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

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.

Hats off to Scott McClellan for this important, insightful and thoughtful insider's account of the George W. Bush presidency. McClellan ably takes us inside the communications infrastructure of the 43rd president's White House and shows us how policies on terrorism, Iraq, and various domestic issues were shaped and sold to the American public. McClellan also places the Bush 43 White House within the context of the "permanent campaign" that has characterized many U.S. presidencies over the past 30-odd years-- that being the tendency to let campaign tactics dominate the machinery of policy making.

The White House that emerges from McClellan's pen is long (scarily so) on media personnel and strategy, and painfully short on disciplined thinking. By McClellan's account, the President "shoots from the hip" in developing policy, and rarely cares to listen-- or perhaps discourages-- additional advice from close advisors and Cabinet departments. The Iraq incursion, according to McClellan, is based on Bush's conviction that American military action can create a free Iraq that will act as a beacon for the formation of peaceful democracies in the Middle East. The President's advisors collectively seem reluctant or unable to point out that an armed invasion has a low probability of forging democracy and that additional troop strength might maximize America's chances of success in a far-away land. Even more damagingly, Bush's advisors fail to vet adequately the weak military intelligence used to justify the Iraq incursion, hence laying the groundwork for a shaky invasion rationale based on the spectre of an urgent threat that ultimately fails to materialize. Frighteningly, the flawed Iraq policy (and Bush's policies in general), are carefully packaged for the American public in a massive and ongoing daily marketing campaign more reminiscent of the consumer products industry than anything associated with honest government. Both the public and the media are seen as entities to be manipulated by the massive White House communications machinery.

McClellan argues cogently that single-minded devotion to "staying ahead of the narrative," "managing the 24-hour news cycle", and "marketing" the president's policies at all costs ultimately undermine the Bush administration's credibility. Unsurprisingly, failed policies cannot be propped up indefinitely with media tactics, no matter how persuasively presented to the public. McClellan also probes the organizational structure of the Bush White House, and makes a compelling case that the communications side of the White House was empowered at the expense of policy making rigor. Bush's preference for secrecy is also lamented by McClellan, who sees this trait as detrimental to obtaining a broad range of views and options when developing national policy.

McClellan's memoir is an important book that deserves to be read carefully by anyone who wants to understand what went wrong inside the Bush administration, by presidential candidates and their advisors, by policy makers and political scientists, and by American voters who are hoping for positive change at the federal level. McClellan's message is that the "permanent campaign" practiced by presidents of both parties needs to be dismantled, and that thoughtful policy making, transparency, and reaching across the aisle for comprise solutions need to be reinvoked by future administrations as a basis for governing.

Kudos to McClellan for accurately describing the overreliance on campagin tactics as a key source of malaise in presidential governance, and for offering his insights in a fast-paced and entertaining narrative. Highly recommended.

McClellan is not the first to provide a spin-free accounting of what happened in the Bush White House; however, he is the first to do so with close day-to-day involvement over a period of years to do so. Thus, "What Happened" provides an impact not seen to date.

The book opens with McClellan's original assertion to the press that Libby and Rove had no involvement in talking to reporters about Valerie Plame's identity, followed by trial testimony that the two actually had. He goes on to report that the White House was constantly taken up with campaigning - not surprising since senators and representatives have state that such work takes up much of their time as well.

A key point is that McClellan is surprised that the original rationale (WMD) for the Iraq War did not pan out, and concludes that we were led into the war by half-truths, etc., protected by walls to keep the media out. This should not be taken as prima facie evidence of administration dishonesty, however.

A simpler explanation is that Bush and his team address situations through unquestioning application of standard Republican (conservative) doctrine, and lack any understanding of how valid these doctrines are or their historical success. Thus, philosophy, not competence is the signature requirement for employment at or by the White House. This also explains why the administration not only at the strategic level (invade Iraq; fly over New Orleans) but operational as well ("What do we do after we take Iraq? How best to get New Orleans back on its feet? How do we capture bin Laden?") Similarly, it explains why the administration has made a mess of most everything it has touched - Kyoto, the federal deficit, the trade deficit, tax policy, fuel economy standards, replacing federal prosecutors, Israel-Palestine, treatment of veterans, prisoner abuse, Afghanistan, Social Security reform, health care coverage, etc.

One weakness with the preceding - it doesn't explain Bush's abuse of the Constitution (signing statements, warrant less wire-tapping, denying basic rights to prisoners). McClellan doesn't offer an explanation either. Hopefully, "What Happened," together with other sources will others to explain these actions.

I won't write a whole book review here, but this was an excellent read for someone on either side of the party line. I enjoy the fact that the book is written by Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary, who identifies himself and his up brining as relatively conservative. Then he goes on to describe the challenges in the White House (to put it lightly).

I would consider myself a democrat, but after reading this book, changed my view regarding Bush. Not my party, just my view. Yes, Bush is probably not the smartest president (ever), but he does seem like a genuinely nice person surrounded by people with individual agendas that led him in the wrong direction. This is not to make an excuse for a President who should be able to make an intelligent final deicision. Overall, it's a great read that's difficult to put down and gives excellent insight as to what led up to some unintelligent decisions.

The advance publicity for former WH spokesperson Scott McClellan promised incredible revelations. The books itself? Not so much.

McClellan's book is part hero worship of George W. Bush, part apologia (W didn't *mean* to play "the Washington game") and part autobiography. But while I appreciate Scott's service to our country, I didn't read this book to hear about him. What I got was a mindless mush of misperceptions and, yes, more spin. How did Bush come to run his administration as a perpetual campaign? Why, it was Bill Clinton's made 'em do it! Want to hear about the skullduggery around the contested 2000 presidential elections? Don't expect to hear about Republican mobs in Broward County or the Supreme Court intervention -- it was Democrats poking the chads out of ballots -- and Scott's got an envelope full of them as proof!

The book offers such a half-baked and brain dead opinions about the great events of the past 8 years that it should be called "What Happened?" -- the first confused words of an accident victim coming out of a coma. It's no wonder this book is burning through the hands of its readers: it has nothing to say in spite of the cat-bird-seat view of the author. It's hard to be sure whether Scott is really as unperceptive as his own book makes him out to be. The cynic in me wonders whether he purpose of this "tell-all" memoir is to throw more sand in the public's eyes. "See?" it seems to say. "Scott was right there and this is all he had to say.

"What Happened" belongs solidly in the "Don't Bother" category.

Scott McClellan was a top strategist for Governor George Bush and followed him to the White House, becoming his press secretary at a later point. Scott tells the inside story of his growing disillusionment with the Bush administration and its culture of secrecy and deception.

The author develops an analysis of what he calls the "permanent campaign," a mentality in which the concept of promotion, spin and garnering support even in office shifts focus from the needs of the people and the good of the nation as a whole. Self-protection became a major value for the Bush administration especially in the second term when, despite a reelection, Bush's support fell to a record low for a US president and scandal after scandal came to public view.

McClellan tells his story, and even as he reveals the negative dynamics that infused the administration, the reader senses his continuing admiration for George W Bush. McClellan, however, honestly evaluates where things went wrong, and how the president was personally involved in losing focus and allowing the political process to become a focus of media manipulation and personal glory and justification.

This is an enlightening story, told from an insider's point of view. But McClellan does not play favorites. He writes coherently and objectively as he tells the tale from the point of view of how and when things became known, and how his perspective and realizations gradually grew.

This book does not have the feel of a partisan ploy or a disillusioned reactionary tone. This is a political analysis, told with candor even if with chagrin. You will learn about history, personalities and culture. It will not all be pretty, but it is not all totally ugly either.

Plenty of books have been written by White House press secretaries over the years. That's probably because they are a little more comfortable with words than the typical National Security Advisor. It's safe to say that there hasn't been a book written by any of them that's quite like "What Happened."

Author Scott McClellan throws the formula out the window in his book about his years in the Bush White House. That recipe usually contains some funny stories, insight into life at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and back-slapping for what a great guy the President is. That's not here.

McClellan comes across as one angry man here. Most of the anger comes over the Valerie Plame story, in which top White House staffers told McClellan that they had nothing to do with leaking information about the CIA operative. Then McClellan discovered that the staffers did indeed know, leaving the press secretary's credibility in pieces.

