of the CIA. Then came finger pointing and cover up and denial. Like everything else in this Administration there was no wrong doing, and if that is not enough, we will feed them a patsy.

This gang of crooks and clowns, then claimed "Executive Privilege." To cover lies, to cover crooks, to hide what ever. Defy the law, and defy the Constitution, and ignore our Governmental structure. All with the backing and support, and interference from the Neo-Cons in congress, and the Senate. You know those guys who decieded to try to "Impeach" a President who tried to keep a secret of a personal nature, so the push was on he lied, Bush, I mean Clinton lied, yes but no one died. Yet a lack of a backbone amoung the Neo-Cons, and those Liberals, and Bush escapes. Because some put ideals in front of our freedoms, and the Constitution.

Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Bush's brain Rove, his White House legal counselor, and yes his press Secretary all played followed the leader, aided Bush in framing, and reenforcing the lies told to the citizens of this nation, and to the world. Drop a lie, and another to cover up the first lie, and so on. And we have this God forsaken war all for politicial gain. Frightenly Bush's twin John McCain is playing the same scare tatics game. We have already been fooled twice, will we be again?

Lies, lies and more lies. Read the book get a look at the secret society that is the "Dunce" Administration. See why we as citizens need to be informed as to what goes on in Washington. See why our complacency is very dangerous for those of us who love our freedoms. Understand why we need a true free press, and why the "Freedom of Information Act" needs to be renewed, and all so called "Executive Privilege" loop holes need to be closed. Why "Executive Privilege" needs to be spelled out in concrete terms, so that no President can hide behind this shield for personal gain. Why the law is for everyone, from the President on down, or should be.

Read the book, though some of this is exactly his point of view, but with the little that has come before the public you will know a great deal of this is truth.

Unlike these Bush lovers who call Scott a traiter and evil without even reading the book, this book really shows the true colors of the administration. Scott has held this guilt for years and has finally let it out.

Bush and his secret police will do anything and everything to discredit him. As they have done for every other aide who has written scathing memoirs on Bush.

Before you bash him, read the book!! (I have) Just because you miserable people say its all lies doesnt mean they really are.

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.

I am glad Scott McClellan has written this memoir and I hope others continue to step forward with the truth about Bush's corrupt administration. Those who are grading this book with one star haven't read it. They are merely doing what people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly tell them to do. This was a good read. I couldn't put it down. McClellan points out that Karl Rove executed many of these plans into action, but Bush, Cheney, and their lobbyist agenda played a big hand in decieving the American people and the world. Bush's presidency "wandered and remained so far off course by excessively embracing the permanent campaign and its tactics," McClellan writes. He says Bush relied on an aggressive "political propaganda campaign" instead of the truth to sell the Iraq war... and that is definitely not all. Read the book. Thumbs up Scott.

This is an extraordinary look into the machinations of the Rovian Bush machine and its efforts to turn our Country into an authoritarian regime.

Note that the critical comments are efforts to shoot the messenger, not to debunk the message. Perhaps the right-wing cannot successfully debunk the message.

I really believe this guy.......I LOVED the book.......we are in deep doodoo because of George Bush...he was a terrible president, and all of the people he surrounded him are as well...all of them teasonous....

I thought this book was an easy read and confirms a lot of suspicions. I think it will be an historical inside contemporaneous look at the Bush White House that will be required reading in college classes on early 21st century history & politics.

I didnt vote for Bush either election, and Obama's my man this upcoming election. However, I do not hate George Bush and do not consider him the enemy. Al Qaeda is the enemy.

That being said, those who are foaming at the mouth and think this is the groundbreaking indictment of the Bush Administration that they could only dream of....are probably going to be sorely dissapointed.

Directly from his book.

And McClellan issues this disclaimer about Bush: "I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."

McClellan says Bush's main reason for war always was "an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom." But Bush and his advisers made "a marketing choice" to downplay this rationale in favor of one focused on increasingly trumped-up portrayals of the threat posed by the weapons of mass destruction.

If you follow politics closely and objectively you will know both statements are true. In fact, I think everything in McClellan's book is true or at least true to his understanding.

So what do we have with this book, criticism of Rove over the decision to take the overhead Katrina picture, criticism for Rove and Libby over a possible meeting to discuss Valerie Plame, criticism for releasing the Oct. 2002 NIE. Yawn (Personally, Im glad they released the Oct. 2002 NIE by the way)

His most devestating claim and the one that has the internet left foaming at the mouth is that Bush used propaganda to sell the Iraq war. Interesting choice of words. You can call anything you want propaganda. Every politician, every president uses it. The official definition is as follows (ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause). Nothing to do with a lie or false. And go back to the first quote above about how Bush never purposely deceived the American public. I understand some people think they were deceived, but Bush certainly never deceived me on anything. Frankly, I dont think he's the sharpest tool in the shed to do this.

There is nothing new or of note in this book. I generally agree with most of Scotts points, except I would have toned down the language so people wouldnt get it confused with Daily Kos editorials. For example, I do think you can consider Condi Rice's mushroom cloud comment something along the lines of propaganda. IF you want to look at it that way. From what the CIA was telling the administration at the time, I dont think there was too much wrong with that comment. If you really wanted too, you can view July 4th celebrations, American propaganda. Its all about perspective.

What internet lefties are probably so happy about is that somebody on Bush's "inner circle" turned around and stabbed Bush in the back. If you get your jollies from this...well more power to you.

McClellan had to have a reason to stab his friends in his back. I believe it was the combination of the following.

1) A Pro-Bush book by McClellan would have sold somewhere in the area of about 3-4 copies. No buzz, nobody would care. McClellan would have been lucky if it was even published. In comparison, he's being treated like a rock star now.
2) While Bush treated him well as detailed in the book, he was more or less fired after being a terrible Press Secretary. (Even conservatives were not very high on the guy and thought he did an awful job.)
2) The term "jump off a sinking ship" comes to mind. History will probably not treat the Bush Administration kindly unless things somehow improve drastically in the Middle East.

I don't know that any of you have actually read it, but you ought to buy a copy as soon as it is released. Do this before you judge. I was alloted my lunch hour with it (an advanced copy). If you don't want to pay for it, I understand that. Stop off at Borders and read it for free. But stop this ignorance before you have read it in totality.

The rub is that Scott didn't get paid a heck of a lot for this, and that certainly says something, indeed, if true. Richard Clarke got rich from his book. Others did, as well.

One can easily surmise that there was clearly more to the motivation of this book. Because I am not so dumb to believe, as some of these idiots on this page, that someone would risk family, friends, future, virtually every cost v. benefit imaginable, for a book that may be forgotten in months to come. Scott is conservative and has very close family/friend ties to the Bush family, and I think what pushed Scott over, besides the presidential admittence of the leaking of Valerie Plame (for which Scott was forced to lie about), was also the complete lack of respect this guy was treated to. It must be a drag always being the fall guy and made a laughing stock in front of the world. And son't give that common refrain, "He wasn't even in on the deliberations..." Please! His office was directly next to the Oval for crying out loud! You take that, add in the fact that Scott Mcclellan has been a confidant since his governing years in Texas, and you have a perspective that is unmatched by others.

To all those who think he should've waited until...[...]! He didn't have to wait for anybody. It would've been unethical to wait any longer than his conscience would let him. Did any of you attend ethics classes? Country above friends, people!

If only it would have been earlier.

On to the book: I don't care what this guy says, I think he had help writing this. I mean, obviously they are his thoughts, his words, but the prose is very eloquent and well-written. Too nice for someone who's never authored before. But who knows.

There is a lot to learn from this book and it does strike much more authentically (and atmospherically) than the rest. Nuances that he brushes can not be mathed by any other "tell-all" available.

Thus, it is valuable in terms of history and will be used for reference by historians. That much is fact.

Check it out.

I can easily understand McClellan's late arrival to clarity to the ambitions and tactics of the Bush administration. To be a Republican activist in Texas in the 90's is the definition of Manichean loyalist. It was and still is the only way to succeed. He was raised in a political tribe to understand the pre-eminent principle of loyalty. And in the Texas Republican Party there is no nuance. It is black or white. There is no tolerance for grey. And there is no dissent.

