Honestly, McClellan

A video, apropos of nothing in particular, but it made me laugh to make it:

It seems to me that Scott McClellan's main point is that Bush and the White House were dishonest in how they communicated: spinning facts and using rhetoric to build a case instead of being totally honest.

I wrote in 2003:

... there are so many things to complain about in regard to Bush: his lack of communication, his poor communication, even amounting to misleading ... when he is communicating, he often contradicts himself, if not in word, then in tone or emphasis (was the war about terrorism, or liberty, or UN resolutions, or weapons? the correct answer is "all of the above and more," but you get a different message each time).

I was even saying this before the invasion. And I am supposed to be shocked that McClellan's agreeing with me five years later? Eh. Color me bored.

That's not to say I agree with all he said; I haven't followed it much and I doubt I will spend the time to read the book. I do think, however, that he should have held his tongue until Bush was out of office, though. I would have, were I a member of his administration. Loyalty means much more to me than book profits (if that was part of his motivation for coming out with it now), and at least as much as the other values he cited about honesty and so on.

The McClellan clan (of which I am a member) has a motto: "Think on." McClellan should have heeded this a bit more, both while he was in the administration, and after he left it.