It's important to draw a line here. Press secretaries may not tell everything they know, which can lead to certain impressions that are favorable to the President. However, what they do say has to be truthful, or else the media, and by extension the public, will have credibility problems with the executive branch. McClellan obviously feels betrayed here.

It's a little tough to know whether McClellan feels betrayed enough to go this far in a book, but he's obviously upset. Once he gets on a roll on that, there's no stopping him in other areas.

The two major problem issues concern Iraq and Katrina. In Iraq, McClellan has good words about the depth of Bush's commitment to freedom, but thinks America was ill-served by the administration's run-up to the invasion and by our handling of the occupation, which still goes on today. Bush's top aides take the heat for this, although generally not specifically.

McClellan also spends a chapter on Katrina, pointing out some things he'd like to see done differently if he had the chance, although certainly no one would want the chance to deal with another disaster of that magnitude.

Overriding all of this is a sense of personal disappointment that McClellan felt about President Bush. He had started working for Bush during Bush's time in Texas as Governor, and had high hopes that he would bring the same sort of bipartisan leadership he had used effectively there to Washington. It didn't happen. McClellan was particularly disappointed that a "perpetual campaign" was run out of the White House, forcing everything to be viewed through a political filter.

There are a couple of problems in a book like this. Obviously, Bush supporters are going to be angry at McClellan. They'd point out that it's odd for the press secretary to speak out now, rather than voice his concerns privately while he was on the job. You can certainly see why they might feel that way.

Second, it's not a particularly reader-friendly presentation. Some sections really bog down, and there are few laughs to be found anywhere. McClellan's comments and suggestions on the perpetual campaign aren't like to find an enthusiastic audience from "outside the Beltway."

"What Happened" does have some selling points, though. Mostly, it may confirm some of the thoughts you might have had about the Bush Administration while it was in office. As I'm fond of saying, any inside look at how power is used at its highest level in this country is bound to have worthwhile elements.

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.

The book gives us an interesting perspective from inside the White House, but comes up somewhat short, because
Scott was not a true insider. I strongly believe that George Bush has done tremendous damage to our country
with his ill advised approach to Iraq. The efforts of the Bush administration in attempting to win over
public opinion for invading Iraq is presented quite clearly, and the probable intent to exposing Valerie Plame
make Karl Rove look pretty guilty.

Without blatantly bashing George Bush, McClellan, offers insights, showing the depth of Bush's hatred of Suddam
and his single minded obcession to correct his father's "mistake" of cutting off Desert Storm, rather than taking Suddam down then.
Bush comes off as a decent, but arrogant guy. He had a vision, perhaps even a noble one, but it was a very fuzzy vision
that he kept unrealistically simple. He comes across like the "emperer without his clothes", with surrounding
cast, that was afraid to defy him. I would like to have gotten more detail on the extent of Bush and Cheney's role in
pressuring the CIA to support the WMD evidence and why Colin Powell allowed himself to be manipulated for so long.
Unfortunately McClelllan didn't know exactly.................. "What Happened"

"What Happened" is more of an intimate look into an American presidential administration, with an honest assessment of the political problems within and without. It wasn't a smoking gun or a book full of any particular damning revelations against the Bush administration (just about everything in this book hyped as such was already known), but was rightfully critical of how certain things were handled by the administration. Most notably, the war in Iraq (including the selling of the war to the public, and the Plame-affair); and the communications response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The overlying theme of the book is that there is something seriously wrong with Washington, and has been for a while. After the ugly political atmosphere between Clinton-Democrats and Gingrich Republicans, Bush promised to change things, but then quickly fell right in line with the status quo by the 2002 mid-term elections. Needlessly politicizing serious matters (such as a war) serves to kill intelligent discourse on all sides, and ends up leading to grave consequences, not only for national security, but in damaging the people's faith in their government, faith that is seriously needed in times of crisis and danger. That is something with which a vast majority of the people in this country agrees, no matter what their political affiliation or leanings. In addition, it is something that politicians often embrace during campaigns, but rarely have the courage to embrace once in office.

As a registered Republican, this book did not make me want to suddenly join the Democratic party. But I appreciated the honest assessment of the problems plaguing American politics on both sides, and by pointing out the failure of the Bush administration to stand up against it, I hope that future administrations of either side might learn from it and finally do so.

I listened to the 10 CD audio book version while on long trip.

Basic take: I found this to be a heart-felt, honest critique of not only the Bush administration but also of the current political culture.

The idea: whereas the "moderate liberal" view of the pre-TARP Bush administration is basically correct (e. g., the Bush administration bungled Katrina and used exaggerated interpretations of shaky intelligence to get us into the Iraq war; a war that President Bush basically wanted on "bring democracy to the Middle East" grounds and searched for an excuse to launch), the players in the administration were NOT inherently evil people, though some did some immoral things (e. g. lie)

Rather they were people who were caught up in a political system that has gotten so out of control that the political players are highly discouraged from having the candid policy debates with those who have different viewpoints; conceding that someone else might have a good point puts one at a big disadvantage in an atmosphere which is a constant campaign of "trying to win".

One quibble: I think that part of our current partisan atmosphere comes from the fact that the two sides really don't have that much that they agree on; the differences are stark and real.

I can recommend the book, though it is my guess that some conservatives will see Mr. McCelellan as some sort of "kiss and tell" traitor.

I read this book mostly out of curiosity. I'm glad I did. It's nice to see someone who has a conscience and says that perhaps he was in error, but due to the fact that he was misled. Mr. McClellan appears to be a responsible type, who realized he was used, and has come out to publicly set the record straight. There are those who would take the Mafia approach and claim that Mr. McClellan should have kept things to himself to protect those above him, although they were doing things to mislead the American people. He chose not to take this road and showed us all that mistakes had been made, and we are still paying for them. Others who were around him at the time continue to be deceptive. Mr McClellan should be proud of what he has done.

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!

Former press secretary Scott McClellan's book is more about self-delusion than lying, and in light of what he writes, self-delusion may be more dangerous than straightforward deceit. According to McClellan President Bush "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie," but he was in the habit of "convincing himself of something that probably was not true and that, deep down, he knew was not true." Bush's self-deluding tendencies were not without consequence. For example, they prevented us from having an honest debate about the Iraq war. As McClellan writes, "Rather than choosing to be forthright and candid, [the Bush administration] chose to sell the war, in and so doing they did a disservice to the American people and to our democracy."
Many would argue that if President Bush did "deep down" know he wasn't speaking the truth, then we might as well call it lying, but that's not the way McClellan interprets the president's behavior. In fact, McClellan's book raises questions about his own ability to see things clearly. Could he be just as self-deluding as he claims President Bush is?
In my judgment, he is. Of course I admire him for writing a very revealing book about his White House experiences, even though he knew this would make him a target of the same kind of attacks that he engaged in against previous Bush administration whistle-blowers. He appears to be motivated mainly by an interest in changing the tone of Washington politics, though he may have as a secondary goal exposing Karl Rove and Scooter Libby to critical scrutiny. McClellan's disillusionment began when he learned that White House insiders Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had passed on lies to him that he unknowingly repeated to the press corps. When the lies were exposed, McClellan's credibility was wrecked. Shortly after this he was asked to resign as press secretary.
But if we take Scott McClellan at his word (as I do), we have to believe he is even more self-deluding than the president he criticizes. How else, except through self-delusion, could he have expected honesty from someone like Karl Rove? Rove has long been known as a notoriously underhanded politico, yet, when he solemnly assured McClellan that he (Rove) was not involved in exposing CIA agent Valerie Plame's cover to the press, McClellan believed him. This to me is the most astonishing revelation in the entire book.
The anger and resentment that McClellan clearly feels against Karl Rove and Scooter Libby (and to an extent against former Vice President Cheney as well) suggest that he honestly believed them--or at least convinced himself they were telling the truth even though "deep down" he knew otherwise. Like most people, I dislike injustice, so I'm glad that a book has been written that throws a spotlight on those in the White House whose misdeeds need to be widely known. But McClellan has a larger goal than revenge against those who betrayed him or a wish to see specific miscreants brought to justice. His ultimate aim is to encourage both Republicans and Democrats to back away from the "permanent campaign" that has become the norm in recent administrations.
The permanent campaign is a system in which the party in power crafts every decision in light of its effect on upcoming elections. Instead of governing in the national interest, presidents wind up maneuvering for the sake of their approval ratings. According to McClellan, both President Bush and President Clinton were guilty of this failing.
Some may call him quixotic, but I'm glad he's promoting this goal, and I'm particularly glad he has offered an insider's look at the aggressively partisan spirit that has dominated Washington recently. I would go further and say that I believe President Obama has worked harder at overcoming the partisan divide than any president in recent memory.
Finally, there is a potential benefit that may come from McClellan's book. Perhaps, because of his revelations, the next time a president starts to pull a fast one over on us, he or she may think twice. After all, there's no telling when a naïve and idealistic staff member might be tempted to record the unflattering inside story for posterity.

