By Sheldon Rampton on May 30, 2008

For Richard A. Clarke, the former Bush administration security advisor whose tell-all book was denounced as a betrayal four years ago, the current White House attacks on former press secretary Scott McClellan are reminiscent of what he went through. "It's like an echo chamber," he told Comedy Central's The Daily Show. Ironically, the themes being voiced against McClellan are the same points that McClellan himself raised against Clarke in 2004. "I turned on the TV the other day and there were White House people saying he is a disgruntled ex-employee, that he is out of the loop," Clarke said. "I think there is a little box in the White House that says, 'If anybody escapes from the White House and tells the truth, break this box and take out these talking points...say he is a disgruntled employee, say it is an election year and he is trying to sell books.'" McClellan's public reversal is not winning him much slack from critics of the war. Jeff Cohen writes that McClellan may have "blood on his hands -- and that he hasn't earned any kind of redemption" but adds that he is "trying my best to enjoy this falling out among thieves and liars." McClatchy correspondents Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay write that they "find it a wee bit preposterous -- and we are being diplomatic here -- that a man who slavishly - no, robotically! -- defended President Bush's policies in Iraq and elsewhere is trying to 'set the record straight' (and sell a few books) five years and more after the invasion, with U.S. troops still bravely fighting and dying to stabilize that country."

Comments

I know that McClellan is getting hammered for waiting until now. Am I the only one who feels gratified to have my beliefs & suspicions confirmed?

Yes, he should have said something earlier. Yes, he should have stood up and called members of the administration liars. At the time, he was doing his job.

Do I wish he'd done this from the start? Of course, but he didn't. If he had, he would not have been in a position to know as much as he does. He would have been gone much earlier. And, many people would not have believed him. The country was so angry after 9/11 it wanted war. Perhaps if Osama bin-Laden had been caught in Afghanistan, it would have been different. He got away, so the Bush Adminstration found another target, Saddam Hussein.

It took a great amount of courage to come out with what he knows.
When it was announced that he was writing a book but it hadn't been published, I worried that he might not live to finish it.

No matter when he left or published the book he was damned. Only the talking points used against him were changed.
It's very difficult for someone embedded in an ideological group (cult), to question what they are being told, and especially one that wields so much power. Could he discuss is feelings or suspicions with members of the group, would he be breaking laws if he went outside the group?
Recovery from brainwashing takes a great deal of time, and if I remember correcetily he said the book writing was a cathartic event for him. He is probably still coming out of the fog.
He is human, and that should be taken into account when critizing him. At least he didn't wait 5 years.

The other poster said that the American people supported the war, but that is not true.
There were huge demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq, but were covered up by the media.
The whole American population has been subjected to an extreme amount of brainwashing through propaganda and it continues unabated today. It's how this cabal is able to stay in power, and I don't mean the right and left. I mean almost all of them.