Editor's note: Tonight on AC360° we have Anderson's interview with Scott McClellan. You can read the entire transcript here, but note: this is a rush transcript, there are typos and abbreviations. No need to point each one out!
Anderson Cooper: TODAY THE WHITE HOUSE SEEMS TO HAVE A NEW TALKING POINT OUT ABOUT YOU. FOR DAYS IT'S JUST KINDA BEEN.. WE'RE PUZZLED, SCRATCHING OUR HEADS, THIS IS NOT THE SCOTT WE KNEW. TODAY, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESPERSON DANA PERINO HAD SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY LET'S LISTEN...
DANA:
"And our central objection to the book is that it is not based in fact and I think that one of ther reasons we are puzzled and surprised and saddened by it is because...the...charge, the loaded charge in the book...is that the president and his senior advisors purposefully misled people in to war and we sent our young men and women knowing something we weren't telling the american people. That is not true."
Anderson Cooper: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE?
Scott McClellan: Uh..First of all I have a lot of fineness for Dana Perino. I actually hired her and brought her on the staff when she was deputy press secretary. Returning to the comments she made today the White House is now suggesting that they deliberately misled the American people, and that is actually not what i say in the book. I said that it was not deliberate or conscious.
AC: SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY ATTACKING YOU FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SAID IN THE BOOK.
SM: That's right. I think she said today... she has not read the book, and i would encourage her to read the book to see wehre I'm coming from. I think she knows me very well and knows that what I do say is sincere.
AC: YOU DO TALK A LOT ABOUT DECEPTION IN THE BOOK THOUGH, YOU DON'T SAY THAT THEY OUT AND OUT LIED. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
SM: Well, there may not be a lot of difference in terms of both are very problematic in the end in their own right.
AC: SO WHY NOT SAY THAT THE WHITE HOUSE LIED?
SM: Well, here's why...because what happens in Washington DC today is you have a lot of good people that come there for the right reasons to make a difference, but they get caught up in this permanent campaign culture where it's all about manipulating the narrative to their advantage. It's about spin and political manipulation. And I think it's time for us to get beyond that because I think what's happening is that there's this partisan warfare breaking out in the last fifteen years that has really been a deservice to the American people. But what happens when that permanent campaign mentality gets transferred to issues of war and piece then it becomes particularly troubling because we went and sold... oversold the case...to the American people on the war. And... not only that, but the emphasis was more on the weapons of mass destruction than really the driving motivation behind the decision to go to war, which was the president's desire to transform the middle east through the spread of democracy. An idealistic vision. A vision that I clinged to when I was press secretary. It was something that was hopeful...
AC: YOU SAID THAT THAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S REAL MOTIVATION. THAT THIS DESIRE TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW THAT?
SM: Because when I became press secretary and before I became press secretary I started to sense that on meetings with him...
AC: WHAT DO YOU MEAN SENSE IT?
SM: Well from his own comments...When he would speak before the republican governor's association in private and talk about... he talks about it very passionately... it's sincere, it's authentic. He really believes that Iraq could be the linchpin for transforming the middle east. And we don't know what history will say 30..40..50 years from now. But I would sit in on world leader meetings with him where he would look at those world leaders and talk....there's nothing he talks more passionately about.
AC: SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S WHAT'S IN HIS MIND... THAT'S WHAT'S IN HIS HEART BUT THEY HAD TO SELL IT A DIFFERENT WAY...
SM: Well yes, and I think even Paul Wolfowitz even said that...and I reference his comments in the book when he told a reporter that what everybody decided that the chief rational should be ...uh...was the weapons of mass destruction case. And what happened was ... we took intelligence of high confidence, intelligence medium confidence, and low confidence, package it all together ... and then.. made it sound more urgent more grave and more threatening than it really was in the end.
AC: HERE'S WHAT YOU SAID IN 2006, JUST A FEW WEEKS BEFORE YOU STEPPED DOWN AS PRESS SECRETARY.
VIDEO: SM: There are people out there making irresponsible accusations that intelligence was manipulated or that intelligence was misused. There's been no evidence to back that up whatsoever
AC: NOW HERE'S WHAT YOU SAY IN THE BOOK... YOU WRITE THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION..AND I QUOTE, "MAKE THE WMD THREAT AND THE IRAQI CONNECTION TO TERRORISM APPEAR JUST A LITTLE MORE CERTAIN...USING INNUENDO AND IMPLICATION TO ENCOURAGE AMERICANS TO BELIEVE AS FACT SOME THINGS THAT WERE UNCLEAR OR POSSIBLY FALSE." THAT SOUNDS LIKE INTELLIGENCE BEING MANIPULATED AND BEING MISUSED. NO?
SM: Well upon reflection I was wrong. There are a couple of issues here. The intelligence comittee and other have gone in and looked at how the intelligence was used by policy makers or whether or not there was pressure on the intelligence analysts to change the intelligence. What they have not done is.. or at least not report yet is gone in and looked at how the policy makers used that intelligence to sell war to the American people, and there's a distinction here...
AC: YOU SAY UPON REFLECTION YOU REALIZED YOU WERE WRONG, BUT I MEAN THAT WAS THREE YEARS INTO YOUR TERM. THAT WAS RIGHT BEFORE YOU ALMOST LEFT...YOU ALREADY HAD A LOT OF DOUBTS... HOW COULD YOU SELL IT SO FORCEFULLY... ALMOST SO ANGRILY, WHEN IN TRUTH, ACCORDING TO YOUR BOOK, YOU WERE HAVING DOUBTS.
SM: Well, uh, I was having doubts about the build-up to the war, and then when after the war I clung to the hope that we could transform the Middle East. That Iraq would become this free democracy. Maybe someday it will...uh... but the point is you get caught up in that White House bubble and some of the larger perspective is obsucred. You don't see those larger perspect....
AC: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU GET CAUGHT UP IN THE WHITE HOUSE BUBBLE. IT'S NOT A BUNKER! YOU GOT INTERNET ACCESS, YOU GOT NEWSPAPERS...
SM: Well there's a little bit of a bunker mentality because you're there, you have this great affection for the person you're working for and it's hard to step back from all of that and really reflect... I mean you got a bunch of people around you that you're working with..
AC: BUT I MEAN YOU'RE THE PRESSER. YOU READ THE NEWSPAPER EVERYDAY. IN THE BOOK YOU WRITE ABOUT HOW PRESIDENT BUSH TURNS OFF TELEVISION BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO SEE THE NEWS...BUT IT WAS YOUR JOB TO SEE WHAT EVERYONE WAS WRITING, AND INTERACTING WITH THE PRESS ALL DAY. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU DIND'T HAVE ACCESS TO DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. HOW COULD YOU DISCOUNT THEM?