Bush's press secretary has written a confessional narrative of the Administration's failure to live up to its bipartisan, uniter-not-a-divider ideals. He concludes that we need to end the "perpetual campaign" adopted by Clinton and Bush and focus more on governing as statesmen above politics. His reform prescriptions are a bit on the milquetoast side: he proposes a "Deputy Chief of Staff for Governance." Gee, shouldn't that be the Chief of Staff's job -- or, God forbid, maybe the President himself should spend some of his time thinking about policy.

The confessional nature of McClellan's memoir is guaranteed to rub everyone the wrong way. If you like Bush, McClellan's book has the goody-two-shoes feel of the turncoat John Dean. And if you hate Bush (is there really any inbetween?), well McClellan comes off as incredibly naive -- a bit like Robin on the old "Batman" series ("Gee Willikers, Bushman, let's jump in the Rovemobile and go after that evil Osama!").

Putting aside my own prejudices, it's difficult to argue with the core decency and sincerity of McClellan, or of Bush for that matter. But McClellan does provide a devastating critique of the unreal "bubble" that surrounds the President and the passivity and lack of intellectual curiosity that made Bush peculiarly susceptible to the "bubble."

On Iraq, McClellan argues that WMD was not at the heart of Bush's thinking; it was more of a symbol and rallying point for Bush's case for war. The Oliver Stone theory that Bush felt devastated and betrayed when he found no WMD is ridiculous. In Bush's mind, so what if Saddam was 6 months away or 6 years away from WMD? The point was he was a potential threat and a useful demonstration target for the new policy of preemptive war. McClellan argues that this was Cheney's and Rumsfeld's thinking, which explains why they gave little attention to the grandiose nation building rhetoric of Wolfowitz and the Neo-Cons.

But McClellan points out that Bush fell for the Wolfowitz line and that a larger geopolitical ambition to stabilize the Middle East by injecting power in the region like we did in Germany after WWII is critical to understanding Bush's decision for war.

The tragedy is how superficial Bush's thinking was in this regard, and how little thought he gave to the political, cultural, military, and historical differences between Iraq and Germany. Also embarrassing is the years of planning and overwhelming resources put into rebuilding Germany and Europe after WWII, compared to the la-di-da, we'll-get-everything-done-with-no-planning-and-150,000-troops-who-let-the-citizens-loot thinking of the Bush crew.

All of which points to the fatal flaw of both Bush and McClellan. It's apparent from this narrative that McClellan, Bush, and the rest of the Texas crew just thought they were more decent than the smarmy Clinton crowd and did not focus much on policy. Once they were in power, things would be better because they were just so good and decent and so reflective of American values. No wonder they succumbed to the temptations of Rove wedge politics and the permanent campaign. They really did not have any well-thought-out, larger policy goals to advance. Their politics was personal, and the all the corruptions of personal politics followed.

Lincoln was a fantastic, bare-knuckles patronage politician. But he also knew that the purpose of being a good politician was to enable one to be a good statesman. Somehow the Bush crew lost sight of this simple truth.

Over 100 people have written reviews of this book, so there is little on content that I can say that would be new. Just let me mention that this book reveals the real shame of the Bush administration to be not "some cunning plan", but the fact that, from the beginning, the Bush administration was packed with people that were completely over their heads that were simply there because they were friends with the President. That includes the author and his rather pedestrian observations. This is what happens when you are responsible for staffing government agencies and, at the same time, think these agencies are largely just an annoyance and shouldn't exist in the first place.

You can get the same thing from listening to the author speak on any talk show, thus I would advise against buying this book as it simply is just not that insightful.

I think Scott does a brilliant job of adequately covering his time in the Bush White house, and creating a good timeline of events to illustrate his opinion of life "inside the bubble." From the constant campaign to the collection of agreement, McClellan seeks to clarify the secretive world that existed while he was press secretary. I think the author goes to great lengths to specifically NOT bash or degrade anyone in this book. I found it an honest view that if anything, restated its point perhaps a bit too much. Overall, it was refreshing to have an honest look at the culture inside, something we as the public had wanted since day one. Well worth the read and quite interesting. You may not agree with Scott's opinions, but they are genuine and not malicious.

This book should have been titled "What Happened?" A question mark in the title would have been much more apropos. Scott McClellan, in his haste to publish a book, seems to have spent little or no time contemplating what did happen during his time in the White House.

Like his idol, George W. Bush, McClellan is a product of the "unexamined life" that Socrates warned about centuries ago. After reading the book, which is not recommended here, one can easily draw the conclusion that no amount of time would have been sufficient for McClellan to understand the extent of the failure and the damage caused by the administration for which he was press secretary from mid-2003 until his firing in 2006.

Every author needs a theme and I guess his publisher gave him the idea of reading a book called the "Permanent Campaign." He uses that book and the book "Shadow: The Legacy of Watergate" by Bob Woodward (though he does not indicate that he read it) to come up with his facile thesis. The conduct of the presidency was too politicized by the Bush administration as part of a permanent campaign. It is also harder to get away with a lie since Watergate. Incompetence is never posited as a possibility.

To McClellan, President Bush was not unqualified for the presidency. He merely let it veer off under the evil influence of Karl Rove and the installation of a permanent campaign in the White House. He accuses the Clinton administration of inventing the approach. He presents Karl Rove as the evil architect who took it to a new level. Bush's only weakness according to McClellan is a penchant for self-deception. His later revelations show that Bush also has quite a penchant for the deception of others.

The most disturbing part of McClellan's book is the more correct, though unconscious, theme that he repeats throughout the book. Politics to McClellan and others in the Bush administration is about selling political policies rather than persuading the public and Congress of their merits. There is one conscious admission that McClellan makes that rings true. Bush, Cheney and many others in the administration believe that the ends justify the means.

McClellan still does not seem to understand that such a view of life almost inevitably leads to lying and misrepresentation. How could he understand? Permanent campaign? The Legacy of Watergate? Hooey. The only redeeming value for McClellan in this book is that one does get a sense that he was naïve enough to believe anything he was told without question; not so redeeming, that he still is naive today because he did not learn a thing from his experience.

McClellan claims that he was stunned and shocked that Rove and Scooter Libby lied to him about their involvement of the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame. By that point in the book a reader is justified in exclaiming "Why?" He also seems more put out that their lies ruined his image with the press and the public rather than that the Plame leak was unethical and potentially life-threatening for a covert CIA operative.

It is clear from this book that President Bush declassified a selected portion of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in October 2002 (before McClellan became press secretary) so that Vice President Cheney, Rove and Libby could leak about Plame without being subject to prosecution for revealing classified secrets. Yet it does not seem to dawn on McClellan that Bush was a co-conspirator in the Plame leak through the declassification of the NIE. Bush lied to McClellan and saved the truth for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. That is not self-deceit, Scott. That is just plain deceit. And McClellan thinks this was the result of a "permanent campaign?"

McClellan also seems more interested in paying back Rove and Libby for making him look like a fool than he does about the number of American soldiers who have died for the sake of a poorly "sold" war. All one can say is that Rove, Libby, and Bush knew a fool when they saw one. That he still claims to admire George W. Bush even today is Exhibit No. 1 that he has no idea of what really happened in the Plame affair or the nature of the real George Bush that everyone else does.