Bush, left in Texas as Governor, or perhaps as a US president without 9/11 might have not have given McClellan cause for deep reflexion over Bush's attitudes, behaviors and tactics. Even long storied and respected Democratic Lt. Governor Bob Bullock famously admired Bush.

But the tactics of ginning up a disastrous, immoral and costly war obviously created a tension in Scott that any sound, decent and honest person would find perplexing.


So I believe the sincerity of his motives and his timing. If you watch his TV presentations, I think you must trust the integrity of his reporting in the book. In other words his publisher didn't write this book.


What may further McClellan's comprehension of these events and the characters surrounding them is grounding in abnormal psychology looking at Cluster B Personality Disorders. Because what he was dealing with were blatant clinical narcissists, anti-social personality disordered individuals, even sociopaths. The nation was hi-jacked by a gaggle of Rasputin's at the service of Napoleon solely intent on working out their grandiose agendas. In this case it was the renovation of the entire 4000 year old Middle East.

Even the blowback is focused on `puzzled' and `Scotty we hardly knew you" and not the facts and conclusions he expresses in this book. In other words to speak honestly , rather than be admired , draws criticisms of lunacy. Loyalty trumps truth. Loyalty trumps patriotism. And disloyalty invites venomous accusations. Republic be damned. Troops be damned.

With out that understanding of Cluster B behaviors no one will be able to comprehend the motivations for these mendacious acts; but also the complete and total failure for every decision or initiative undertaken by this White House.

There is not a reasonable, balanced, principled person in this administration, with the probable exception of McClellan. I really can't fault him for taken a long while to recognizing the true nature of the people he was dealing with. It really is a process of decompressing and de-toxing. Dr. Martha Stout in "Sociopath Next Door' describes very well the process of how the non-impaired can be conned and deceived when in the orbit of the emotionally disturbed. It is not a simple case of recognizing a fraudulent act, but recognizing and coping with a personality vigorsly devoted to fraud, deceit and dominance.


These guys conned the press, the political establishment, our Allies, both Political Parties and the American public. To his credit Scott McClellan recognized the liars and wrote about them with the valuable authority as an insider.

This book is the latest memoir to reach the public on the Bush administration. This has become almost a genre in and off and itself and focuses on who is to blame for the current state of affairs. By and large "the current state of affairs" covers a great deal of ground,ranging from Iraq, the response to Hurricane Katrina, Valerie Plame, and other assorted policy failures. Doubtless, the empire plans on striking back at some point, but I think the books provide a kind of Rashomon-like picture of how things happened.

What we have is a perfect political storm in which various strong willed members of an administration, thought to be competent, entered power with an agenda and proved otherwise. Scott McClellan has written a book that shows a president uninvolved, Cheney, Rove and Libby running amuck and Rice trying to duck any sort of responsibility for the policy failures. This would be surprising were it not that much the same thing has been reported in previous works. I suppose what is surprising is that such an intimate would produce such a critical book. Predictably the administration has made matters worse by reacting to McClellan's book with all the furor of a cult over the departure of one of its members.

While no friend to the Bush administration, I do feel it might duty to describe some of the book's stong points and failings. First of all the book includes a great deal of biographical information. While some people have seen fit to find fault with this aspect of the book, I think this is very useful. It enables one to evaluate some of McClellan's other observations. Where I think the book is weak is in some of the sweeping statements he makes about various members of the administration. Why, because I cannot see how McClellan can be viewed as an expert in presidential administrations, merely the George W. Bush administration. I think what the book lacks is a basic understanding of how other administrations have operated, failed and succeeded. McClellan asks if "Bush smart enough to be president?" for example. While he thinks so, it is not clear whether this is an informed judgement or not. I am not sure if service to one administration gives him the presepctive to know what makes a person qualified to be smart enough to be president.

Clearly something has gone wrong and come unstuck. While McClellan's book is not the definitive study, it will likely be cited in future books that seek to understand how a presidential administration failed on such a spectacular scale. Whoever is given the task of cleaning this mess up to put the best historical face on things will have their work cut out for them. Whoever undertakes this task must first prove the positive effectiveness of the Buchanan, Grant, and Harding administrations. Only then can our future sophist have a go at another attempt of making white black and black white.

Many are lauding Scott McClellan as an American hero for "telling" the truth from the inner circle, especially on the liberal talk show circuit. I couldn't agree less.

This book is written by a mediocre spin doctor who really didn't tell us much when he was the press secretary. His book is about as surprising as a report that there were, indeed, no WMD in Iraq. Old news. But he does choose his words carefully so that the average American can spin it any way they wish.

In my opinion, this book says nothing far too well. If you're looking for that smoking gun, move on. You could achieve as much from a 99 cent romance novel, only the characters would be far more interesting. Save your money.

How about those that haven't actually read the book save their political comments for people who actually care about what they think! Read the book and comment on the book, whether you agree with the politics or not! This arena is for Book Reviews, not politics!

This rings true. Thank you for your candor. It made me look at myself and my role as a citizen in all this.

I am looking forward to the press this week as I watch the DC rats run for cover.

I will admit to not liking Scott McClellan when he was working for the Bush administration. I felt like he knew what he was saying was less than truthful, and it turns out I was right. But to read in his own words why he did it - what he knew and how he was told to spin it - is very interesting. It makes me wonder what I would have done in his situation. It is easy enough for skeptics to say he should have quit his job, but reading about his life and beliefs and his torn loyalties you see that this was not a black & white situation. It is his insight into all the shades of gray that make this a worthwhile read. If you don't want to give him your money, fine, but definitely wait in line for it at the library. You may be as pleasantly surprised as I was, and less judgemental (as I was) when you're through.

On page 116, McClellan states his major thesis: "The problem in Washington is systemic and transcends the personal flaws of any single politician." Unlike the author, I have a deep ideological and political dislike for this administration but I do share with him a greater concern for the negative changes in our national political dyanmic. This book adds greatly to an understanding of what has occurred. That is the primary value of the book rather than the media's focus on its addition to the endless debate over the origins of the Iraq War.

McClellan argues that the permanent campaign has come to dominate Washington DC and that public policy is a subset of electioneering. He adds that a respect for the political opposition has devolved to an assumption that the opponent is, in many cases, evil; a legacy of the political atomization and culture wars of the sixties. The media has splintered as well into numerous outlets through the communications revolution while becoming a profit source rather than a public service department in the corporate world. Add this to a pervasive distrust of public officials, stemming from Watergate according to the author, the win-at-any-cost style of modern political campaigns and media's focus on politics as a sports contest and you have a set of systemic issues.

In another recent book by Matt Tiabbi, these developments can result in a polity that "can no longer agree even on the basic objective facts of their political existance" making reasoned and consensual decisions unlikely or impossible.

The Clinton and Bush administrations are less important in this valuable historical document by McClellan than are the author's contributions to an understanding of how recent developments have debased our election and governing process.

I would urge people to suspend judgement while reading the book and to refrain from keeping a scorecard (i.e. who is wrong, who gets points, which party can use paragraphs for talking points etc). Instead, focus on the process and what can be done to revitalize reasoned discourse, principled governance, civility and respect for the opposition.

I am a life-long Democrat who would rather see a Republican administration that champions this approach in office rather than one from my own party which extends this negative dynamic. I hope fellow Americans who are Republican feel the same way.

Can you say Halliburton. The buck doesn't stop in Washington, DC. The Bush Administration's culture of lies and corruption trickled over to every Federal Agency, at every level, in every state of the union. The world is either laughing or shaking it's head at the United States. And the innocent dead.... How can those responsible sleep at night.

George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst, most destructive president we ever had. He took our country into ruin, and many suspect he was behind the 9/11 attacks. It would explain why he refused to allow an investigation for over a YEAR. And when he had to testify before the 9/11 commission 18 months later he refused to testify under oath!

This is book is a joke. I wasn't on the White house staff could have written this book, but why, its says nothing that any american who watches the news doesn't already know.

Don't spend any of your tax rebate money on this one.

What is sad that no one says or stands up for "us" the troops until after the fact.Colin Powell left but sat in front of the U.N and said there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.This guy is like the fourth person to leave this administration with blood on his hands.If you are not part of the solution than your part of the problem.