SM: Well at that time period that you referenced that .... at that last 10 months as press secreatry... I talk about in the book how I was become increasingly disillusioned there in that time period because when I found out that I have been knowingly lied to by Karl Rove, Scotter Libby, in the Valerie Plane leak episode and passed along false information based on their assurances two years prior to that saying that they were involved...
AC: BUT WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT YOU THAT YOU ONLY GET DISILLUSIONED WHEN THEY LIE TO YOU, BUT WHEN THEY'RE LYING TO EVERYONE ELSE AND YOU'RE A PART OF IT THAT'S OK.
SM: Well again, that's the whole atmosphere there. We're caught up in this whole Washington game that we're all trying to advocate for the president trying to shape the narrative to our advantage.... and you know.. it is inherently deceptive. Most of it is incidental or harmless. But when it gets transferred into these issues of war and peace then it becomes more troubling... and that's what, when I look back and when through this book.. and it was a long process going through it.. thinking about and reflecting about and challenging my own assumptions and interpretations and coming to those conclusions.
AC: HERE'S WHAT ARI FLESCHER SAID TO ME TWO DAYS AGO...TAKE A LOOK.
Video: Ari Flescher: Fact is...Scott was deputy press secretary at the time.. in 2002. His jurisdiction was over health and human services.. the justice department. He wouldn't have been in the position to hear some of the sensitive things that he's now writing about
AC: HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE RUN-UP TO THE WAR...NOW A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE... PAGE 144.. YOU WRITE, "SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL WAS APPARENTLY THE ONLY ADVISER WHO EVEN TRIED TO RAISE DOUBTS ABOUT THE WISDOM OF WAR. THE REST OF THE FOREIGN POLICY TEAM SEM TO BE PREOCCUPIED WITH REGIME CHANGE OR, IN THE CASE OF CONDI RICE, SEEMINGLY MORE INTERESTED IN ACCOMODATING THE PRESIDENT'S INSTINCTS AND IDEAS THAN IN QUESTIONING THEM OR EDUCATING HIM." IT'S A LOT OF "APPARENTLIES" AND "SEEMS"... DO YOU KNOW THIS FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE?
SM: Yes I was working around those individuals and I actually ...Ari kind of tries to paint it into black and white terms... when I was deputy press secratary..
AC: HE'S THE FORMER SPOKESMAN... HE'S SPINNING...
SM: Hah.. that's right.. Yeah that's what happens too much in Washinton DC. Which is part of my point... but when I was deputy press secretary... I would fill in for Ari from time to time, and in fact I ...
AC: SO YOU SAY YOU WERE IN THESE MEETINGS...
SM: Yes, I participated in the White House-Iraq Group meetings when he was gone. He was gone for 10 days on his wedding. There were other times I filled in for him, travelled with the Presdient and participated in world leader meetings... and so I was there... The White House-Iraq Group... for your viewers who might want to know... was this group set up specifically for the marketing or selling of the war to the American people.
AC: SO WMD, THAT WAS ABOUT MARKETING AND MANIPULATION?
SM: well yes, now the overall strategy for that was developed over the course of the summer leading into the fall and i wasn't involved in those meetings. but I did become involved in meetings at that group continued, as we accelerated the buildup to the war.
AC: YOU'RE NOT SAYING THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE THERE WERE WMD. THEY BELIEVED, YOU BELIEVED THERE WERE WMD. BUT THE DECISION TO FOCUS ON IT, THE DECISION TO SELL THAT AS THE REASON TO GO TO WAR, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WAS MANIPULATION.
SM: my point is that we weren't as open and forthright as we should have been. we should have embraced a high level of openness and forthrightness in addition to that, and then the expectations wouldn't have gotten so out of whack, we wouldn't have gotten into the problem we came to later when the president's credibility starting really falling because we weren't open and forthright and then he couldn't admit any mistakes. Now, I know the president. And I talk about this in the book. I give a very vivid example of him looking through the crystal ball. If he knew, now he'll never be able to say this and I understand why, I think most people would, its human nature. And by the way, one of the people I’m hardest on in this book is myself. I point out my own flaws during this process.
AC: I DONT KNOW ABOUT THAT. YOU DO SAY WE A LOT, YOU DONT SEEM TO BE TAKING PERSONAL - SOMETIMES IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE PORTRAYING YOURSELF AS A VICTIM. DO YOU THINK YOU'RE A VICTIM?
SM: well at times I think I may have been, but I also put myself in that situation so I have to accept responsibility for it. I should have known better. But I was a young press secretary at the time.
AC: DO YOU THINK YOU OWE AN APOLOGY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? I MEAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE PRESS, THE PEOPLE WATCH YOU ON THAT PODIUM AND THINK YOU'RE TELLING THE TRUTH AND THINK YOUR JOB IS TO INFORM PEOPLE. BUT EVERYTHING YOU'RE WRITING ABOUT, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT'S THE WAY YOU SAW YOUR JOB. IN FACT IT SEEMED LIKE DISINFORMATION.
SM: I was sincere at the time. Now, looking back and reflecting on that I have a different perspective on it–
AC: WELL NO, IS THAT REALLY TRUE? BECAUSE ON SOME OF THE HURRICANE KATRINA STUFF, YOU WRITE THAT YOUR JOB WAS TO NOT FOCUS, NOT ALLOW CRITICISM TO HIT THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE FEDERAL GOVT, BUT TO REDIRECT IT TO LOCAL AND STATE. I MEAN, THAT WASN'T SINCERE. THAT WAS A DESIRE TO JUST DEFLECT. DEFLECT, DEFLECT. WHEN YOU KNEW THE WHITE HOUSE-
SM: I wouldn't have said it exactly like that, but there was a breakdown at all levels of government. And I said that from the podium when I was there.
AC: BUT THOSE COMMENTS WERE NOT SINCERE.
SM: that there was a breakdown at all levels of government? That was sincere. When I said that at the time, that all levels of government failed in their responsibility. But the federal government should have taken more responsibility. because to the American people, I think the fed government is the failsafe backstop to all that and when people are overwhelmed at the local and state level it's important for the federal government to come in quickly and assert their responsibility, and we didn't.