If McClellan really wants to know what happened, and the frightful consequences of "selling" an unnecessary war, I have a book he should read; not for profit but for self-examination. "The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell" by John Crawford is a harrowing autobiographical account of an Army National Guardsman yanked off his honeymoon and sent to Iraq for over two years. There he experienced the Kafkaesque experience of serving on the ground in Iraq at the height of the insurgency. Catch-22-like Crawford continued to have his tours extended indefinitely.

The juxtaposition of McClellan's self-pity about his treatment while basking in the luxuries of political office and his new marriage, and Crawford's straight-forward account of his experience in Iraq that cost him his new marriage is almost enough to make one want to bring back the draft. And to make sure that guys like McClellan serve. His dedication of the book "To those who serve" is galling, self-serving and unseemly in the greatest sense.

His prescriptions for changing "the culture of deception" at the end of the book are as banal as all of the other lessons he supposedly learned in the White House. McClellan is a professional follower, not a political philosopher. So much for getting out of the White House "bubble" in order to get a proper perspective on "what happened" as McClellan claims he did.

McClellan has no idea what happened. He lacks the intellectual capacity, the introspective nature, and the inner moral compass necessary to ever know or understand what happened. Take a pass on this one.

Not being typically interested in political "tell all" books
I was interested in this one
at first.
But like politics
it sounds good on the surface and drags on into arguments about limited nuances that deal with .00045% of the serious issues facing the USA .
As a piece of literature it has a few interesting moments
but very few.
mostly I think the author had to belch out his sour grapes somehow somewhere.
not that it matters much .
It certainly didn't give me the great insight into the "W" Whitehouse
that some people seem to have taken from it.
Mostly it's just boring.
It probably will look good on the liberal coffee tables for a few months and might score the author a job on MSNBC.
but most of that has to do with the hubbub and the title.
beyond that:
ehhh.......
If you'd like to read and interesting and insightful book relating to the political situation of the day
I'd recommend "The Revolution, A
Manifesto" by Dr. Ron Paul

I purchased this book with the heavy skepticism that it was, indeed, too little too late. However, after reading its contents, I do believe there is something to be gained in its writing. The interplay between White House staff members has been much speculated upon, and I found Scott McClellan's perspective on the individual personalities and the role they played in political maneuvering especially insightful.

Although most of us have already come to our own conclusions about "What Happened" in the Bush White House, it was helpful to have someone on the inside add supportive structure to our theories. I believe Mr. McClellan's book can only add fuel to the fire of those hoping to see the Bush administration held responsible for an unnecessary war. And while we can debate the artistry of the prose included, there is little doubt of the historical significance of the damning claims offered into evidence by an ex-White House press secretary.

This book should have been titled "What Happened?" A question mark in the title would have been much more apropos. Scott McClellan, in his haste to publish a book, seems to have spent little or no time contemplating what did happen during his time in the White House.

Like his idol, George W. Bush, McClellan is a product of the "unexamined life" that Socrates warned about centuries ago. After reading the book, which is not recommended here, one can easily draw the conclusion that no amount of time would have been sufficient for McClellan to understand the extent of the failure and the damage caused by the administration for which he was press secretary from mid-2003 until his firing in 2006.

Every author needs a theme and I guess his publisher gave him the idea of reading a book called the "Permanent Campaign." He uses that book and the book "Shadow: The Legacy of Watergate" by Bob Woodward (though he does not indicate that he read it) to come up with his facile thesis. The conduct of the presidency was too politicized by the Bush administration as part of a permanent campaign. It is also harder to get away with a lie since Watergate. Incompetence is never posited as a possibility.

To McClellan, President Bush was not unqualified for the presidency. He merely let it veer off under the evil influence of Karl Rove and the installation of a permanent campaign in the White House. He accuses the Clinton administration of inventing the approach. He presents Karl Rove as the evil architect who took it to a new level. Bush's only weakness according to McClellan is a penchant for self-deception. His later revelations show that Bush also has quite a penchant for the deception of others.

The most disturbing part of McClellan's book is the more correct, though unconscious, theme that he repeats throughout the book. Politics to McClellan and others in the Bush administration is about selling political policies rather than persuading the public and Congress of their merits. There is one conscious admission that McClellan makes that rings true. Bush, Cheney and many others in the administration believe that the ends justify the means.

McClellan still does not seem to understand that such a view of life almost inevitably leads to lying and misrepresentation. How could he understand? Permanent campaign? The Legacy of Watergate? Hooey. The only redeeming value for McClellan in this book is that one does get a sense that he was naïve enough to believe anything he was told without question; not so redeeming, that he still is naive today because he did not learn a thing from his experience.

McClellan claims that he was stunned and shocked that Rove and Scooter Libby lied to him about their involvement of the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame. By that point in the book a reader is justified in exclaiming "Why?" He also seems more put out that their lies ruined his image with the press and the public rather than that the Plame leak was unethical and potentially life-threatening for a covert CIA operative.

It is clear from this book that President Bush declassified a selected portion of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in October 2002 (before McClellan became press secretary) so that Vice President Cheney, Rove and Libby could leak about Plame without being subject to prosecution for revealing classified secrets. Yet it does not seem to dawn on McClellan that Bush was a co-conspirator in the Plame leak through the declassification of the NIE. Bush lied to McClellan and saved the truth for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. That is not self-deceit, Scott. That is just plain deceit. And McClellan thinks this was the result of a "permanent campaign?"

McClellan also seems more interested in paying back Rove and Libby for making him look like a fool than he does about the number of American soldiers who have died for the sake of a poorly "sold" war. All one can say is that Rove, Libby, and Bush knew a fool when they saw one. That he still claims to admire George W. Bush even today is Exhibit No. 1 that he has no idea of what really happened in the Plame affair or the nature of the real George Bush that everyone else does.

If McClellan really wants to know what happened, and the frightful consequences of "selling" an unnecessary war, I have a book he should read; not for profit but for self-examination. "The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell" by John Crawford is a harrowing autobiographical account of an Army National Guardsman yanked off his honeymoon and sent to Iraq for over two years. There he experienced the Kafkaesque experience of serving on the ground in Iraq at the height of the insurgency. Catch-22-like Crawford continued to have his tours extended indefinitely.

The juxtaposition of McClellan's self-pity about his treatment while basking in the luxuries of political office and his new marriage, and Crawford's straight-forward account of his experience in Iraq that cost him his new marriage is almost enough to make one want to bring back the draft. And to make sure that guys like McClellan serve. His dedication of the book "To those who serve" is galling, self-serving and unseemly in the greatest sense.

His prescriptions for changing "the culture of deception" at the end of the book are as banal as all of the other lessons he supposedly learned in the White House. McClellan is a professional follower, not a political philosopher. So much for getting out of the White House "bubble" in order to get a proper perspective on "what happened" as McClellan claims he did.

McClellan has no idea what happened. He lacks the intellectual capacity, the introspective nature, and the inner moral compass necessary to ever know or understand what happened. Take a pass on this one.

Not being typically interested in political "tell all" books
I was interested in this one
at first.
But like politics
it sounds good on the surface and drags on into arguments about limited nuances that deal with .00045% of the serious issues facing the USA .
As a piece of literature it has a few interesting moments
but very few.
mostly I think the author had to belch out his sour grapes somehow somewhere.
not that it matters much .
It certainly didn't give me the great insight into the "W" Whitehouse
that some people seem to have taken from it.
Mostly it's just boring.
It probably will look good on the liberal coffee tables for a few months and might score the author a job on MSNBC.
but most of that has to do with the hubbub and the title.
beyond that:
ehhh.......
If you'd like to read and interesting and insightful book relating to the political situation of the day
I'd recommend "The Revolution, A
Manifesto" by Dr. Ron Paul

I purchased this book with the heavy skepticism that it was, indeed, too little too late. However, after reading its contents, I do believe there is something to be gained in its writing. The interplay between White House staff members has been much speculated upon, and I found Scott McClellan's perspective on the individual personalities and the role they played in political maneuvering especially insightful.

Although most of us have already come to our own conclusions about "What Happened" in the Bush White House, it was helpful to have someone on the inside add supportive structure to our theories. I believe Mr. McClellan's book can only add fuel to the fire of those hoping to see the Bush administration held responsible for an unnecessary war. And while we can debate the artistry of the prose included, there is little doubt of the historical significance of the damning claims offered into evidence by an ex-White House press secretary.