Don't listen to all those who criticize this man for writing the book. Instead, read it, and then read it again because it is much more than just a political book by an insider in Bush's White House. Sure, it depicts Bush in an unfavorable light at times, but it also praises him. More important, it provides a behind the scenes look at the Presidency and how it works together with poignant suggestions as to how to improve the political process so that Congress and the President may truly work together. McClellan is all about inclusiveness, with politicans working alongside each other for the good of the country. This fresh attitude is exciting and McClellan should be commended for having the courage to write such a book. A must read. Please read it.

There is nothing new in the book. It mostly just confirms in the dying days of the Bush administration what was already known by everyone outside the bubble surrounding the man himself.

Its no secret that many people inside the administration thought the Iraq war was stupid and unnecessary. Its hardly new to say that Bush's tone-deaf handling of events like Katrina was self-destructive. There is nothing new in saying that Bush is a bad manager of people and there is nothing new in telling people that Bush was willing to throw good people to the wolves in order to save scooter libby and karl rove. Given that Bush thought Don Rumsfeld at DOD was more important than keeping republican majorities in congress, this isn't exactly a suprise.

The only interesting part of the book is that the truth is told about the media. Bush didn't sell the Iraq war alone. The mainstream media were his partners. That specifically means the New York Times (Judy Miller/et al) and Washington Post (Bob Woodward).

The simple truth is that George W. Bush has been a disaster as president. His legacy will have been the destruction of the republican party and the conservative movement. Bush and everything he stands for is totally discredited. He has no support remaining except for the handful of fanatics who run around amazon screaming treason at anyone who stands up and says what has become totally obvious.

This is a good book for the sake of history I guess. But it will have no effect politically. The handful of dead-enders who cling to Bush are not going to change their minds no matter what while everyone else will find every "revelation" in the book as a statement of the obvious.

When I bought "What Happened," I expected either a unique insight into the inner workings of the Bush administration, or at least some high-quality dirt dished up by a man who was, by all appearances, shoved out of the Bush administration. Instead, Scott McClellan offers little than a milquetoast recap of the Bush administration filled with observations that would not look out of place in a poli-sci undergrad's second-year term paper.

Unique insights into the Bush administration? Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, and Dick Cheney were highly influential. The Bush administration had a "permanent campaign" mentality. President Bush liked to be above the fray. The administration lacked candor in selling the Iraq war to the American public. A person could have deduced this just by observing politics for the last eight years.

McClellan's political conclusions are also exercises in obviousness. He concludes:

1) Permanent campaign bad.
2) Candor good.
3) Bush administration is permanent campaign without candor, therefore Bush administration bad.
4) A future administration shouldnot use the permanent campaign, and shouild use candor instead.

On some level, I realize I should be much more respectful of McClellan. After all, by serving as White House press secretary, he achieved a certain amount of career success. But it was highly disappointing to find that he offers little beyond the obvious in this slim tome. Beyond that, it's mildly disturbing to learn that the more or less blinded himself to these bits of obviousness when worked at the White House.

If want to pick up McClellan's book, by all means go ahead. But don't expect him to wow you with tales from inside the Bush administration, and don't expect political insights beyond the blindingly obvious.

Has anyone noticed that the people discussed are scurrying to wonder why now? as if what he said in this scathing book could have a good time to be revealed. I applaud his bravery and I like the timing BEFORE a new vote is cast for a possibly similar administration.
If any part of this book is true, it is a huge alert to pay close attention to elected and appointed officials. Remember Power corrupts! POWER IS A DISEASE. ANYONE WITH POWER IS SUBJECT TO MENTAL CHANGES FROM TOO MUCH!

How is this news? I think the vast majority in this country already accept most of the contents of this book as a given.
I am looking forward to the book about how we get OUT of this war without messing up the whole middle east. Now that will be news!

It is comforting to know there is a man from the White House who exposed Bush for what he is. We must read this book so we do not ever vote in anyone again that is a miserable failure Bush. It was obvious from the beginning that Iraq had no WMDs. But our public fears made it possible for Bush to spin his lies about WMDs. I think Bush broke all the rules of decency--he should be called Mission Impossible. So many soldiers lost their lives or were maimed for life because Bush and his friends wanted to get richer.

Thus begins the End Game, where George W. Bush's place in history has passed the point where it could be considered salvageable - and the best that can be hoped for is to substitute personality flaws for less charitable analyses. Analyses having to do with things like ideology, demagoguery, empire, profits and plutocracy.

One word you won't hear too little of in Scott's book is "propaganda" - he readily admits it, and of his role in disseminating it - although he considers it little more than another word for Marketing, something that the Permanent Campaign of Modern Politics requires. And while he may have done whatever was required of him to stay On Message, he goes to great lengths trying to protect his own integrity by claiming that he never knowingly lied to the press.

It's more interesting to consider what's not discussed in the book rather than what is - about 2/3 of which is spent discussing the Valerie Plame affair and Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina. What you won't read anything substantive about is Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Libby, think-tank co-editors of "Rebuilding America's Defenses", the Sep. 2000 white paper from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). This virtual cabal, which plotted the course of America's re-takeover of the Middle East with the help of a "New Pearl Harbor", isn't mentioned at all - and as far as neocon strategy goes, the author hints that while empire and oil may have been motivators for Cheney et. al, Bush was operating on a higher plane of idealism - merely wanting to "bring freedom to the Middle East" (D'oh!) while using scare tactics and hyped WMD threats to sell it.

So, let's sum up what I learned from reading "What Happened" :

1. Scott's Sorry. Really, Really Sorry. He was too close to the bubble of Bush's Reality Distortion Field to see this earlier. And he's sorry now. Did I mention that he's sorry?

2. Scott doesn't want you to think that George and his cabinet may have had advance warnings about 9/11 before it happened. George Tenet's "Imminent Attack On US" memo is the only reference, and he blows it off with the "Old News" spin that was anything but Old News when discussed in Tenet's own book.

3. Scott doesn't know what makes Cheney tick. He's a secretive guy who's good at keeping his fingerprints off things. He seems kinda shady. That Rove guy too, but you've gotta admit he's got skills.

4. George Bush is a Really Nice Honorable Guy that you could sit on a back porch drinking beer with, and it's Too Bad he doesn't like thinkin' `bout things too gosh darn much.

5. Scott's not a liar. He's Really Honest. And he's sorry if he ever passed some lies along. At the time, he thought they were true. So he's a victim, too! And He's Sorry.

The End.

In particular I wanted to address Chapter 15 "Out of Touch". He reviews the disaster of the Hurricane Katrina and the message comes out loud and clear, Bush couldn't make the decisions other than to say get it done (whatever that would have been). Bush failed to realize the disaster for what it was, and failed to properly assess how he, the President, should have responded, which response was quite plainly pathetic. I will always remember the views of the people on rooftops and Bush in his bunker as well as the lone photo op Karl arranged for him on board air force one so out of touch so out of his mind.

I cannot ever forgive him and his Senior Advisors for the utter and complete failure to decide to attack and invade Iraq without an end game without considering input from more sober and experienced Sr. Advisors namely, consider the end game, the consequences and of course all of our young courageous men and women, where some gave, some gave all. God Bless America and may be be humbled by our blunders as led by this President.

Great book but it won't bring back americans lives. What a awakening for this young man who had such trust in Bush and his administration. Cheney comes out really like the villain in Iron Man. For me, I felt for the lives loss for nothing, I also felt that Americans are hopelessly naive, having elected this crazy person to power not once but twice. Or was that all fixed by the great neocon conspiracy, Hillary was right after all.

This book details the crookedness of the Bush presidency. We never would have gone to war with Iraq and lost over 4,000 of our finest military if not for the Bush neo-conservatives who talked him into the war. This has been the most corrupt administration in our history. Thank god we will be rid of him within the next 7 months.........

It's funny to watch Scott McClellan make the rounds on all the news shows. Depending on which network that's hosting him, more can be said for them than for McClellan. A total hack like Keith Olbermann can make the most of using McClellan for his own usual hate-filled rants without ever revealing anything about his guest.

What I could get through of this book only told me that Scott McClellan didn't have much to do with anything in the Bush White House. "Here, Scott, read this." "I saw a door close behind Karl Rove so that must mean something."

Why now? If McClellan is such a hero, why didn't he say anything back then when it would've made some kind of difference? Now he's just a stooge for stooges like Keith Olbermann and NBC News.

It's a smear piece by someone who was never close enough to get anything on the people he's smearing.