AC: I WANT TO PLAY A KATRINA BITE –
THERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO TALK TO FEMA. BUT ELSEWHERE IN THE BOOK, YOU TALK ABOUT SEEING YOUR JOB AS DEFLECTING BLAME FROM THE WHITE HOUSE ON KATRINA.
SM: well that's what happens in the whole atmosphere of the Washington game. sometimes you do try to deflect blame and responsibility. but I’ve said-
AC: WELL THAT'S NOT SINCERE.
SM: I think that, I’m not saying that everybody who goes out and does that in Washington dc isn't sincere. I mean that implies that they're sinister or deliberately doing this. I think they just get caught up in the whole Washington game and that's what happens. and that's why I’m saying we must change this, we need to move Washington beyond this, and that's why I hope my book in some small way will contribute to doing that.
AC: BUT ISN'T THAT A COPOUT TO JUST SAY I GOT CAUGHT UP IN THE WASHINGTON GAME? THERE ARE FOLKS WHO STAND UP AND RESIGN ON PRINCIPLE AND SAY YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT RIGHT. EVERY DAY IN MY JOB I THINK AM I, IS WHAT I'M DOING FAIR? IS IT THE WAY I'M PORTRAYING THINGS ACCURATE? AM I SHOWING ANY BIAS? ARE THE PEOPLE AROUND ME SHOWING BIAS? THESE ARE DAILY CONSIDERATIONS. DID YOU NOT HAVE THOSE DAILY CONSIDERATIONS? DID YOU NOT REFLECT, READ THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPTS OF STUFF YOU SAID AND SAID YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M ACTUALLY JUST DEFLECTING BLAME ONTO THE LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT WHO DESERVE PLENTY OF BLAME GOD KNOWS IN HURRICANE KATRINA, BUT WE DESERVE SOME BLAME TOO.
SM: yeah and we did accept some responsibility at the time. we probably should have accepted more responsibility. but no, I would disagree with you to some extent in what you're saying, because it's just the way we all are idealistic, and we go to Washington and we think we are there to make a positive difference. but then what happens is you get caught up in the spin and manipulation and you lose sight of the larger perspective on things.
AC: SO YOU, IN YOUR MIND, WHEN YOU'RE IN THAT BUBBLE, OR BUNKER AS YOU SAID, YOU CAN JUSTIFY EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE YOUR POSITION IS RIGHT AND YOU'RE FIGHTING OFF, EVERYONE ELSE IS PLAYING PARTISAN POLITICS BUT WHEN YOU'RE IN THE BUBBLE, YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS REALLY RIGHT.
SM: no, you're engaged and you have your partisan hat on. and that's the problem. that's the problem, that we're all focused on trying to manipulate the narrative to our advantage and we lose sight of the importance of how we can work together through deliberation and compromise.
AC: I THINK THAT WILL SHOCK PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTUALLY A CIVIL SERVANT. YOU'RE A CIVIL SERVANT. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A POLITICAL PARTISAN.
SM: well, we are, the elected leaders represent their parties to some extent. too much these days, is one of the points I make is that it's too much about party and too little about party. and we need to put the country first and put the party lower.
AC: WHEN PEOPLE SEE YOU AT THE PODIUM OR DANA PERINO OR ANYONE SPEAKING FROM THE WH PODIUM, SHOULD THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY? DO YOU BELIEVE WHAT THE WH SPOKESPERSON SAYS?
SM: well I don’t think you can put a blanket over everything and say that all of it's that way, but you do have to look through. you've done a good job of it in the past and continue to do a good job with keeping them honest when you look at some of those issues.
AC: NOW YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO BUTTER ME UP.
SM: actually I say it in the book too. not you specifically but I mention it as one of the areas where the media is doing a good job. and I mention some of the changes we need to look at to improve the situation–
AC: SHOULD PEOPLE LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THE WH PODIUM WITH A GRAIN OF SALT?
SM: well unfortunately I think too many people today do look at Washington and say all they're giving us is spin and manipulation, and they're not working together to get things done.
AC: I HAVE TO SAY AFTER READING THE BOOK, AND I HAVE READ THE WHOLE BOOK, IT MAKES ME I MEAN NOT ONLY TRIPLE OR DOUBLE THINK, BUT DOUBT EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING SAID BY ANY POLITICIAN OR ANY SPOKESPERSON WHATSOEVER.
SM: well that's your job anyway–
AC: RIGHT AND I ALWAYS HAVE. BUT IF I'M A CITIZEN, I SUDDENLY THINK, THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST LYING.
SM: well that's why we need to move beyond this. and that's why i offer ways to do that by talking about embracing candor and honesty at a high level by appointing a deputy chief of staff for governing the white house. no one can do more to set the right tone than the president. he has the biggest bully pulpit and if the pres is committed to embracing a high level of openness and honesty, then we can move washington beyond this partisan warfare that has been so destructive.
AC: THERE'S IRONY IN THE WAY THE WH IS ATTACKING YOU. IT'S GOT TO BE PAINFUL IRONY FOR YOU. BUT IT'S EXACTLY THE WAY YOU ATTACKED OTHERS FOR WRITING BOOKS. WHEN RICHARD CLARKE CAME OUT WITH HIS BOOK, THE EXACT SAME COULD BE SAID ABOUT YOU WORD FOR WORD.
SM: and it has been said about me by the wh.
AC: NOT QUITE AS ELOQUENTLY.
SM: thank you. those were the talking points at the time and like i said, i was caught up in that game. i actually saw dick clarke last night here in nyc and we had a brief conversation and i expressed my regret for what i did back then. a lot of people are out there are the white house and allies, former colleagues, are talking about my motivations and talking about the content and they haven't even read the book themselves. now you have, you had a chance to do that and others had a chance to do that, but i think when people look through the book and read it they're going to see my sincerity in the book based on my upbringing and based on my committment to public service and making a positive difference.
AC: WHEN POLITICO.COM IS REPORTING THAT BOB DOLE SENT YOU AN EMAIL, I KNOW YOU GOT THE EMAIL. PART OF THE EMAIL READS "THERE ARE MISERABLE CREATURES LIKE YOU IN EVERY ADMIN, WHO DONT HAVE THE GUTS TO SPEAK UP OR QUIT IF THERE ARE DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE BOSS OR COLLEAGUES... NO, YOUR TYPE SOAKS UP THE BENEFITS OF POWER, REVELS IN THE LIMELIGHT FOR YEARS, THEN QUITS, AND SPURRED ON BY GREED, CASHES IN WITH A SCATHING CRITIQUE."
