I am not goint to attack McCllellan just because he is attacking President Bush.
Almost all the things that he is supposed to be saying here, have been said about Bush right here on FR. I only wonder if he goes and tackles any of the spending bill decisions in the book.
Perhaps people are satisfied with Katrina response and did not attack Bush here, but poor war planning, terrible execution, and frustatingly slow to adjusting to realities on ground are realities. Its foolish to deny that.
I however completely disagree with his accusation that Bush went into “permanent campaign mode”.
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
One reason W is in trouble and legacy is in jeapordy IS the fact that he DID NOT SELL HIS VIEWS ENOUGH. He didn’t remain in touch with the general public. He isolated himself and retreated to the Oval office and once that connection was broken between President and the people, and on the other hand media was barraging the people with ghastly images and statistics everyday, what other result can one expect?
W did not do a good job of educating people on the issues.
So McClellan is way off base if he is going to accuse Bush of just being a propoganda artist. Their are no facts to back that up. I have hoped and prayed that W would come out and address those issue everyday. He didn’t and he doesn’t.
McClellan wouldn't know a "propaganda artist" if it bit him on the ass.
Never has a President been served so poorly by a press aide.
It is true that after the initial invasion met with complete success, there was poor planning and execution of any strategy for dealing with the aftermath of the invasion. The leadership on the ground in Iraq was also slow to adjust to the changing face of the enemy. However, what I got from this thread is that McClellan is claiming that the Bush White House cooked the information leading up to the war in order to justify the initial campaign. On that score I must concur with those who are excoriating this bum.
I agree with this statement. Someone like Bill Clinton can "sell what you can't give away." (Originally applied to a 70-something prostitute in the France of Louis 14).
Bush, on the other hand, simply retreated once his favorability ratings starting sinking. I have often felt - with no real basis - that he cannot bring himself to defend policies that have not brought about the expected results. Maybe I am crediting him with too much decency.