This book was an easy read that proved insightful for those who are not too familiar with the job of the President's Press Secretary. The content in many instances throughout the book was nothing new if you have been following the news. Scott's main claim in this book seems to be that the Bush administration was dishonest on purpose. Key word here: Purpose! He paints Bush as a man that purposefully chose to enter the war under false pretenses and who purposefully failed to plan for Katrina.

This book is a worth-while read for those who are able to keep in mind that Scott's claims are his opinions and should not be taken as fact. There are no real facts or evidence to support the theories Scott puts forth. Honestly, Scott sounds like a man scorned and angry after he realized that he is part of the sinking ship called the Bush administration. I think it is vile to discredit and smear a President while he is currently still in office. To me, this book says more about Scott's character than the Bush administration.

McClellan, Scott. "What Happened Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception", Public Affairs, 2008.

"The Arrogance of Power"

Amos Lassen

We live in very strange times. For the last few weeks, the headlines of America have been based on two books, Barbara Walters' tell all and Scott McClellan's expose. Of the two I thought Walters wrote the better book but she was knockled off the news with the publication of McClellan's inside scoops on the Bush administration. With the publication of "What Happened Inside the Bush White House...", McClellan fell from grace from the President's inner circle. He had been a trusted advisor to Bush for seven years and was privy to day-to-day activities and he witnessed how the Presidency veered off of course. McClellan claims to have no agenda other than to make his experiences public and to provide a new perspective of ehat happened and why. He looks at the war in Iraq, the Bush treatment of Hurricane Katrina and the partisanship of Washington and two presidential campaigns. He examines the character of the President and his aides and finally takes a look at what we might expect in the future and what lessons can be learned from the Bush administration.
As a refugee (for lack of a better word) of Katrina as well as someone who remained in New Orleans for a full week after the storm, this is what interested me the most. Sure the war is important but does McClellan really tell us anything thar a thinking person cannot surmise after witnessing the debacle of the man who sits in the highest office of America. The country is not divided in the way thet feel about Bush. We are all dissatisfied. I have not heard anyone say anuthing good about him in a very long time. McClellan claims that Bush is out of touch and operates in a bubble, refusing to admit mistakes, To me, he personifies the well worded phrase, "the arrogance of power". McClellan also states that Bush has the intelligence to be president and he did not consciously set out to lose his way. Of course, he did not but is there ant problem of admitting to having made mistake after mistake? He is human, after all.
McClellan shows the administration for what it is and he has written an extraordinary book as he shows how the President of the United States has tried to turn this country into a regime of authoritarianism.
As for Katrina, I did really need proof that the Bush administrarion failed miserably. All we have to do is take a look at New Orleans today. It is obvious that something went terribly wrong and the blame is constantly being reassigned when we all know where the breakdown was. It almost reminds me of the way Nazis, guilty of murdering Jews, reposnded that they were only following orders.
It is refreshing to get the truth from an insider and whle this is certainly not the definitive study, I am sure that it will be referred to as the other studies are written. It is full of useful information, especially biographical and is written in a way that anyone can read and understand it. I was surprised at how readable it is and I actually think that it is quite a good book--although not as juicy as Walters'.

It was definitely interesting to read about the dailey life of a press secretary, but to be honest the 'insider info' is bull. His book can be summarized thusly; I saw someone walk into carl rove's office. I think they were talking about something! Sorry to disappoint you, its just factually very weak.

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt said that not questioning your president or being in agreement with everything a president does would be a travesty to democracy. McClellan may be a little late in this publish, but by saying that he is a "Bush basher" or "unamerican" is ridiculous. It's every American's right to say what they have to say. By telling his account of this administrations history is, in fact, about as American as you can get. It's worth the read.

i too find it hilarious that so many people have managed to read this book so quickly. also interesting is the fact that just about everyone who takes the so-called "speed readers" to task still chooses to give the book 5 stars. why is that?

concerning mr. mcclellan, i agree with other sources who point out that given his role as press secretary, he did not even have true insider access to the policymaking decisions of the bush administration. his job was to interact with the media and present official administration policy decisions to the american public. he was not a policymaker himself.

former counterterrorism chief fran townsend put it thusly: "The role of the press secretary does not have him in the most sensitive military and intelligence briefings that the president conducts with his national security advisor and secretary of defense. So the facts and policy discussions he sees are limited."

I bought this book after having read "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi. I had been dismissing McClellan's book and was not planning to buy it, but then he went on the Daily Show and gave as a motive for Bush's fake war, the idea that they could democratize the Middle East and that that would be Bush' legacy. I had believed that for years, but McClellan stopped short at saying that the motive for THAT was to facilitate oil trading with the US. Bush was interested not ONLY in democratizing the Middle East (a goal he found inherantly valuable) but also in greasing the wheels for American oil interests, especially in light of oncoming global competition for limited oil reserves, most notably from Russia and China.

So I bought this book for possible insight into Bush' ways of thinking as seen by his press secretary, and instead, came away realizing that the image we got of Scott McClellan behind that podium is really who he was. He was a doughy, somewhat dim frat boy who aspired to more but had neither the inclination nor the ability to qualify himself for more. There is no analysis here. He comes off as an amiable, maleable lapdog for the Bush administration.

His only criticism of the Bush administration is the fact that the war in Iraq was unnecessary, but otherwise he remains convinced that Bush essentially meant well and is a man of good intentions and good character. There is no mention of the appalling abuses of the media on the part of the white house, the appalling manipulations of photo opportunities, the humiliations Bush has heaped on the US by his absurd behavior in global diplomacy...... the only thing McClellan finds fault with is the war---admittedly the biggest blunder of this administration, but by no means the only one. Further, McClellan seems to think it was a tragic mistake but not a criminal one.

As an indication, despite having been in this administration, either as deputy press secretary under Ari Fleischer or as press secretary himself for 5 years, he never mentions the flight suit on the USS Lincoln or how that was completely staged for the press (except to say in passing that Ari Fleischer was press secretary when that happened). He never mentions the backlit speech in New Orleans that Bush gave when the entire city was still without power. He never mentions pissing off the other G8 members at every one of the meetings Bush attended. The list of media debacles alone related to this administration, the appalling lack of candor, the unparalleled manipulation of news for political gain----none of these are addressed with any sense of candor or accountability.

This book is like an 8th grader's essay on what he did last summer. Then we went to, and then we saw, and then my dad said, and then I said......

There is no analysis, not even any faithful reporting of topics the administration might find awkward. Don't waste your money. This book is appalling.

You know, the greatest revelation in this book was NOT that Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plume's identity or that Condeleeza Rice fed President Bush exactly what he was longing to hear about Iraq and its fabled weapons of mass destruction, but that Bush would hire someone who writes so abysmally as his chief communications point person.

Talk about your turgid prose!

[...]

Great book - we decided to buy this book after hearing the comments from Robert Dole and Dick Cheney.Without their comments we doubt we would have bothered to buy it , but we are so glad we did.

Scott McClellan may be a saint or sinner by shedding light on the shadows of the political game and oftentimes blind ambition within the presidential chess game of power, but it is a fascinating exploration in the salesmanship/gamesmanship in selling policy on the national and international stages.

And the topic that will drive the current media and future historical debates is war. But what should never be pushed aside in assessing the validity of McClellan's dissection of reality and myth is captured in the couplet by Kipling, who lost his son in the Great War: "If any question why we died, / Tell them, because our fathers lied."

The only interesting bits about this book are already in the media. The rest of the book is divide between autobiographical information which reveals little about Mr. McClellan and his balancing act of trying to gloss over his own guilt and shifting blame to administration officials.
Most of us who gets their news from non-traditional sources knew most of this stuff already but it's nice to see a "Brutus" come out but I wish it were someone higher up.

This is one of the best historical books that record what happened in this White House. It will be reviewed and referenced for years. This is a record of a journey of a man from blind loyalty to reflective analysis. I personally think this man is courageous and has the ability to grow and in the process share with us his journey.