TOUGH WORDS.
SM: they are. and i have great respect for senator dole, he's a great public servant and someone who has served in the military as well and someone who actually did try to work across the aisle with democratic leaders at times, back before things got so bitterly partisan in washington dc. but i would encourage him to see what i say in the book before he makes those comments.
AC: WHY DIDN'T YOU QUIT ON PRINCIPLE? WHY DIDN'T YOU GO TO ARI FLEISCHER WHEN HE WAS YOUR BOSS AND EXPRESS DOUBTS?
SM: well first of all, at that time period like i said i was giving the admin the benefit of the doubt in the buildup to the iraq war and the decision to go to war. like a lot of americans were, i was concerned about the rush to war, whether we needed to do it. i was concerned about the necessity to some extent, to some extent. because i'm a person from a moral standpoint that believes we should not be going to war unless it's absolutely necessary. but when i really started to become disillusioned with things was when i found out that karl rove and scooter libby, basically right before media reports were going to show it, that they had knowingly misled me, that i had been misled by those individuals.
AC: YOU TALK ABOUT ON–
SM: and i did at that time start to think about resigning and by the time of april '06 i was ready to move on, after i learned about the president having secretly declassified parts of the national intel estimate. something that we had decried for years.
AC: RIGHT, SELECTIVE LEAKING.
SM: it's something i had said on his behalf, something he had said himself–
AC: SO HOW DOES IT WORK? THE ATTACK ON RICHARD CLARKE, THOSE WERE THE TALKING POINTS FOR THE DAY. DOES SOMEONE TYPE UP THE TALKING POINTS? WE USED TO DO A TALKING POINTS SEGMENT WHICH WAS KIND OF DECONSTRUCTING YOUR COMMENTS AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR WHAT YOUR TALKING POINTS WERE BECAUSE YOU WOULD STICK TO THEM OVER AND OVER AGAIN. BUT SO YOU JUST SAY, THERE'S A MEETING IN THE MORNING, COME UP, OK THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SAY, AND YOU JUST GO UP AND JUST PARROT IT?
SM: you see the way it's being regurgitated now. i wouldn't say just parrot it. i mean it depends on the circumstances and what the issue is, because you deal with a multitude of issues at any one time. there are a lot of issues where you didn't necessarily need talking points. there were some issues where we did develop talking points in the instance of dick clarke and so forth. we talked about it internally and i was out there giving the response on behalf of the white house and on behalf of the president. that was my job to do that as his spokesman.
AC: HERE'S ANOTHER LINE BEING USED AGAINST YOU– HINTS THAT YOU DIDN'T WRITE THIS BOOK, THAT SOME CLEVER EDITOR TWEAKED IT AND YOU'RE JUST GOING ALONG WITH IT. DID YOU WRITE THE BOOK? DID AN EDITOR TWEAK IT?
SM: yes i wrote it. ari's still got his spin hat on right now. it's not accurate what he was saying in terms of our conversation. that was before any reports of the book had come out. he had just touched base with me. i consider ari a friend. and we had a conversation. he had written a book and he was wanting to know how things went, what it might say, and i kind of gave him, i said it's a tough book. but i believe i've gotten to the truth from my perspective in this book. and he was asking questions about it and what i referred to was the normal editing process that anybody goes through when they write a book. you know, the ironic part about this is that it was ari the one that initially planted the seed in my head, you might want to consider writing a book about your experiences.
AC: GEORGE TENET WROTE A BOOK AND GOT A 4 MILLION DOLLAR ADVANCE. HOW MUCH OF AN ADVANCE DID YOU GET?
SM: well there's actually an article in the nyt today that talks about public affairs, my publisher.
AC: AND THEY SAY THEY DONT GIVE ADVANCES MORE THAN SIX FIGURES.
SM: 16;11:46 that's correct, that's an accurate account of things.
AC: SO YOU DIDN'T GET MORE THAN SIX FIGURES.
SM: well i'm not going to get specifically into it but when people say he's out there to make a profit, 1 they dont know me or my upbringing and my reasoning- they haven't had a chance to read the book. and 2, they dont know public affairs and the kind of publisher that they are.
AC: YOU SAID YOU WERE UNCERTAIN ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WAR AND THE NEW DOCTRINE OF PRE-EMPTION THAT WAS USED TO GO TO WAR. IF THAT IS TRUE, IF YOU REALLY WERE UNCERTAIN, HOW COULD YOU GET UP THERE EVERY DAY AND LIKE AN EMPTY VESSEL JUST POUR OUT THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE TELLING YOU TO SAY.
SM: i dont know if i'd use the word empty vessel per se. but when you're the spokesman, you dont get to pick and choose what issues you agree with or dont agree with. there are many issues, probably the vast majority of issues where i agreed with the president and i was strongly advocating for him. but then there are other issues where the president is the decision maker, he's the ultimate policy maker. and as a spokesman, you're there to advocate on his behalf. like i said, during that time, i was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. that benefit of the doubt was misplaced upon reflection.
AC: IN THE BOOK, MY YOUR OWN ADMISSION YOU SAY YOU DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS. AND YET IT SEEMED LIKE YOU HAD NO PROBLEM ACTING LIKE YOU HAD ALL THE FACTS.
SM: well i trusted the team that was around the president. and at times you have to believe the information you're given is true. and i think from their standpoint that they do sincerely believe it, but i think some of their thinking is misplaced.
AC: WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THE BUSH WH THAT THEY WANTED A SPOKESMAN WHO DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE FACTS, AND WASN'T GOING TO MAKE ANY NEWS OR GET IN FRONT OF THE PRESIDENT, AND IN ANY WAY WAS JUST THERE STONEWALLING.
SM: well not always the case with that. yes, there were certainly times when that was happening on some major issues. but you have briefings every day, a lot of them dont get that widely covered and you're talking about a lot of different policy issues but on some of these big issues, yeah there was this mentality yeah we should have a wall between the wh and the press. and a spokesman shouldn't be out there getting too far out in front of the president. you can understand that to an extent. but some people in the white house go to excessive limits about how much information they want to share not only with the press, but with the spokesman himself. and i talk about this in great detail in the book, about one of the problems.
i had a lot of access. i could go to the president any time i want. but there was also this compartmentalization in the white house where discussions were had between maybe the president and a few others and it wasn't in the policy briefings and it wasn't in the other meetings that i was attending and so you didn't know the real motivation behind some of those decisions in the end.