This is an incredibly frank account of the inner workings of the Bush Whitehouse. This is not from some anti-Bush liberal but a member of the inner circle. Scott McClellan was a loyal "Bushie" from almost the beginning in Texas. His account of systematic deceit which he calls (but did not coin) "the permanent campaign" is telling and alarming.
The book is not a "settle the score" account from a disgruntled employee. In fact, McClellan spends a lot of time defending Bush as a person, his policies and many of his actions. He does not, however, pull any punches when it comes to the activities of coordinated spin, misrepresentations, and out-right lies to the American people, which he was a participant in. Lies which, among other things, landed the US in a costly and unnecessary war in Iraq.
McClellan explains the actual rational the President had for war (and it had little to do with terror or WMDs or anything Bush sold to the American people).
I believe this book will be the definitive answer to many of the questions future historians have about "What Happened" during this disastrous time in our history.
Everyone who cares about America should read this book.

For anyone following the Bush Presidency with some skepticism, the book would confirm many of the beliefs. The details are perhaps not pertinent except for the most avid. The book is neither a literary master-class nor does it offer anything startlingly new – so just an average read on current affairs.

I am pretty negative on the Bush administration, so I was interested to read an insider's perspective. "What Happened" was quite disappointing, however. While the book is billed as a look inside the Bush White House, it's really just an account of Scott's realization that Washington is a dirty place filled with people who play a dirty game. While that's true, it's hardly a red-line, front-page revelation worth spending a couple hundred pages developing.

It's also not particularly revelatory: you can tell that Scott wasn't really an insider, since little he speaks of hasn't been known publicly for a long, long time.

Finally, because Scott is really making only 2 or 3 main points (Washington is dirty; politics is often a zero-sum game; truth yields to selling an opinion), the book is VERY repetitive. Plain, uninteresting language doesn't make it any more enjoyable to read.

I commend his book inasmuch as it relieves his conscience, but I wouldn't ever read it again or recommend it to a friend.

When I took this book from the library I was hoping to learn about the inner workings of the Bush white house and what exactly took place during the build up to the Iraq war and the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity.

Unfortunately, I learned nothing new. This was the biggest disappoint of all. Ninety percent of this book was filler material, focusing on Scott McClellan's personal life and work in the white house. Many of the stories he told were anecdotal and trivial leading the reader to more frustration. The other ten percent was a rehash of what is already known about the build up to the Iraq war and the Plame controvery.

I actually can not believe that Scott McClellan has revealed everything he knows in this book. Being present at so many upper level meetings must have made him privy to some of the unsavory workings of Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby. He revealed some of this but always tried to do it in the best light possible. But I guess I was foolish to expect him to reveal anything above what is already known about his cronies.

This book exceeded my expectations. McClellan comes across as extremely credible. He was a trusted employee of Bush and a loyal supporter with great optimism for what Bush stood for and was able to accomplish as Texas governor. It was fascinating for me to see how that optimism and affection slowly transformed into disenchantment and dismay, and he was only fully able to realize this once he left his job as press secretary and had a chance to fully reflect on the amazing events that transpired around him during the seven years he spent with Bush from the end of Bush's term as governor and six years in the white house.

McClellan's attention to detail is most impressive, so impressive that I would be amazed if he didn't keep a detailed journal or diary during his tenure with the administration. He employs a careful and thoughtful analysis of the decisions and actions of the key players, especially the President. He presents a fair account of administration's accomplishments, but more importantly, he is appropriately critical of the missteps and failings of one of the most consequential administrations and Presidents in the history of our country.

His writing style is sharp and entertaining. Our leaders would benefit greatly by heeding some of McClellan's well thought-out ideas on improving the system of governance through greater unity and less partisanship, greater transparency, and acting with higher standards of ethics -- all things that this administration is sorely lacking, as this book details. Many lessons will surely be learned as more key players come forward, but this book may be one of the best close-up accounts we ever get of the Bush administration.

Overall, it's a decent book, if not terribly insightful for well informed people. I sensed that Scott McClellan is a decent guy, with an honest look back on his experiences in the White House. The central theme of the book, the permanent campaign, is worthy of debate to be sure.

The one line which stays with me is when McClellan is recounting being with Bush on 9-11 at the elementary school in FL. He writes about Andy Card telling Bush that the second plane has hit the World Trade Center and then writes: "Moments later, the president entered and saw the burning towers on television." We know from videotape that President Bush sat there for 22 minutes AFTER he was told the second plane had hit the towers and at least in my temporal mindset, almost a half an hour doesn't constitute "moments later."

This appears to be an open and honest look at the presidency of George W. Bush. The author reports on the good and bad events of the presidency even after he was blindsided by members of the administration.

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.

I loathed George W. Bush and was looking forward to reading a book that others kept referring to a scathing expose of the Bush White House. This, unfortunately, was not that book. Why McClellan thought anyone would be interested in reading about so much of his personal history is beyond me, for one thing. There was far too much emphasis on what McClellan himself said and did during important events than there was on what Bush, Cheney, Rove, et all did. I appreciated some of his comments about the "permanent campaign" mentality in Washington, but those ideas would have been better served as the focus of a completely separate book, perhaps using his experiences in the Bush White House as examples to illustrate what he meant, rather than in a book like this. All in all, a very disappointing read.

Scott McClellan's book is worth reading even though it does not tell us anything that has not been in the public arena for a long time. Whilst the book is slow going most of the time, Scott McClellan makes his points about the Culture of Deception so prevailing in politics all around the world very well. Of course, much the same philosophy is nowadays just as prevalent in the actions of so many of our business leaders. Or, perhaps, it has spread from big business into politics?

Anyway, it is a great pitty that Mr. McClellan only became wise in hindsight. And even then he still finds plenty of excuses to make for many of his former partners in crime.

All the same, I find that most of his conclusions about the unsavoury state prevailing in politics are entirely valid. Personally, I would have been much more impressed by his criticism of this deplorable state if he had written this book before he was, effectively, fired from his position in the White House.

As someone who is left-leaning I tried to read this book without any preconceived notions. Mr. McLellan's book is an extremely well written history of what happened during his time working for George W. Bush. When there are facts to be presented, he presents them as neutral as possible. When he gives his own opinion, he clearly states that it is his opinion, and shouldn't be taken as fact.

The first half of the book was basically praising Bush and explains why Scott joined him in the first place. The second half explains, in detail, what went wrong.

This book actually gave me a little bit more respect for Bush, as the mistakes he made could have been made by many people, myself included. However, we expect more out of the President of the United States, and he should not be excused for what he did.

Whether you're a hard-core conservative, a hard-core liberal, or some where in between, I highly recommend this book.

"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 the store 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.

Scott does dig into Bush somewhat, but he so often talks about Clinton one would think they are still fighting elections. Scott was abused by a number of people in the administration and this book somewhat tries to show that. But it is a weak book.

Michael Hirsh wrote, in Newsweek, a criticism of pundits, asking why the public should acquire this information from McClellan and not the media.
Hello?
"Why do we have to hear this from him?"--because HE WAS THERE. Scott McClellan's THE person to hear it from! And thanks to him for writing the book! His report is far more measured and thoughtful than anything, so far, written by "pundits."

This book was well-written and thoughtful. It helped me to see President Bush in a new light. Mr. McClellan makes an excellent point about the "permanent campaign" and it's toxic divisiveness.
However, I found this book disappointing in some ways. While I don't doubt his sincerity, the author stops short of explaining the motivations and actions of the more controversial GOP policies. It's as though, after a lifetime in politics, he's honestly incapable of being completely sincere and apolitical.

I'm no fan of the Bush White House so I jumped on the chance to read this memoir of McClellan's time with the administration. It's eye opening, though not that surprising. The things those people will do. And it is written, no surprise here either, in a very clear and entertaining matter. A must for anyone who thinks they are a Republican or any one interested in current affairs.