Is it not puzzling why the White House would let this book go forward without any effort to stop its publication? It makes you wonder whether or not they are using McClellan as a tool to create a phoney breach between Bush and McCain. What happens if McClellan then comes out and supports McCain? All the Fox news people are asking McClellan who he supports. What a grand political trick -- put out the book, then come out for McCain -- giving the sense that here is another "Maverick" who thinks John McCain can cleanup the Bush mesh. Frankly, I'm sorry I wasted money on something that I already knew from other more credible sources. The McClellan and Rove families go way back, folks, to before the Civil War. Look a little deeper -- there's no mystery here. Rove's family's closeness to John Wilkes Booth is well known. Is it not ironical then that we have a Lincolnesque figure from Illinois running against this bunch!

confirming Bush et al had it backwards - whether by design or ignorance - everything that has followed has been CYA, resulting in a breach of our Constitution at many levels. The only good that has come from this debacle is a collective awakening and the correction that will come. The writing of this book took enormous courage.

Only a true sociopath has no conscience. Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and Karl Rove are true sociopaths, therefore. But Scott McLellan showed he has a conscience with this book.
This book will ring long and loud in history. Propoganda always is drowned out by the truth eventually.

As a piece of literature, history, and autobiography, Scott McClellan's media attention grabbing book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception isn't great or even good. As someone who loves reading books, I found myself skipping over entire chapters with ease to get to the part that mattered simply because McClellan's personal story quite frankly isn't all that interesting, and nobody really cares about what was going on in the Bush Administration before the really important decisions started being made on the morning of 11 September 2001.

And I'm not at all sure what to think about Scott McClellan the man after reading this short little book. He says that he signed on with George W. Bush's Presidential campaign, and became part of the White House staff because he really thought that Bush would change politics in Washington. His only evidence for that seems to be his observations of how Bush behaved as Governor of Texas; but, as McClellan himself admits, the Governor of Texas is relatively weak and forced to work with the legislature and other statewide office holders to achieve his goals. The fact that McClellan thought Bush would act the same was as President of the United States as he did as Governor of Texas strikes me as incredibly naive to say the least.

Anyway, sign on to the White House Staff he did, and he became a witness to a history that will continue to be debated, evaluated, and unearthed for decades to come I suspect.

The essential charge that McClellan makes is that the Bush Administration, most especially the parts of it typified by men like Vice-President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, had motives for advocating war with Iraq separate and apart from the alleged threat of Saddam Hussein's WMD program. Specifically it was the idea, born even before al Qaeda flew airplanes into buildings in New York and Washington, that the United States should devote itself, and it's military and financial resources to remaking the political makeup of the Arab world.

This isn't an entirely new allegation. The Washington Post's Thomas Ricks reported much the same in his history of the Iraq War. The difference with McClellan's book is that the same information the Ricks reports as coming from Pentagon sources now comes, first hand, from a White House insider.

McClellan also makes the point that President Bush, and other war advocates, reached a point in their minds sometime in 2002 where it pretty much didn't matter what the evidence regarding Iraq's WMD program might have been. They had decided to go to war, and choose to emphasize only the evidence that supported their conclusion.

More importantly, as McClellan notes and Ricks substantiated, they went to war with an entirely unrealistic idea of how the war should be fought, how the Iraqi people would react to foreign occupiers in their land, and what type of force should be left in the country after Saddam was overthrown. The result was to create the opportunity for the emergence of an insurgency that has killed more American soldiers, and Iraqi civilians, than the war itself did. However history judges the wisdom of the decision to go to war itself, there's no question that the planning of that war was a complete and utter disaster.

The Valerie Plame affair plays a prominent role in McClellan's biography, mostly because he feels, rightly I think, that he was sent out in front of the media by those above him to make statements that weren't entirely true. Whether or not a crime was committed in leaking Valerie Plame's name to the press isn't what's really relevant; what's relevant is the fact that the Administration deliberately engaged in a campaign to discredit a report by her husband that contradicted the Administration's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged nuclear weapons program.

As it turns out, Joe Wilson was right about that, and the Administration was wrong. There was no chance of an Iraqi-created mushroom cloud being unleashed on an American, or Israeli, city in 2002-03 because there was no real nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Just like there was no chemical weapons program and no biological weapons program.

What McClellan's book reveals most starkly, though, isn't the lies, mis-statements, mis-steps, and outright incompetence that predated the Iraq War. It's the decision making process inside the Bush Administration. Once the President made a decision, it was made even if the evidence revealed later suggested that it should be re-evaluated.

Some people call that courage. I call it dumb-headed stubbornness.

The Liar Paradox: (In Logic: "To tell you the truth - I am lying")

Now that Scott McClellan, who spent much of the past decade lying to the American public, has decided to come clean and verify most of our suspicions as to what really happened - that the Bush baby, our beloved President, broke the law once again (got away with it once again)and fingered Valerie Plame, etc., etc., we're supposed to dutifully pay him and his publishers our $25 - and be satisfied at that. I'm sorry I can't. Like the majority of Americans, I can barely afford to drive down the street. Then, why am I writing? Heartwarming it is, that conscience, even among politicos and exposed patsies, still lurks sulking behind the cultivated 'game-show host' exteriors of our 'elected' leaders. It isn't going to bring back the millions who have lost their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans, and New York's lower East Side, since the reign of terror began. Of course, we can all blame it on the "culture of spin" (that's doublespeak for "deceit" - an old-fashioned word) - and claim that we "mispoke" (doublespeak for the now antiquated word "lied"). From whence does this "culture of deception" arise, you who have a lesson to share with us? And what about 9/11, Scott - will you tell us about what really happened in your next installment? You hero. And you are. At least one of these republican fatboys had the class and the guts to come forth and apologize. Albeit, too little, too late. But, better late than never. Perhaps, if you go to prison, as you and your employers ought to, under what was once known as "the law of the land", you'll have lots of time to do just that.

I wrote a review for this book the other day - you did not post it, likely because it was a poor review. Shame on you for dishonestly representing your customer-base! Apparently you only include reviews that will boost sales?

This was my review (I gave it one star) - please do post it to give an honest representation of thought in America -

Scott Mcclellan's new book tells us nothing new or insightful about a White House we already knew was corrupt, dishonest, and undemocratic. The book simply attempts to position Mcclellan as a naive and conscientious employee, who had no culpability in the disastrous reign of this administration.

Of course, Mcclellan is as culpable as the rest for the lies, the unlawful actions, the devastation here and abroad. He is scared, and now that he was fired and cannot go back to the White House, now that his buddies in the White House are increasingly being uncovered for what they are, he wants to strategically position himself in the public's eye, so that he can get a job, and so that he won't look as doltish as the rest of them in the history books.

Too late, Mcclellan - the time to speak up was years ago, when you were happily, willingly a part of the corruption...be an adult and take responsibility for your horrible mistakes. The sequel to the book should be _I Knew All Along_.

Take for example the rumors of Bush using drugs. Yes, we all know about that. Don't we? I read years ago that he used drugs as a grown man when he visited his daddy at Camp David. Laura Bush sold drugs on campus. And we all know --- or at least suspected --- that Bush lead us into war by the use of propaganda.

Here is a quote from the book that helps define it best.

"I still like and admire George W. Bush," writes Scott McClellan.

"I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people." Yet that's exactly what the book does --- it says that Bush and "his top advisers," by whom he was "terribly ill-served," systematically deceived the American public about their reasons for going to war in Iraq and about the effort to discredit a critic of the war, Joseph Wilson, by making public his wife's position at the Central Intelligence Agency.

The book describes how, in the author's opinion and from his vantage point, Bush has consistently deceived the American people and took us into an unnecessary war.

McClellan says the "defining moment in my time working for the president, and one of the most painful experiences of my life," occurred in July 2005, when he learned that what he had told the press two years earlier -- that Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were not involved in "the leaking of classified information" about Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife -- was untrue.

This is a rather fascinating book. It's entertaining. But most of it is not really new material.

- Susanna K. Hutcheson

Well, it took McClellan awhile to come around, but he finally did, and had the guts to put it on paper and weather this administration's brutal (and expected) attacks and slurs against him.

Whether you agree or disagree with him, do yourself a favor and read this important work, and get an insider's view of this administration and how it made the choices (and mistakes) it did. You won't be bored, trust me.

Scott McClellan's criticism of George W. Bush--after serving him loyally for a decade, including three years as White House Press Secretary--is certainly news. But is his book worth reading?

The answer, like the content of the book itself, is equivocal. Political junkies will learn little new from reading this book, but it does seem that Scott McClellan has learned something from writing it.

