Scott McClellan: What If It’s All a Ruse?
Could Scott McClellan ’s book, and the apparent outrage from his former colleagues, be an elaborate GOP ruse, staged in order to bolster McCain’s (and the GOP’s) message of bipartisanship? The repetition of some curious phrases from McClellan makes one wonder. McClellan was a true believer. True believers don’t turn on the cult. Think about it…
Watching Scott McClellan on Countdown last night, a frightening thought struck me. What if his book, and the kerfluffle around the book, is simply more psyops from the GOP? Here’s an example of what I mean:
In the interview with Olbermann, former Minister of Propaganda McClellan invoked the term “permanent campaign” about 10 times to describe how he ostensibly feels about the hyper-partisan mindset in Washington, D.C., and how the bunker mentality of the Bush administration has evolved over the past 8 years.
It occurred to me that one of the selling points of the McCain campaign has been (and will continue to be) John McCain’s “maverickness” and willingness to reach across the political divide to get things done.
Let’s be honest, there are few revelations in McClellan’s book that appear to be new, at least to anyone who’s been paying the least bit of attention during the course of the Bush regime’s dismantlement of the American dream (more on that in a future post). Mostly, what McClellan relates is no more than insider confirmation of incidents and hubris that for the most part is already in the public domain.
So, could McClellan’s book, and all of the apparent outrage from McClellan’s former colleagues, be an elaborate GOP ruse, staged in order to bolster McCain’s (and the GOP’s) message of bipartisanship? As I listened to Olbermann’s interview, it was almost like McClellan was utilizing the time tested GOP strategy of repeating focus-grouped phrases (such as “permanent campaign”). As the interview progressed, the words he was using started sounding like he was reading from a Frank Luntz talking points script.
Are McClellan’s words (and indeed, the book itself) a well-calculated psyops move by the GOP to put further distance between the party and George Bush? Let’s not forget that Scott McClellan was a true believer in the Bush deity. He didn’t just drink the Texas koolaid, he power chugged it from a firehose. True believers do strange things for their godheads — such as creating the illusion of throwing themselves under the proverbial bus — for the greater good of the cult. Just think about Scooter Libby for a moment. Or Joseph Goebbels.
As we’ve discovered over the past 8 years, in the Bush house of mirrors, any illusion is possible. Don’t believe a thing that you read or hear right now. As I noted before, anyone who harbors a present (or past) association with this criminal regime is at great personal legal risk going forward, so nearly anything is possible.
It’s all very strange…and something just isn’t quite adding up. There’s no need to put on a tinfoil hat when it comes to analyzing any move by the GOP and Bush administration. However, there is the continuing necessity to think outside the box, look beyond the obvious, and consider alternate realities, because the Bush administration has specialized in creating false illusions.
I’m not the only one who’s thinking there is something amiss in how all of this is playing out.




Hadn’t thought about it from that angle. But that’s an interesting, if paranoid, possibility.
So you’re saying the whole McClellan thing is a calculated RNC tactic to get McSame elected?
I watched it too Richard, and didn’t get that feeling at all.
what i did get out of it, though, is that — with the book and McClellan himself a target of barbs from “former” friends — he must be at a permanent adrenalin high — he was remarkably articulate and coherent, things he didn’t achieve as press secretary.
before countdown, i watched gregory’s race to the whitehouse, where the gregory and his gang of four were arguing about how much of an “insider” mcclellan really is.
if there was a consensus, it was that mcclellan was not “inner” circle, thus making unlikely that he could speak too authoritatively about decision-making in the WH on iraq..
my reaction to that, regardless of its truth, is that the general public won’t be as discerning, but will make up their mind about the book with a more impressionistic response, acccording to where they stand on the war.