AC: WHEN PRES BUSH SAID BROWNIE YOU'RE DOING A HECK OF A JOB, DID HE BELIEVE IT?
SM: well we actually talked about that right after that. what happened was, we go down to, let's see, that was alabama on our first stop down to new orleans that first friday, i believe. and it had been arranged for the president to go and meet with some of the coast guard people who were doing an outstanding as you know, a remarkable job saving lives. and then the president was going to say a few words to the cameras. and mike brown happened to be there and walked right up next to him. and after that happened, the president kind of looked at us, well if you dont want me to say something, i got to pump morale up, and you put him right next to me and so the president was kind of, from his viewpoint, he had to say it, he was standing right next to him, he was trying to keep his morale up. in retrospect it was probably not a good thing to do.
AC: JUST A COUPLE FINAL THINGS. AS YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THIS BOOK YOU'VE BEEN CALLED ON BY ROBERT WEXLER TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON BOTH SUBJECTS, BOTH VALERIE PLAME AND THE LEAD UP TO THE WAR. WOULD YOU DO THAT?
SM: well i'm glad to share my views. i haven't had any requests as far as i know at this point from the judiciary committee. but certainly on the valerie plame leak episode, everything i know is really in the book and is fully consistent with everything i said to the prosecutors.
AC: ARE YOU STILL A REPUBLICAN?
SM: well, you know there are things i like about the republicans, republican ideas, and there are democrat ideas i like. i haven't thought too far down the road. what i'm most focused on right now is looking at ways we can move beyond this partisan atmosphere and change washington.
AC: BECAUSE SOME OF THE THINGS YOU SAY IN THE BOOK AND WRITE ABOUT, IT DOES SOUND LIKE YOU'RE AN OBAMA SUPPORTER.
SM: well i'm actually, well some of what obama says, his overall message, is very similar to the one we ran on in 2000 about changing the way washington works and what i had so much hope in. but it's a very difficult thing to do. and i hope some of the obama staff will take a look at this and consider what they need to do if they become president. as well as senator mccain. i have a lot of respect for senator mccain. and he's–
AC: SO YOU HAVEN'T MADE UP YOUR MIND.
SM: no, i've not made a decision in terms of the presidential election. i'm someone who believes in centrist governing philosophy. and that's what the president believed in as govenor, but as president he moved too far to the right too often.
AC: THE PRESIDENT TOLD A CROWD IN SALT LAKE CITY, THE PRESIDENT TOLD A CROWD LAST NIGHT THAT HE WAS GOING TO WORK TO FORGIVE YOU. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU NEED TO BE FORGIVEN OF?
SM: no, there isn't. because i've never felt like i've seen things more clearly in my entire life than i have now. after going through this very long and rigorous process to try to get to the truth and understand the larger truths from my perspective. this is the truth from my perspective. i know the president is not going to be happy about this. the white house didn't want me to talk openly about these events and about my views on things. but we have to talk about this. if it takes talking about unpleasant truths to change washington, then so be it.
AC: SO WHAT WAS IT. WHEN YOU GOT OUT OF THE WH, YOU GOT OUT OF THIS BUBBLE YOU CALL IT, THIS BUNKER, AND STARTED TO SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY. WAS THERE A MOMENT, SOME CATALYST, WAS THERE SOME ARTICLE YOU READ, SOME BLOG, SOMETHING THAT MADE YOU SUDDENLY SAY. AND WHENEVER THAT MOMENT HIT, DID YOU SUDDENLY SAY MY GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE?
SM: it was a whole work in process when i was going through writing the book and reflecting on things. you dont have a lot of time, you should make time, but sometimes it's hard to spend time reflecting. and this is a wh that doesn't like to look back. the president doesn't like to spend time reflecting. and that's understandable to some extent. but our elected leaders need to have more reflection in order to be able to learn from their mistakes. i think in many ways he's learned from his mistakes. he says knowing what he knows today, he would still make the same decision to go into iraq. i dont, i think he believes that, i think he's convinced himself to believe that, but i dont think it's true. i know him, and i know he's politically savvy enough to know that he would never make that same decision if he could have a crystal ball and see—
AC: YOU THINK IF HE, TO LOOK BACK HE WOULD NOT DO THE SAME THINGS AGAIN? HE WOULD NOT GO TO IRAQ?
SM: i think from a practical standpoint he couldnt' have done the same thing and i think he recognzies that. but at the same time—
AC: YOU THINK HE WOULD'VE GONE INTO IRAQ IN A DIFFERENT WAY OR JUST NOT GONE INTO IRAQ AT ALL?
SM: well, i think he would have had to have approached it in a differnet way, certainly. i think it was smart to confront Saddam Hussein but our options were either Saddam comes clean or we go to war. there are other ways we could have addressed that. Even Brent Scocroft, the President's father's national security advisor warned against going to war saying it wasn't necessary to go and remove Saddam Hussein from power before we went to war.
AC: LET ME PUT THAT QUESTION TO YOU THEN, IF YOU HAD TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN, WOULD YOU BECOME THE SPOKESMAN? IF SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO DIFFERENTLY?
SM: i don't know, i struggled–i spent a chapter on this, i struggled with whether or not i should move forward with becoming press secretary because of the secrecy and compartmentalization that exists in this white house and i wondered if i could do the job the way i wanted to.
AC: YOUR MOM SAID GO FOR IT, YOUR BROTHER SAID GO FOR IT—
SM: they all said you should do it, it's a great opportunity. and it was an amazing opportunity, opportunity of a lifetime and i've learned an awful lot this whole–the whole time there was a political education for me and then going back and reflecting on it, i've learned an awful lot more. and i hope that in some small way it might contribute to changing things here in Washington.
AC: IT'S A FASCINATING BOOK, IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE A HUGE BESTSELLER AND I'M SURE YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF TOUGH DAYS AHEAD BUT THANKS FOR BEING WITH US.