McClellan is no great prose stylist. His plods doggedly through the material, much as he did behind the podium in his White House days. He doesn't offer much in the way of inside revelation. Most of the facts in the book are already well-known, and even McClellan's moral judgments are many years behind the curve.

But rarely (if ever) have these judgments been rendered by a true Bush loyalist. The true novelty of the book lies in watching McClellan wrestle with the truth he spent years boldly denying in the press room. He only gets part of the way there. Despite all the damning evidence, McClellan is eager to give Bush and his team the benefit of the doubt wherever possible, with certain notable exceptions (Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Condoleeza Rice). In McClellan's view, almost everyone means well -- they just get caught up in a "campaign mentality" and whoops, the next thing you know they can't tell the truth from spin themselves.

McClellan is somewhat admirable for coming forward and taking responsibility for his own role in the Bush debacle. But he reflexively lays the blame for larger problems on meaningless abstractions like "the permanent campaign", "the media," "the blame game" or "our political discourse". Bad acts, in politics as elsewhere, are done by individuals.

When he reaches for larger lessons, McClellan mostly falls short. He too easily distributes his pox among both houses, Republicans and Democrats, when he would do well to figure out exactly what made Bush's administration so uniquely pathological. He criticizes the media for failing to question the Administration's march to war in Iraq, but chides Democrats who did raise such questions as unduly "partisan". In fact, McClellan's account many times questions the motives of supposedly rabid Bush critics who were guilty of nothing more than saying a few years ago what McClellan has finally concluded now.

"What Happened" is best understood as a sort of halfway house for McClellan's soul. His account will enrage Bush loyalists but leave dedicated critics unsatisfied. Still, it took some courage for McClellan to break with his old crowd and tell the truth, or at least a small part of it.

Scott McClellan's eagerly awaited "tell all" book has now been published. Because he was a member of President Bush's impervious "inner circle", and he worked as the White House Press Secretary for nearly three years and attended many meetings with the President, people expected to read some startling revelations in this book. But alas, it contains negligible new information; we already knew from news sources and other books most of the things he has written.

For example, this is what he states about Hurricane Katrina and President Bush's response to it: "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."

McClellan states that President Bush himself, along with Karl Row, Libby, Chaney and White House chief of staff misled him about their involvement in revealing to the journalists the secret that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative: "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."

For President Bush's disastrous two terms he blames mostly Chaney, Karl Rove, Libby and Condoleezza Rice. And he states that Bush was not "open and forthright" about Iraq war and that he relied on "propaganda" to sell the war. All of this is true, but the entire nation knew this information a long time ago. He states that the decision to invade Iraq was a strategic blunder: "History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

"I still like and admire President Bush," McClellan states. "But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."
But a reader would like to know why McClellan stayed at the White house for nearly three years if he disagreed with the President's policies and why he waited this long to write about it. He would have helped our nation if only he had spoken much earlier, say in 2003 or 2004.

Even though Scott McClellan is now trying to dissociate himself from Bush's administration, he was a participant in misleading the public for nearly three years about Bush's agenda. However, whatever his reason might be, he has finally decided to speak now. Let us hope that a few more from Bush's inner circle will now decide that it's time for them to write their own "tell all" books also.

McClellan has done a service to the history.His point of view as an insider contributes to know better the culture of deception and secretism of the Bush administration and adds another step to clear up the real reasons to go to Iraq. Tough decision to write this book.

This is a tedious, repetitive book that could have been condensed into a magazine article. The points McClellan makes are widely known.
Why, in a book about W. Bush's administration, McClellan felt compelled to give as much background about himself as he did, is beyond me. But then again, you don't work in the Federal Government in high profile jobs without delusions of self-aggrandizement.
The only thing interesting about "What Happened" is the details about Bush's chain of command. There were no insights into W. Guess what you'll hear: Bush doesn't have a penetrating mind. He governs by his gut. Who would have ever guessed that?
If you're up on current events don't waste your time. If you didn't know that Bush commuted Scooter Libbey's jail sentence, or that he looked ridiculous flying over New Orleans in Air Force 1 on his return to Washington from Crawford, after hearing about Katrina, "What Happened" might be for you.

When Richard Nixon resigned from office in August 1974, he opened the floodgates to a veritable tidal wave of shocking memoirs by former White House insiders. The most famous, of course, was "Blind Ambition" by John Dean, published in early 1976.

Now history is about to repeat itself.

Scott McClellan's rather tepid chronicle, "What Happened," is the first major salvo in the coming blastfest -- if you don't count Richard Clarke's two volumes on terrorism or Douglas Feith's "War and Decision." Of course, the really big guns are yet to sound off, especially Colin Powell and first-term Chief of Staff Andy Card. (I wouldn't hold my breath for anything honest from Rumsfeld, Cheney or Rice.)

McClellan should have titled his book, "What Happened?" (with a question mark). He seems genuinely surprised that the "good, decent, likeable man" he knew from Texas would become such a self-deluding disaster, prone to believing his own spinmasters rather than the obvious facts. Time and time again, McClellan notes the president's tendency to ignore contrary advice and discount just about any detail that didn't fit into his rigid "us vs. them" worldview. We're talking everything from the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina to economic policy and simple points of law.

So what took so long, Scott? Did you really need a few months away from the White House to reach those conclusions? Did that big publisher's advance somehow loosen up your neurons?

A more courageous man would have resigned six months before the 2004 presidential elections and published these observations back then -- when it could have made a difference in our nation's history. By waiting until almost the end of the Bush era, he's done nothing to earn our respect. I will, however, thank him on behalf of the ongoing editing project we call "the truth." Next!

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.

I found reading McClellan's Democratic partisan memoir to be a total waste of time. I also feel the author lacks credibility and this book offers the same old partisan Democratic view we have been fed all along. This book has been targeted towards and panders to the left-leaning partisan audience. McClellan makes a ton of allegations against the Bush Administration but doesn't provide any backing/proof. The book reads like a conspiracy theory.
Although the media response dwelled on McClellan's criticism of Bush's road to war, the CIA leak case is the heart of this book. Throughout the book McClellan virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's role in leaking Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee to Robert Novak. That fits the partisan Democratic version of the Plame affair.
McClellan doesn't present the reader with a single page dedicated to substantial, credible evidence. In all honesty, a monkey with a pen in his hand could have done a better job at logical reasoning.
McClellan's only legitimate censure seems to be his unjust treatment during the Valerie Plame investigation. McClellan conceded in interviews that even when he was an important cog in the "propaganda machine," he never witnessed anything that seemed at the time to be deceitful or untrue. If McClellan had a problem then he should have resigned rather than being kicked out and more importantly he should have spoken up when he had the podium.
In claiming he was misled about the Plame affair, McClellan mentions Richard Armitage only twice. Armitage being the leaker undermines the Democratic theory, now accepted by McClellan that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and political adviser Karl Rove aimed to delegitimize Ambassador Wilson (Democratic partisan) as a war critic.
On page 173, McClellan first mentions Robert Novak's Plame leak, but he does not identify Armitage as the leaker until page 306 of the 323-page book -- then only in passing. Armitage, anti-war and anti-Cheney, cannot fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into. When Armitage after two years publicly admitted he was Novak's source, the life went out of Wilson's campaign. In "What Happened," McClellan dwells on Rove's alleged deceptions as if the real leaker were still unknown.
McClellan at the White House podium never knew the facts about the CIA leak, and his memoir reads as though he has tried to maintain his ignorance. He omits Armitage's slipping Mrs. Wilson's identity to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward weeks before he talked to Novak. He does not mention that Armitage turned himself in to the Justice Department even before Patrick Fitzgerald was named as special prosecutor.
McClellan completely ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered. Nevertheless, McClellan calls the leak "wrong and harmful to national security" -- ignoring questions of whether Plame really was engaged in undercover operations and whether her cover long ago had been blown.
I borrowed this book from a friend to read and I'm glad that my 2 cents didn't go into this turncoat's pocket and I pray that yours don't either.

(Before you comment - Read the book. I don't want you to turn the Amazon book review page into Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. If you want to vent then go there. All comments should ONLY be about the book.)