Scott McClellan came to Washington to help George W. Bush lead America in a new direction. I relate to Scott's feelings because I entered government service following John Kennedy. I also was seeking to make a difference in the lives of my fellow citizens. I was spared the death of the vision that befell Scott McClellan.
I have read over 20 books about this administration and I believe this book is one of the most truthful. Scott's account of what happened has not been questioned by any member of the Bush Administration. The Bush team only calls McClellan to task for breaking the team's loyalty code. Scott left because he had been used by the Administration to promote a lie. Truth has become the downfall of this administration. Lies have been so often proffered that the word of the United States isn't worth much anymore. Scott Mc CLellan stepped away and wrote a truthful acount to set the record straight cnd to correct the lies he unknowingly was sent to support.
This is a proper way for the truth to set us all free. What Happened is an important book about the dawn of America's 21st Century.

As another reviewer said, it reads like an 8th grade "How I Spent My Summer Vacation" paper. McClellan starts out suggesting it relates to the Permanent Campaign, but doesn't mention it much through the book, only to come back to it at the end. It would have been a much better book if it was title was "What Happened: How the Permanent Campaign Screwed the People of the US",
and if he'd written to that point the whole way through.

Instead it's just a blow-by-blow account without much analysis.

What Happened ---- nothing new!

I have followed public affairs and political matters since my youth, which is well behind me. I read memoirs of public officials and commentary by keen and recognized observers. I voted for President Bush and would do so again given what I saw and see in his opponents. I take this position while fully recognizing the many, many lapses in competence that President Bush has displayed. Hence, the desire to gain insight form someone who was up close and personal was strong.

However, virtually nothing in Mr. McClellan's book added to the body of knowledge all ready in the public domain. Rather Mr. McClellan delivered a repetitious regurgitation of his own concept as to how a president should govern. It comes across as an unedited plaint with not an original thought or insight to offer.

Looking at the illustrations in the book, including the cover, one frequently can read vexation in the presidents face as he cornered by Mr. McClellan almost as if the president is thinking how can I escape this pest!

After reading the book I can understand his apparent frustration.

What is clear is that Mr. McClellan never understood what the ultimate fate was for virtually all press secretary's, or front men for those of a certain level of power in every walk of life. He actually thought he was a "player" and he never was and from his presentation never will be.

In the end I found the book sad and non-informative.

I have to preface my review by saying that I listened to the audio version of this book. The way that Scott McClellan read it put me off somewhat. I had to really concentrate to not hear the Texas accent smothered in his reading style. It made the job of listening more difficult for me.

I didn't find any great revelations in this book. As Scott says we may never know who knew what when about Valerie Plame. I also wonder if I could have been all a total coincidence. I do suppose that is not outside the realm of possibility. There has to be a lot of information that falls through the cracks when there is so much of it going around as there is in the White House. I'm sure the press secretary knows little of what's going on but depends on others to inform him.

I have to admit it was a struggle to listen to this book. But I persevered and got through it. I do wish Scott had told us whether or not he still talks to President Bush. But maybe that doesn't matter to him anymore.

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 can stick with a book for a long time...past the point of tolerance for many other people. That being said, I found myself disengaging with Mr. McClellan by the third chapter, and ultimately decided this account was not worth it. The tone of this book is reflective of an ambitious disciple who discovers that the master lives in the world after all. Mr. McClellan's account seems more than anything like an attempt to restore his credibility after the Plame affair. The problem is, I think he acted as promptly as he could, as soon as he could, once he learned he was being used to disseminate false information. Piling on in a memoir starts to undermine that credibility after a while.

Scott McClellan spends the first 100 pages of this 200 odd page book telling us about childhood, his powerful mom and his early political education. He assumes that he is an important enough historical figure that we really care know about his collegiate tennis career, etc, etc. These revelations are not why I read this book and I doubt it is why many others have chosen to either. He spends the next 100 pages saying virtually nothing that we don't already know if we have been following the news for the last eight years. From his key insider postion in a rermarkable White House in extraordinarilly remarkable times, Mr. McClellan has produced an totally unremarkable book. Upon completing it I could only recall one phrase that describes my overall level of dissatisfaction with Mr. McClellan's effort, "where's the beef". Sadly it is not in this book.

I do not know about this book by McClellan - but I read Hillary Clinton's "What Happened" over a strangers shoulder on the bus. If Clinton had drafted as much legislation as she has written books about herself she might be President!

Scott McClellan gives a recital of the ups and downs of the Bush White House from July 2003 until July 2006 during his time as the White House Press Secretary. He tells of his difficulties trying to put the best face on the highly secretive machinations of the Rove-inspired administration of those days. He comes off as a rather naiive young man who is badly used by Scooter Libbey and Karl Rove when he believes their story that they had nothing to do with the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. This causes him to resign in disgust, though he still thinks George Bush is the same "Good Man" he admired in their Austin days.
One can only wonder, "Why did he write this book?" For the money I suppose, like all inside stories. And he has the all of the interviews and speeches that bring him attention. And he called to forefront, the attention of special prosecutors of the future.

I have never been the type to sit down and read books about politics or politicians. They seem like they would be very boring and hard to get through. So, I ordered the audio book which I listened to in its entirety over a weekend. I found it credible b/c I watch and listen to news from many viewpoints. Scott talked about Bush as a wonderful person and great politician, and followed him from the governor's staff in Texas.
For the people who say that he wrote this book b/c he was eased out of a job, I say is he the first to do so? For those who say why now, I say why not? The guy is young and ambitious, and told his story in a very factual way, he gave accurate dates, named every person that was in his recount of what happened in the Bush Whitehouse. He always referred to Bush in a very loyal and respectful way. I don't think that the purpose for coming out with this book now is to hurt the Republican Party or the nominee. The book was read by the author in a very calm, peaceful, reminescent way, and I liked it a lot. I gave it the highest rating.

I just finished Scott's book today and am shocked that Rove and others I have seen on the news have said that he turned on them. Instead of the expected bash on Bush, Scott was fair, polite, even respectful of Bush and the entire White House staff. What Scott did bash was the culture of deception, politics-as-war, permanent campaign, and care-more-about-party-than-America culture in Washington, D.C. This is a story of a guy who loves America and loves the political process, who went to Washington with a President who sincerely wanted to end the corruption there, but ended up getting caught up in it and perpetuating this secretive and partisan culture that sickens so many of us younger Americans. This book is very interesting, rational and fair. It is a call to all Americans to demand more of their leadership whatever the party, and more of their media whatever the network.

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!

This is a good book. Its not always an easy read (it can be tedious at points) but I'd say it was well worth reading, to get the inside scoop

I think Scott is kinder to Bush than he deserves, considering the facts laid out in the recent Bugliosi book The Prosecution of George W Bush For Murder

The book shines a light on the problems of the Bush Administration. It is quite clear that the President and his staff led the country to an unneccessary war, which cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. The rush to war and the rationale for going to war are well explained in this book. McClellan also does a good job of pointing the finger at the press for not asking any questions about war intelligence and further beating the drums to go to war.

One fault with the book is the overly repetitive nature of the writer. McClellan has points to be made in the book, and unfortunately, they are too few and therefore continually repeated.

Publishers Weekly editorial review at the beginning in the editorial reviews section is a disgrace. Obviously they could not or did not put all the pieces together with what happened outside the book and what this young man saw on the inside of the administration.