SM: thanks, Anderson. glad to be here
| Barb |
May 30th, 2008 8:49 pm ET Does McClellan support Obama,and does he have anything to gain by Obama winning. |
|
| Cindy |
May 30th, 2008 8:52 pm ET Great interview Anderson! I can't wait to see it tonight to actually read his body language as he speaks. That tells a lot about someone and if they are lying or not. I still say he is in it for the money though. Cindy...Ga. |
|
| Victor in Saanich, B.C. Canada |
May 30th, 2008 8:59 pm ET AC – Being attacked by paid political/ corporate spokespersons these days is usually quite a compliment!! The notion of not towing the 'company line' is a fallacy indeed!! These people have a vested interest in keeping their highly paid jobs and the perks that go with them- and the truth for the state/ nation be damned!! AC- CNN, during the Democratic race, has allowed an injustice to the viewer by allowing party mouthpieces to spew their socalled independent opinions when in reality it tows the party line. The viewer would best be served by independent viewpoints, even if it meant from the international stage. |
|
| Annie Kate |
May 30th, 2008 9:13 pm ET Fascinating interview and pretty comprehensive. Scott doesn't seem to have revealed anything that the public did not already suspect especially about the inaction of the White House on Katrina. I'm looking forward to reading the book and actually seeing for myself what McCellan said and what he didn't say. Annie Kate |
|
| molly |
May 30th, 2008 9:49 pm ET good interview AC |
|
| Lisette Chicago, IL |
May 30th, 2008 9:55 pm ET I have absolutely no interest in Scott Mcclellan. This Scott guy should have said something at the time-he didn't |
|
| Frank Mcgadfraidth |
May 30th, 2008 10:11 pm ET Hi Anderson, Love you, love your show. I am watching your interview with McClelland and I find it funny you said that now you will double and triple think anything said by a politician may be a lie. Everybody has thought that for the last 50 years. It's no secret. It truly kills me that media people, political pundits, etc, seem to think that the average Joe has to be told what to think. Most people just don't voice that because we all know there is absolutely nothing we could say or do would change what media puts on T.V. Nor would it make a politician not lie. It's a given. You really can't be that out of touch with the masses. |
|
| john joseph |
May 30th, 2008 10:14 pm ET Pl. ask him did anyone asked Bush why dodn't we wait for UN inspection in Iraq ? |
|
| Abrahem |
May 30th, 2008 10:14 pm ET The Neo-Conservatives are done, when you see Bob Dole. Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, and all the Neo-Cons unite, you know they're running scared. Hopefully the party will go back to the Goldwater/Taft/Hoover conservative days. Abrahem |
|
| Trisha |
May 30th, 2008 10:15 pm ET The more they attack this guy the more we the american people know he is telling the truth in this book. if he is supporting Obama now that speaks loudly, apparently what ever that he had learned was bad enough for him to take off the Rose Colored glasses and see it for what it really was. |
|
| Julie-Sioux City, IA |
May 30th, 2008 10:17 pm ET I tend to believe Scott McClellen. I voted for George Bush, both in 2000 and 2004 and I've come to regret that decision. I think Mr. McClellen was caught in a very bad position while working as Press Secretary. President Bush should look at Scott McClellen as a role model - if he came clean, and both Bush and Cheney left office, and were truthful, history may be able to forgive them. |
|
| Maria Buss |
May 30th, 2008 10:18 pm ET Scott McClellan demonstrates unparalleled hypocrisy ever- he realizes years after that he executed the duties of his position against his better judgement? Give me a break! |
|
| bettystanfield@sbcglobal.net |
May 30th, 2008 10:21 pm ET Clearly Scott McClellan is not worthy of trust. He played the system for his own benefit as is typical of most people in politics. Now, he sees the public's displeasure at Bush and, again, sees an opportunity to benefit himself. He may be telling the truth, we KNOW Bush's intentions for Irag were personal not for WMDs, but he manages to come across as totally self-serving! |
|
| Judy from Long Island |
May 30th, 2008 10:23 pm ET Anderson Cooper, I'm currently watching you interview Scott M. I am so surprised at your perspective. I am just an average citizen from a small town on Long Island and I don't think washington dc is run by a bunch of civil servant minded individuals that rarely engage in partisan spin. Frankly, you sound a little silly. I see DC as a bottleneck of opposing spins that accomplishes little, very little. Its clear, to me anyway, that Scott was devoted to Bush and participated in the spin and now is exposing the inner workings of the spin machine. |
|
| Geraldine - Pennsylvania |
May 30th, 2008 10:26 pm ET I am really surprised at your level of reporting Anderson; you were my last link to responsible journalism; but after watching you beat up on the messenger I realize you are the same as all of the other cnn correspondents – just part of the elite few that control the world and the press – the real issue is that we were lied into this world – you knew this to be true and you allowed it to happen so why are you condemning scott for finally facing his demons and coming out with the true – instead of grilling him you should be commending him for have the guts to finally telling the truth. You are just are responsible as he is in this mess for not standing up to the establishment and asking the tough questions. shame on you |
|
| Ida Camps |
May 30th, 2008 10:30 pm ET Anderson you are so rude. Did your mother teach you not to inrrumpt when other person is answering your questions? CNN was part of that war propaganda machine. When CNN is going to apologize? |
|
| Emmanuel |
May 30th, 2008 10:31 pm ET It is amazing how the media can be used to create a spin and propel an agenda and people are still lost in an obscurantist miasma of incomprehension. In fact, if McClellan was to say it all, the entire government will collapse. There is a lot he withheld and did not provide that if he were to provide, this administration will be collapsing like a pack of card...There is also so much same people "in high place" had to hide that the DC never saw another day to tell. I believe everything Scott McClellan put in his book and came to think about it -how many of Bushes people have resigned? I am sure by the end of his administration, very few will be left. |
|
| DJ |
May 30th, 2008 10:32 pm ET Great interview and you really pushed him to give a straight answer. I noticed that Scott still had that ruthless attitude but appeared sincere and like he was telling the truth. He was a bulldog as Press Secretary...now he seems to have recognized the madness and pack of lies, wants to do the right thing. |
|
| Tammy, Berwick, LA |
May 30th, 2008 10:32 pm ET Nice job with the interview. I still don't buy this. I don't find McClellan sincere. I think there's a personal vendetta, and this isn't about taking the high road. I think it's about the six figures and him making a name for himself. He's an opportunist looking out for numero uno, Scott McClellan and not the American people. |
|
| Ava Pucci |
May 30th, 2008 10:35 pm ET I think it's the funniest thing ever to accuse Scott McClellan is for Obama and this book is a ploy for Obama's corner?... LOMA!!! Hello??? He is GOP...all the way! He should say sorry, to the American People for being a stupido, and not coming out with this when it really matter, and might have made a difference. I see what he is saying but still, it's a little late. |