This is not the first man who came out of the Bush administration criticizing it and also writing a book about it. He explains how the war in Iraq was not necessary and in doing so makes us realize that Bush and his counterparts are responsible for many needless deaths and injuries over there. Unfortunately, we can see this country headed for another Vietnam which is making us the laughing stock of the world. Scott obviously had a conscience which made him write a book about a man who does not, and it took a great moral fortitude to do so. We need more great Americans like him to blow the whistle on corrupt administrations. This book is great reading for everyone's list. I very much enjoyed reading it. It just goes to show that just because you go to bed with fleas does not always mean you have to get up with fleas!

I "read" this book in its audio format because, among other things, the author, Scott McClellan is the narrator. I will refer to some qualities of the audio, but mostly to the text. Any criticism of the quality of the audio is limited to the first paragraph following this one and has NO IMPACT on how many stars I have given it.

Audio: First, you have to be prepared either to find touching, or to get over Mr McClellan's accent and puerile mispronunciation of the English language, something strange, perhaps, from the mouth of a mouthpiece, whose whole job, practically, was speaking. Although perhaps not so strange considering whose spokesperson he was. Nevertheless, listening to Mr McClellan making his case personally, was an invaluable experience, so that's the format I recommend, notwithstanding my periodic impatience with his idiom.

Content: I generally have a hard time reading accounts like this, because, among other things, there are so many of them that have been generated by working for George Bush, they tend to numb the mind. But this book is different because it comes from a former WH press secretary who expected not to be lied to by his boss, and who was deeply hurt to find out that he was, in fact, repeatedly lied to, and who, in turn, repeatedly passed on these lies to the WH press corps. There is probably nothing in here you didn't already know, with the possible exception of Bush's admission to the author that he authorized the leak of CLASSIFIED INFORMATION (!!!) to the press concerning the identity of former CIA agent/spy Valery Plame.

It is hard to overstate how astounding this is. For one thing, authorizing the leak of CLASSIFIED INFORMATION was probably a crime. Especially as retaliation for Plame's husband's critical OpEd piece. Plus, the leak Mr Bush authorized might have put Ms Plame's life in danger, and perhaps the lives of others as well. For another thing, it demonstrates the willingness of the president and his staff to do anything to promote and protect their agenda, and shows, with depressing clarity, how "incurious" it was of Bush to think that was OK. (McClellan doesn't think Bush is stupid, so "incurious" is about all that's left.)

Other than that, Mr McClellan's tale is both confirmation and illustration of the catastrophe that is/was George Bush's presidency. Such as: 1) The invasion of Iraq was not necessary, was built on lies (not bad intelligence; FAKED intelligence), and was part of the agenda from the beginning - i.e., long before 9/11 - as part of Mr Bush's incoherent vision of himself as the bringer of freedom, stability and democracy to the whole middle east. 2) Dick Cheney was every bit the sinister behind-the-scenes co-author of Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq, and, indeed, of Bush's entire policy agenda (McClellan admits that Cheney's role was so behind the scenes, that even McClellan, the WH press secretary didn't know what all Cheney up to, but notes his observation at the time that whatever Cheney cared about became official policy) 3) that Bush's imperial grandiosity was only matched by his lack of curiosity - there's that word again - about the very subjects he promoted.

Because you already know all this, I'll leave it at that. In any case, many, many commentators and pundits have been generally ticked off by this book because they think McClellan should have come clean sooner. I agree with this. The press, especially the WH press corps, must be able to rely on the factual parts of the regular briefings, even though spun to their most sympathetic formulations. Being lied to is not the same as being "spun," so the criticism is valid. That, however, doesn't diminish the importance of this book in this time in history. Here is the highly personal account of what the author experienced as both a national and personal betrayal. This account comes at a time when Americans are about to choose their next president. The fact that he lied before should not be held against him because he had every reason to believe that the info he was passing on was authentic, although admittedly passed on with a self-serving spin.

In the introduction, Mr McClellan refers to his book as a kind of catharsis. He says, in so many words, that writing it was not only an account to history, but also a personal, even spiritual imperative. I believe him.

Very concise, informative and easy to read. This morning McClellan said he would donate part of the proceeds to families of Iraq War casualties. I hope he agrees to appear on alternative and progressive media shows as well as the mainstream media.

Like many who were fooled by the media into thinking this was a noteworthy item I bought this novella/autobiography thinking that perhaps it would be a fascinating read. What a waste of time. I now know more about the author (quite an inflated opinion of himself) than I ever wished to know. This would have been a really good short story without all the biographical junk where the author touts his incredible ethic. Shame on the media for once again misleading the public and 'making news' rather than reporting news.

The book is significant not for it's content (we've seen most of it on various PBS Frontline's), but for who wrote it. The immediate rabid/foaming at the mouth reaction from the GOP did nothing but to validate Scott's account, one of which that highly stands out is Bob Dole's now notorious email. It somewhat reminds me of walking into an old dirty house, flicking on the light switch, & seeing the cockroaches run for cover.

"What Happened" doesn't give much new information on how we were all misled on the run up to the Iraq war, and it re-affirms all our worst fears that we were sold a bill of goods. Sadly there are still people who don't want to hear it, and are so afraid of the truth that they have reviewed the book without ever opening it up. These are the reviews that Amazon should delete because they are only written in pursuit of a political agenda and add nothing substansive to the discussion.

I didn't read every single word, I admit as much, but I skimmed it and then went back and forth a number of times to fill in some blanks and answer a few questions for my own benefit. It is a boring read for the most part, but it serves well what McClellan wanted to tell about his misspent time in the Bush White House. Although he is taking a lot of heat from both people he worked with and blindly loyal ideologues I feel that after time passes we will have even more evidence of just how bad this administration was and how much more damage will be revealed when historians begin their work. But for now this is a good, if not always clear view of a troubled man doing a job he was often uncomfortable doing so he wrote a book to salve his conscience.

This isn't a must read, but it has a lot of interesting, insightful observations you might not get from men and women higher up in the administration.

I was not impressed. He should have come out with this earlier when something might have been done about it. I think the author just wants to sell books and I fell for it. Nothing really new in it after all this time of an administration that obfuscates at every turn.

Okay, we all bought this book to find out if someone who's been on the inside of the big opaque white box would confirm what we all suspected, or give us someone to tar and feather if we're prone to unquestioning partisan loyalties. Although there is some 3-star unevenness early in the book, I have to say the best part is the final chapter, "Changing the Culture of Deception," and that alone is what earns my 5-star review.

Most of the book is a narrative of Scott McClellan's schooling in politics at his mother's knee and how he wound up being an inner-circle Bush loyalist, dedicated to what he thought were the high ideals of principled people dedicated to public service--only to be blindsided and thrown under the bus in a cruel, expedient way. We saw it on his face at the time, and now we get the backstory: the man's heart was chewed up and spit out like a chaw of Texas tobacco, yet still to the very end he finds it within himself to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and to do what he felt was best for the larger good.

In the final chapter, though, we get the benefit of McClellan's hindsight and his in-depth reflections on how he believes we can transmute what happened into positive change and good governance--or what can happen next. This is a beautifully written, wise chapter. As I was reading it, I kept thinking "Barack Obama, I hope you are reading this. John McCain, I hope you are reading this. Leaders of Congress and The Media, I hope you are reading this. My fellow Americans, who love this country as much as I do and dare hope it's not too late to avoid our irreparable decline and death as a nation, I hope you are reading this."

Please buy or borrow this book before the November elections and read the final chapter, even if you don't read the rest of the book. Then go to the polls and vote for the presidential, Congressional, and state-level candidates that you have assessed are most likely to try to rise to the challenge McClellan has thrown out to all of us. If you do, maybe there is hope for America after all.

The Kindle edition, by the way, is well-formatted and readable. I feel compelled to mention this because some Kindle editions of books I've bought have had formatting problems that made them hard to read.