Excellent insider's view by a young man who by stages realizes the horrible truth about George Bush and his miss-guided regime. Scott did not go to this level of description, but, it is obvious to the reader. It was sad to realize he, Scott, was deviously and cowardly used by the President and Carl Rove who lied to the media, the American people, the American congress and to the subsequent investigations by CIA, FBI, DOJ, and Special Prosecutor sub committee investigation. Compared to what Bill Clinton was impeached for where no one died Bush as well as Rove and Vice President Cheney all should have been impeached or at the least prosecuted. Also they had no honor and failed to "Man Up" and instead had Scooter Libby take all the blame for following orders to "Out" Valerie Plame an American citizen who was an undercover WMD expert for us. Outing her for a vicious reason only because she found out what they were hiding. The truth. They then attempted to humiliate her husband former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson when essentially Valerie and Joseph were trying to find out if the updated reports from England's M6 were true indicating the yellow cake incident in Africa was false. Something I would have done as well. "What I Did not find in Africa", published in the New York Times July 6, 2003 in fact did just that. The initial yellow cake report was false. The trip premise for Valerie and Joseph was if this is really not true then the yellow cake report could not be used to incite the American media and, therefore, the people and congress into war. Also ultimately not to be used in the president's subsequent speeches or in those he directed to falsely incite the whole world via the UN. General Colin Powell, a honorable man, found out the hard way after making his speech to the UN and was eventually internationally humiliated. He left the Bush administration and Condi Rice took his job. Scooter Libby was given a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card as Bush ran away vacating his disgraceful term as the President of the United States of America. The President and a small number of his staff knowingly made dishonorable actions exhibiting the lack of morals and total disregard for American honesty and integrity for the world to see. Scott McClellan reported what we suspected and how over a long period of time Bush never really had a quality and honest focus for America. Scott handled it well and kept it from being truly harsh. He looked at it from the viewpoint of trying to keep Bush elevated as high as possible, however, admitting seeing Bush decline by Bush's own poor judgment and lack of transparency when it was critical.
It was proof to me that I was right from the beginning about Bush. I never voted for him. I saw him for what his was. He was too shallow and demonstrated a man who did not do his homework on that part of the world before going to war nor knowing how to go to war by the lack of pre-war planning for our troops. I was really shocked when he was elected both times. I realized that many of the American people did not really know who they were voting for.
Now I donate to VetsMeetVets.org a PTSD group. Some of the soldiers who experienced combat, who saw friends or family killed, who saw them maimed for life and/or the stresses of combat from several tours of duty then find out the President lied to them adds to the reasons they consider or commit suicide.

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.

BETTER LATE THEN NEVER. MCCLELLAN SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT. I'M NOT SURPRISED BY THIS BOOK. THE OUTING OF PLAME WAS PROBABLY MEANT TO GET HER ASSASSINATED.
SOME PEOPE, WHO WERE IN CONTACT WITH HER, MAY HAVE BEEN.
THE FALL OUT, IS CLASSIFIED.
SOME OF THE BLAME BELONGS TO THE PRESS. THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB. I THOUGHT THE PRESS IS OR WAS LIBERAL?
THE RIGHT IS ATTACKING MCCLELLAN TO DISCREDIT HIM AND NEGATE HIS BOOK.
KATRINA WAS A PLANNED DISASTER. THE MAINTAINANCE BUDGET, FOR THE LEVEES WAS CUT FROM $30 MILLION (UNDER CLINTON) TO $10 MILLION. THE ARMY ENGINEERS WARNING, THEY NEEDED AT LEAST $30 MILLION TO MAINTAIN THEM. EXPECT HOTELS & CASINOS TO POP UP.
IF WE ARE GIVING IRAQ, FREEDOM? WHY DOES IRAQ HAVE TO SIGN A CONTRACT GIVING THEM 13% OF THE OIL REVENUE & THE OIL COMPANIES GET TO KEEP 87%.
WHO'S GETTING RICH? WHO'S GETTING THE SHORT END? I CAN THINK OF BETTER USES FOR OUR TAX DOLLARS. HOW ABOUT MAINTAINING OUR INTRASTRUCTURE.
THE LIES CONTINUE. WHAT PRICE THE TRUTH?

I watched a documentary a few months back about the Tea Party where a gentleman was giving a lecture where he urged attendants to go to the store and give bad reviews to all non-right wing promoting books. So just be skeptical of the bad reviews of this book. Many are the direct result of a mindless, hyperpartisan call to action from a political ideology that believes its own ends justify unethical means. After all, they represent "good" right? And all others are bad. So deception is allowed and encouraged as long as the purpose is to bolster the ideology. Wow. What a mess the country... this world... has become because of this mindset.

McClelen's book was a real eye opener to the dishonor and corruption that Bush and Cheney brought to the most powerful house in the world. If they're not brought up on impeachment trials now it would just be a crime. His explanation of how this country operates on a "campaign" mentality is so on target, and truly answers to why nothing ever really gets accomplished in this country. He was brave and heroic, in my eyes, to have risked all that he had to to get this book published and I, for one, hope that many, many people will have the courage to read the truths that he shares in it.

not as well written as George Tenet's book, but some good inside info as to the deception behind the "leak", and the drumming up of the reason to go to war with Iraq. Skipped over the chapter about his grandfather tho... wasn't much interested in that topic. Seemed to be more of a "filler" chapter to make the book a bit larger. All in all, some good inside info into our current administration.

I haven't finished this book yet, but just within the first couple of chapters I am more enlightened about politics then I thought I would be. McClellan does an outstanding job of not pointing fingers, but merely stating facts. Everyone should read this book. Especially with the upcoming election. This corrupt power hungry campaigning style of governing has gone on too long. Our forefathers are probably rolling over in their graves. The politicians need to realize that they don't deserve their raises and retirement benefits because they haven't done their jobs. They work for us. Not the other way around. I highly recommend this book.

"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.

I admire McCllelan as the only one with guts enough to buck the corporate-fascist government of the Cheney / Bush-League administration. The fact that he had to keep talking over the incoming flak in the W.H. seems to have allowed him to feel he could withstand the fox-noise, corporate nightly news, Limbaughed, O'Reely shills, and keep going after he blew the whistle. His view of the Texas and Washington scenes are a little on the gee-whizz side at times, but that's part of his make-up and a big reason the liars thought he be a good shill, too. Too bad (for Cheney/Bush and the gang) that he also had some character.

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.

As a staunch Republican and one who has spent many years dealing with the White House and the Administration, as well as the U.S. Congress, I can truly say that Scott McClellan's depiction of Bush White events appears 100% correct. He is stating what I have believed from the beginning about various Bush decisions and demeanor that appeared to me to be the case without actually being inside the tent. I think the book is a great history of the Bush White House and of the failings of a man who could have been so much better.

Cliff Jernigan

I found this book to be amazingly informative. Well written, concise and I am sure correctin detail. Reading this has confirmed my view that the Iraq war should never have happened, there was no reason for it, and too many lives have been lost. I hope there will never be an administratio like this again in the White House. It is incredible what deception there has been, and who can trust anybody? I would recommend it as good reading to anyone believing in the truth.

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 intimate account of the George W. Bush years was an interesting read but I was a bit disappointed that there were no bombshells, nothing highly revealing that I didn't already know. The backstory in the first few chapters drags and almost lead me to quit reading but the later storyline gets better. Worth a read if you are interested in the inner workings and challenges a White House press secretary faces daily, especially in this administration, but don't expect anything earth-shattering.

After getting through only 100 pages of this book, I am giving up on it. I am interested in knowing what happened, but I don't think this book is the one to provide answers.

The author needs to hire a better editor next time, one who will ask: "What is this book supposed to be about?" After 100 pages, I find myself puzzled by the extensive details on the author's childhood and early days campaigning for his mother. A family history seems irrelevant here, given that the book was supposed to be an account of the Bush White House, not Scott McClellan's autobiography.

The author tends to write in a stream of consciousness style, at the expense of clarity and focus. The text jumps seemingly randomly from person to person, with clumsy segues, and without use of section or chapter breaks. The author fails to stick to one topic for any significant period of time (except, of course, for the long-winded discussion of the "permanent campaign", where the author managed to make the same point over and over again for several pages), and as a result, the book reads like a collection of anectdotes without endings.

Maybe this book has a point, and I gave up on it too quickly, but if you're looking for an interesting read from a focused author, look elsewhere.

This isn't great book, in my opinion. However, it is good enough to warrant a read. Scott doesn't let us a heck of a lot that we haven't already heard. But his behind-the-scenes details provide needed insight.
I enjoyed reading this book...and in the end, felt sorry for McClellan.

I was really surprised at how this book let me down. I was really looking forward to an insiders look at the White House and it's interactions. Instead, what I got was McClennan's obvious affection for Karen Hughes and GW Bush, and his lack of respect and appreciation for Karl Rove.

Throughout the book, you get the sense that he thought his position as press secretary would entitle him to policy adviser and that he is disappointed because his opinion and insights were not sought out or adhered to.

Unfortunately, his writing is less than compelling and the retelling of the story jumps back and forth too much. At times it almost seems as if someone else is writing.