|
| Tita |
May 30th, 2008 10:39 pm ET Anderson, I appreciate your work and you skill, however, just one small comment about the interview with McClellan: You didn't let him finish his sentences and kept interrupting his last words. Arrrg. You are so eager to jump in with a clip from the past or another question that you kept stepping on the last part of his sentences. I want to hear ALL of his response. And, I'm personally glad he's come clean. I bet he sleeps better at night, or maybe not? Thank you for your good work, |
|
| Susan Trechak |
May 30th, 2008 10:42 pm ET Anderson, as an aviation whistleblower [USDOL 2003AIR0005 & 2004AIR2008] I can explain a bit more about the reasons why Scott is having difficulty speaking up about his experience at a time when he could have made a huge difference (i.e., when he was still in the White House). No, I don't know Scott. But, I very much understand his predicament since I have been there myself. What Scott isn't telling you (and may not be able to sufficiently describe) is that very few people speak up no matter how grave the circumstances. Those that do (such as I did) are basically blackballed from working in that industry again (or in any other industry, for that matter). They are isolated and become the ultimate example to all others who ARE WORKING that "See?.......This is what happens to those who tell the truth and speak out." It doesn't matter that it involves public safety. The fact that a whistleblower dares expose the truth about a company – and perhaps the perpetuation of ongoing, unwritten subversive "rules" within that company – is, to the company involved, reason to annihilate & destroy that person. Scott may well know the truth of this statement. If he does, he also knows that there is no use trying to explain WHY he did what he did (and his reasons for and method of doing what he did) because he knows that NO ONE else will understand that fact unless that person has lived essentially the same experience. Absolutely NO ONE. I, myself, found very little support except for other industry whistleblowers around the country. There are very few people that will actually expose the truth because they know by way of examples already held before them that, should they do so, the retaliation will be swift and unending. This is called "chilling the workplace." I DID speak up while still working so have personal knowledge of this fact. Yes, I – having spoken up while still on the "inside" – do feel some disrespect for those that perpetuate the illegal activities (at public expense, of course) and wait until they can get out of there before talking about it. So, I do not totally respect what Scott did but I do emphatically understand. The real point, though, is that he dared to speak up at all – regardless of the fact that he will make a lot of money on this book. Money is superficial when compared to the content of what he is saying. What you and others should focus on is targeting this administration for the things that THEY did wrong (and for which they should be tried for war crimes) instead of picking on a person that had the guts to speak out – even after the fact. And, yes – just in case you want to know – I would do it again. Thanks!! Susan Parry Trechak |
|
| Abiola |
May 30th, 2008 10:44 pm ET Scot is a real man, a man with gut. I salute his courage, what he wrote in his book are things that majority of people outside ouside United State knew and believe strongly. Scotty, we expect version 2 of the book. very soon Abiola |
|
| Ruth Andresen |
May 30th, 2008 10:47 pm ET Hey Anderson- Please tell me why, if McClellan, and other people who have said the same accusatons against Pres. Bush, could prove the words they are saying, WHY can't Bush, Cheney, abd Rumsfield be brought to coourt and charged with war crimes-as they should be. Thank you |
|
| Sandra |
May 30th, 2008 10:47 pm ET I must commend Scott for his honesty, now I would like to ask the media to come clean and explain why they bought his deseptions. You also knew that not everything being said by Scott was true, he was the Press Secretary you had the access to him and you didn't ""keep them honest"". I actually saw Anderson cover Britney Spears when this is the real story that should have been told. |
|
| Montell from the 815 |
May 30th, 2008 11:06 pm ET It is a shame Scott McClellan could not just step aside if he felt this way. He is a traitor and a liar. He's making money off horrible character. |
|
| Brenda Holmes Gilbert |
May 30th, 2008 11:12 pm ET I agree with Cindy from Ga. He is in it for the money. When is America going to wake up and realize we are being represented by a bunch of incompetant liars Rep. and Dems. Check out NOTA web-site. None of the above. Get rid of 'em all. Brenda |
|
| Emma, Australia |
May 30th, 2008 11:14 pm ET On The Colbert Report last night: "That took balls, Scott – five years ago." I tend to agree with that. I'm not impressed with his "honesty". He can't even be straight in this interview. |
|
| kate |
May 30th, 2008 11:15 pm ET Dear Mr. Anderson. Overall, I think the Iraq war began because of Bush's paranoia and or anger of Iraq...for I think it now is well known that there were NO WMDs. |
|
| brian atohio |
May 30th, 2008 11:16 pm ET Now people are talking about war crimes.. omg If you believe Scott, then file war crimes against Scott. He is admitting to it, but now he has a change of heart. (or money) No, we shouldn't file war crimes against Bush or his team, they are not agreeing with Mr. McClellan. But, Scott is admitting to it. Bubble or not, put Scott away in prison. Also, give his money to charitable organizations.... lol – cause it isn't about the money right! |
|
| Henk Ahrens |
May 30th, 2008 11:16 pm ET Yes he owes an apology and a LOT MORE THAN THAT!! He is co-responsible for thousands of dead US soldiers 10's of thousands of seriously injured ones ,100's of thousands of PTSD cases ans possiblu as much as a milion dead Iraqi citizens!!! He is guilty of war crimes by association and sheer stupidity!! |
|
| clowny |
May 30th, 2008 11:16 pm ET This sounds like Dan Rathers again. I think scott knows that he need to walk a thin line. The white house can ruin your career. |
|
| Barbara |
May 30th, 2008 11:17 pm ET Bush and the MSM is BUSTED, so tear Scott up and make him the scapegoat! As always.... Impeach and start the trials for WAR CRIMES! Barb |
|
| Amy |
May 30th, 2008 11:18 pm ET Tammy, Berwick, LA May 30th, 2008 10:32 pm ET Nice job with the interview. I still don’t buy this. I don’t find McClellan sincere. I think there’s a personal vendetta, and this isn’t about taking the high road. I think it’s about the six figures and him making a name for himself. He’s an opportunist looking out for numero uno, Scott McClellan and not the American people. I do not find him sincere either. I am sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle but I hope this will at least help the average american to glimpse in how Washington works and not be led so blindly.. |
|
| brian atohio |
May 30th, 2008 11:20 pm ET why does Scott keep saying, Isn't he really just saying, I was lieing, that's what i got paid to do. JUST LIKE NOW.. He has a book of lies, and is getting paid for it.. To me, It looks like he is still "caught up in that same game" ! |
|
| Sharon Ohio |
May 30th, 2008 11:21 pm ET I think he is self serving. If he truly was sincere, He would of came forward and reported all this. Instead he wrote a book to make money. So His bank account is more important, than His country, the American people or his conscious. |