There is no reason to doubt what this insider from the Bush administration includes in his book. However, McClellan shows a lot of idealism, which does not fit with politics, not only in Washington, but everywhere else in the world. So he thinks George Bush's campaign for president in 2000 carried slogans similar to those raised by Democratic Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama? Is this a joke?
McClellan argues that Bush was a candidate with a lot of idealism that the two of them could have brought to Washington, but that once Bush and his team arrived in Washington, they ran the country in the same way that they were running the electoral campaign. As such, Bush failed to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats. McClellan also argues that three points "opened" his eyes to the flaws of the Bush administration. These were the War on Iraq, the Valerie Plame scandal, and the administration's failure in dealing with the consequences of the Katrina Hurricane.
While McClellan offers a lot of sound thoughts and arguments, his book must be perceived as part of the Beltway's political jockeying. If McClellan wants to turncoat after serving in a Republican White House, there is no need to hide it behind idealism. Politics, not only in Washington, is the art of deception. This book comes from the heart of Washington's political culture and tries to settle scores. It is part of political deception. One would think that a repenting former White House Spokesperson like McClellan would offer new refreshing ideas about how to change conducting politics drastically, not present his reaction to politics.
But do not let this critical note dissuade you from buying this book. It is always enjoyable for political junkies to dig in firsthand accounts like this one.

For most of us, and for much of the time Scott McClellan has been in the public eye, we've known him as being the mouthpiece of the president... a translator of events and assessments with enough spin to protect his boss. "What Happened" is McClellan's attempt to come out from behind the podium and give us his personal thoughts, a task that succeeds only marginally well, given the nature of his past position. "What Happened" could have been more appropriately titled, "What If"...what if McClellan had told his superiors what was on his mind at the time. THAT would have made his story more engrossing.

One gets to know from reading McClellan's book that he came from a family of political, if not overly-comfortable privilege. His association with the Bush family didn't come out of the blue and while there is a good deal of background about his growing up (it pads the first third of the book) his final promotion to press secretary seems to have been a career move that did not serve him well, but not necessarily for the reasons for which he takes issue. McClellan often appeared "in over his head" (not unlike the president) and the chapters presented here are coated with quotes about why he needed to be vindicated, somehow, as he went along doing his job.

A particular problem with "What Happened" is that very little new information has been offered. From others, more objective if yet more distant, we have come to know how the Bush White House operates and while McClellan may serve up a few more tidbits, they're not nearly enough to fill a book. In the end, however, it is the author's own story that doesn't have a true ring to it. He simply lacks gravitas. After hearing him for more than two years parse other people's words he doesn't seem to have discovered much of a voice of his own, except to defend himself and add many a "mea culpa". There have been a vast number of excellent books written about the failures of the Bush administration and I'm sure many more will arrive when this pitiful presidency is over, but "What Happened" is not one of them. I can't recommend it very highly due to its lack of substantive exposure, but many readers might find it somewhat intriguing simply because McClellan was around for a while.

Scott McClellan's book is insightful, but not surprising. The only revelation is that a Bush loyalist somehow grew a conscience. While McClellan comes off as a decent human being, his lies for this administration should not be forgiven, as they have cost our soldiers and this country in blood and treasure. If McClellan is truly sorry for his part in the mess that was created, he should meet with families of the dead soldiers and apologize to them. Giving money is fine, however, meeting face to face is another.

"What Happened" is full of great insider information put forth by an intensely reasonable story teller who seems to have no other agenda than the truth. I am no fan of the Bush administration. But I've had my fill of books that conclude that George Bush is either evil or stupid or both. It was refreshing to read an account that put blame on a bad mix of character flaws and events. Mr. McClellan has the perspective of an historian. I enjoyed being drawn into this inner circle and given a broader perspective on the most important events of our time.

When I heard that the former White House press secretary had written a "tell all" book on his years with the Bush administration, I was interested in much the same way that rush hour drivers are interested in an accident on the other side of the freeway. I knew that McClellan had been press secretary through some of the most harrowing days of the Bush administration and felt a bit sorry for him because I believed that he had been lied to on numerous occasions by the President himself as well as the inner circle of the administration. I didn't expect the book to be enlightening but I found myself wanting to read about the carnage.

It was no surprise that this book was ruthlessly attacked by those within and close to the Bush administration. The book was mostly characterised as an angry response by a bitter former employee. At first, this actually made some sense to me. But then I thought about the interviews that McClellan had given around the time he resigned from his post. At that time, he seemed like a loyal Bushie who had simply reached burnout. So why would he change his tune a year or so later?

The reasoning became more apparent when I read the preface to "What Happened." According to the author, it wasn't until he began the process of reflection that the writing of a memoir requires that he began to formulate the views he chose to include in the book. This felt honest to me so, I decided to plunge in and see what he had to say.

The crux of this book, which I think is being left out of much of the discussion surrounding it, is the concept of the "permanent campaign" and it's negative effects on our government, society and citizens. McClellan recounts his political career prior to the White House and his years in the Bush administration from the perspective that we have gone horribly wrong in our approach to government. By treating every issue as if it were a campaign and making governing decisions entirely based on the way they will play to a particular political base, we have lost sight of the true function of government.

Although his writing isn't always as eloquent as I'd like it to be, I think Scott McClellan makes some very important points in this book. There are a lot of voices shouting for the end of bipartisanship and the removal of money from politics but, McClellan speaks to these issues with a unique inside viewpoint that gives his message and it's ability to add to the dialogue an added resonance. The fact that McClellan is, for the most part, a political conservative, helps to enforce his point that the "permanent campaign" reaches far beyond ideas of liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. It is, to steal a phrase from the Nixon era, a cancer on the heart of our political system.

D.T. Holt
http://igotalottosay.blogspot.com/

Scott McClellan is going to be hated by his fellow Team Bush cheerleader squad for ratting out his boss. But It's hard to believe that when he worked for Bush as Governor of Texas (overlooking the hundreds of death warrants signed) Bush was a compassionate uniter who set aside partisan differences to pass many successful bills that benefitted the people of Texas. Not just fat cat Texans, but the people who government is supposed to protect.

But when Bush came to Washington and 9/11 hit, a completely different leader emerged. One who put unqualified loyalists into jobs, etc. -- you know the story.

Scott's book was a real page turner to see the inside story from his role as an assistant and then Press Secretary -- what a Press Secretary knows and when he knows it, and particularly what doors are closed to the Press Secretary as a routine.

But of all the books I have read on the Bush presidency, the most important chapter was written by Scott in the last chapter. He gives the advice for what needs to be done to prevent the imperial, arrogant protect-the -president (not the presidency) at all costs, permanent campaign mentality in Washington D.C. from becoming worse with every succeeding administration. He states that cabinet level equivalent officers must be created, who will function as ombudsmen when important decisions affecting national treasure and blood (committing of troops) are made. Will the contemplated action do the greatest good for the greatest number? (Not just the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton fat cats). Have all interests been considered (not just special interests). What possible unforseen consequences could occur? Is there a less expensive way to achieve the same goal?

I just wish he had gotten out the message that wars wouldn't occur if taxpayers had to pay for them immediately and directly. Wars are enabled without the consent of the ultimate payers when Central Banks print money which are then spent by recovering alcoholics like George Bush who get a greater high from being drunk on power than from beer.

Go, Scott! You came out of with your integrity intact and I hope your courage and wisdom at a young age bring you much rewards in your next pursuits.

Excellent book. He dares to tell the truth about what happened in the Bush administration.

A good book, lots of information that I have read before but, feel this confirms a lot of the lies and mistruths of the Bush admistration. A must read for all readers interested in the politics of the Bush years

I'm not into political books, but I had to read this one. I thought it was well written and informative. I think every American should read it.

I enjoyed this book as it gave me a historical perspective of the George W. Bush White House from the inside. Scott seems a little too idealistic in his reporting, but he does seem sincere. This book is a must have for the political junkies library as it, in most cases, provides a 'fly on the wall; perspective' of the events regarding campaigns and the administrations failure regarding the critical months leading up to 9/11.

Now here is a true patriot. Our Constitution was attacked from the very office whose occupant swore to uphold. All in the name of phony patriotism and big business. It amazes me how most people who vote Re[ublican consistently vote against their own self interest. And even if half of this is true is proof enough of the Cheney/Bush crime family. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, I think his one question would be, "Why aren't these scoundrels behind bars?"

This book was certainly worth the two week wait while supply caught up with demand at Amazon. Keith Olberman describes it as the Rosetta Stone of the Bush years in the White House. He's right. It's disturbing but true. Thanks Scott.

This is a very easy read and should be required reading for every American! It is written well. It shows what a thoughtful and brilliant man Scott McClellen truly is. He must have anguished over the writing of this book. Scott has done this country a real service. This book is a real eye opener! I highly recommend this book as it is the best book I have read in a long time and it is very educational as to how our Executive Branch has operated over the past eight years of the Bush Administration.