The book was helpful in getting a picture with regards to the Katrina response, as well as 9/11. It spent way too much time dealing with the Valarie Plame episode.

Needless to say, I'd like my money back.

I believed McClellan would be more candid in "What Happened. This is a very partisan book from a guy who lauds bipartisanship. Scott must preface any flaw he discusses of Bush's staff with an unsupported assertion that Clinton's staff was doing the same thing. He includes Democrats in any criticism he has of the Republican party. He talks about all the chads under the table during the 2000 Florida "recount," but has nothing to say about people turned away at the polls, the strange Supreme Court ruling, Republican campaign staffers halting recounts, or analysis showing that Gore actually did win in Florida.

I got around to reading this book and it's good, but it's nothing new. The only thing that makes it special it would seem is the insider that Scott Mcclellan did it. I find it wonderful that even people who are friends of Bush are turning their backs on them and can't support them. These facts and beliefs should be seen that Bush is, in fact, incompetent. I'm not going to go on an anti-Bush rant and say this or that about him, just, I find it sad that fear and politics cost four thousand Americans their lives in a senseless and unneccessary war. That seven hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi's--innocent, civilians, people like we were in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the planes--have lost their lives in result of this war.

So I read this book, yes, and I've read other books like it, and yet nothing is changing, Bush is still screwing up on words, and people are still applauding this man. He gets away with murder by saying that the intelligence I had was wrong. Well, four thousand Americans later, that was a big typo. I wait eagerly for someone to make the point that George Bush is a direct descendent of Franklin Pierce who ran as a democrat and one the election and was the most responsible for starting the civil war in America.

This book gets three stars because it says nothing new and will do nothing new. When we get a book like All The Presidents Men, or articles like it, that lead to the downfall, or at least some federal inquiry (They did it to see if Roger Clemens had perjured himself, why can't we have a task force to see if Bush may have possibly known that what he was adressing to the Supreme Court was false) then I'll be happy and then I'll be ready to say something is happening. This book is a book, for people who don't like Bush it will confirm what they knew, for people who like Bush, they'll point to the fact that throughout all history, all war was run on Propaganda, and all war was costly. Nothing changes. It's sad really.

Seriously, this book is fluff. It's not much more than we already knew about the Bush White House, except it was written by McClelland. I would have liked this book better if I had waited for the paperback.

This book was so highly publicized and Scott Mcclellan was interviewed on so many programs that my expectations were high. His presentation was no more than common speculation from before the book was written. Given all that has taken place his assurance that the president was not culpable,and had just been mislead by others is not believable. It begs the question why now? Is it that the Bush Administration is almost finished and I can financially gain from my so called revelations?

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.

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.

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.

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."

Scott McClellan provides a very special look into the inner workings of the "White House bubble" and should you want to learn about W.'s tenure as president, this book does the best job at it. McClellan himself has been a hardcore Bush advocate since W.'s years as Texas governor, but that didn't stop him from delivering deep criticisms of the Bush administration. The administration's sensationalist techniques to "sell the war" on terror and in Iraq, related to the Valerie Plame incident and the 16 words controversy are all wonderfully described. I have found McClellan's assessment of the Bush administration to be fair and insightful. I do highly recommend this read.

Is it possible to read this book, agree with nearly all of the contents on the grounds that it is not terribly surprising and yet be appalled by the author's betrayal of the office and the individual for whom he worked? My take is that this guy is revealing some very unpleasant truths about this most unappealing and thoroughly incompetent President, yet I can not and will not express my gratitude and thanks to him. All this garbage is revealed now when it is largely irrelevant. When the American people needed an honest man, we didn't get one. We got this slob, lying through his teeth as Bush's so-called mouthpiece. Now that the Presidency is nearly over, this creep steps forward, admits that he was goaded by his publisher, and he is now having his 15 minutes in the limelight, when in fact what he has to say serves no national interest whatever. I deplore the messenger but embrace the message.

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.

An excellent read! Gives a great insight into the inner workings of the Bush Whitehouse as it participates in the "permanent campaign" of Washington. The great thing about this book it has the credibility of being written by a former Bush insider and loyalist.

Scott McClellan was not given free access to the inner workings of the Bush administration, thus I found this book to be much ado about something that has already been revealed. He has a lot of filler about his upbringing and some rather inconsequential dealings with the President and his administration

I bought the book last night and can hardly put it down to do anything else. Having worked in the governor's election for Scott's mom a couple years ago, I can see where his roots have led him to being honest with the American people. He comes from a family of high morals and integrity, something every public figure should be held accountable for maintaining. Enough of the "good ole boy" system where one lie covers another! The timing of this book should be a read for every voter as we face a critical election in the coming months. I wish Mr. McClellan would return to Texas and run for governor or get his mother elected.

As the saying goes, 'the truth shall set you free'. History is replete with individuals changing their minds or viewpoints, and/or crossing party lines as circumstances, opinions, and events unfold and change. McClellan is only one more mouthpiece in a sea of articles and books that have revealed how inept and mismanaged the Bush administration was/is! It is no coincidence that many Republicans that worked for or with the Bush administration have written books about Bush's very mediocre Presidency, and the decline of truth within. You can't make this stuff up! Bush's popularity/acceptance ratings as a U.S. President are some of the lowest numbers ever. The real tragedy in my lifetime is that so many simpleton, uneducated and/or undereducated rednecks in this country fell for Bush the spoon-fed, inept buffoon!!! And America has paid the price dearly in so many ways!

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.

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.

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 of 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. This is useful because I cannot see how McClellan can be viewed as an expert in presidential administrations, merely the George W. Bush administration. Were he one of those gray-beards who makes a living by holding some post in this or that administration, he might have a basis for comparison. 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.

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.

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 of 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. This is useful because I cannot see how McClellan can be viewed as an expert in presidential administrations, merely the George W. Bush administration. Were he one of those gray-beards who makes a living by holding some post in this or that administration, he might have a basis for comparison. 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.

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 the store 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.

First, I have to thank Scott McClellan for writing this book at a sixth-grade level; I don't think I would have understood it had he actually used language and syntax geared for adults.

Everyone in Scott's family is a hero. All of them are perfect students, great sports stars and supremely principled human beings. Wow. What a burden it must be.

Yet, despite these heroic beginnings (Scott almost single-handedly changed the entire UT fraternity system! He was president of student council during deseg in Texas and had--I am sooo impressed--a Hispanic girlfriend in 6th grade!), he was all too willing to engage in unprincipled, deceptive practices and then either blames a "permanent culture" that he couldn't undo (try the fraternity thing again, Scott!) or paints himself as a naive dupe. Personal responsibility, anyone?

This book was so self-indulgent, the ooze came off in my hands. I bought this book off a "Get These Books Out of Here" rack at my local library for $1.00. I fear I paid too much.

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.

I could not believe that some one who was in charge of communication could be so bad at conveying a story. This book is self indulgent at best. Unless you are reading this book to learn what Scott was doing during important events don't read this book. He poorly goes over events focusing on useless details, "...I was focused like when I used to play tennis..." Really? No one cares about you, what was going on around you idiot? I read books on these topics fairly often and I was embarrassed for the author.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 the store 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.)

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_.

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 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.........

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.

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!

Scott McClellan makes me sick. Why did he not communicate his disappointments with the president and his staff while he was doing his job? What a hypocrite. He uses terms like 'propaganda' with no evidence. Even his colleagues are stunned and not sure what other motives Scott had for writing this. He's a traitor. He should have quit a long time ago, if he truly believed this. We found out now that he was fired, and he's getting back. The money he makes from this book should be donated to "Bite the Hand that Feeds You".

His editor is also an ultra liberal!!

President Bush went over every reason why he went to war, and weapons of mass destruction was only one of them. Clinton and his administration also believed they had weapons. They have found evidence of chemicals in Iraq.

Scott McClellan was a traitor to the man who gave him his career. McClellan's entire political life, and post-political fame is enirely due to former President Bush's trust in him and his care and help. McClellan is a nave and a fool, in the words of Ann Coulter, he's a retard, and also a traitor. I think the book is interesting, and helps to show the truth of my prior assertions.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

[...]

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.

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.