|
| Roseanna |
May 30th, 2008 11:23 pm ET Cooper was unduly harsh on McClellan. Why didn't our "free press" ask more questions and push harder these last eight years? McClellan hasn't told us anything we didn't already know. This White House has more political appointees than any other administration and they were all based on "loyalty." This is hardly an atmosphere that fosters indvidualistic thinking or behavior. If McClellan raised any concerns at the time, he wouldn't have been there very long. |
|
| Deanna |
May 30th, 2008 11:25 pm ET Great interview. Absolutely loved it. Although I have not trusted the government I am still intrigued by how McClellan seems to have an excuse every time you ask how he could basically lie over and over. It is so sad how people have no integrity. |
|
| Barb Powell |
May 30th, 2008 11:26 pm ET Scott is a hero for coming clean and being honest with the American people. Why is everyone attacking him? No doubt the man agonized about coming forward. Few in this Administration have been honest. And please stop saying everyone thought Iraq had WMD's. Many did not including France, etc. but they were all ignored in the rush to war. Scott finally saw the light as many others now have including those in Congress. He was duped and now exposes this deception for what it was. He should be admired as a true American trying to save our country by changing what is going on in Washington. |
|
| Olga |
May 30th, 2008 11:27 pm ET Anderson, I'm really disappointed in this interview. Your style is almost as bad as when Matt Lauer interviewed Kitty Kelly when she came out with her book on Bush. Come on, you know why this guy did what he did while he was working for the White House. Now he's coming clean and yes, the public needs to hear it! Why are you giving him such a hard time? You're being a bully and that's not your typical style. Most politicians are liars and the Bush administration has been the worst in history. Give this guy a break Anderson and let him speak the truth. |
|
| Pat Neptune Ft Lauderdale, Fl |
May 30th, 2008 11:29 pm ET Anderson, GREAT Interview!! Ruth has it RIGHT!! bush, cheney and rumsfield should be brought up on charges for war crimes. It took a lot of courage for scott to write this book. The tittle of President is one of Earned Respect.bush does not hold that tittle and never will.bush should be remembered in the same breath with hitler, MASS MURDERER, that is what bush/cheney are MASS MURDERERS CAPTAIN PATRICK NEPTUNE USA RETIRED |
|
| Lorie Ann, Buellton, California |
May 30th, 2008 11:29 pm ET Good interview, but when it was over, I wondered what I had really learned about the workings of inner circles in Washington. No one wants to admit it, but we all have been in a bunker mentality. We've all allowed ourselves to become cemented into partisan cubicles. We talk about each other like we're dirt, if we don't belong to this or that political party. Endless talking points have become an acceptable form of communication. Trouble is, we forgot to interrupt the spinning words before they had a chance to become gospel. Lorie Ann, Buellton, Calif. |
|
| Amalie |
May 30th, 2008 11:33 pm ET Asking him why he wasn't honest then, speaking out and resign on principle is well, unrealistic. Easier said then done. The man got caught up, how many times does he have to tell you. Probably for reasons we all get entangled in our own webs. The bottom line is we all make mistakes. The fact that he is making money off of this book is disturbing in a way but then again not really because IMAGINE being him looking for a job after disclosing this information. |
|
| Bob T |
May 30th, 2008 11:34 pm ET Why is Scott McClellan being grilled for moving away from the President? Isn't Bush's performance rating at all-time lows? It seems to me that he is just one of many americans that are simply beginning to recognize what the leadership of this country has become. Anderson, the only reason this is news is because of his position. His sentiment, a disillusionment with the Bush administration, is not at all uncommon. |
|
| Jolene |
May 30th, 2008 11:38 pm ET I'm also not buying everything McClellan is saying. His response to the "six figures" question was evasive. If he wants to show his honesty, he should be upfront with the fact that he will be making some big bucks on this book. Why didn't he just tell us how much he made on the book already? Why such a mystery? Not to mention doing all these interviews is promoting the sales of his book and coating his pockets even more. All this hoopla has done for me is to create more confusion about the role of Press Secretary. Jolene, St. Joseph, MI |
|
| Dana |
May 30th, 2008 11:38 pm ET Good interview, |
|
| Deb |
May 30th, 2008 11:44 pm ET thank You Anderson and Scott. The writing was on the wall before the Iraq invasion. The Bush doctrine and various other published sources would make anyone suspicious.Now, everyone is wondering what were they thinking. Well, right now the Bush White House is thinking about their credibility, which is shot. The more everyone goes after Scott McClellan, the more they look like they are covering their part in the fiasco that is Iraq, and that includes members of the press. Everyone knows the White House lied, are barely competent, and I shutter to think about how many constitutional violations they committed. But I need Congress to answer this question, this goes to their credibilty, why in Gods name have impeachment proceedings not been brought forth? |
|
| Zaceu |
May 30th, 2008 11:47 pm ET Hi Anderson, |
|
| Beth |
May 30th, 2008 11:49 pm ET I believe the man. Parker Palmer writes about a moment when a person decides they can "live divided no more" and then act in new way with a new commitment to a higher truth. I think that is what Scott McClellan is doing now. The book is about redemption. No one lives wholly purely and for the media (including you) to ask those accusatory questions to one-up the interviewee rather than to hold an open-ended, SLOWER dialogue with a real interest in illuminating his thoughts, and the process he went through, is to continue the "mile wide and an inch deep" sensationalism that I so detest in American journalism. Shock and awe and nothing to enlighten. |
|
| Cheryl |
May 30th, 2008 11:53 pm ET The American Public is not so naive as to think that The Whitehouse Press Secretary is not a spin agent for the President ,the Whitehouse and what ever political is inhabiting the DC residence at the moment. |
|
| al |
May 30th, 2008 11:53 pm ET it's nice to see someone so inbeded in washington politics coming clean. i think he's carring a heavy burden for the lies that have been feed to the public. these politicians will say anything to get there agenda through. look at the clintons she has been done for two months but she and bill have there own agenda. they will twist and turn everything to to make it look like she is being (sorry screwed). it's time for these life long politician (carpet baggers) as far has hillary is concerned. (not a senator of arkansas). I personnelly fill scott should go to jail and the whole bush administration . they have embarrassed us as a country and as world leader. The sadest thing of the irag war (and my god theres been many) is when it was reported they sent national gaurd equipment without aurmor equipment. These men had to find anything to weld onto there equipment for protection. it all makes me sick that everyone in our great country takes this all with a grain of salt and goes to bed and forgets. |
|
| Stan Hildahl |
May 31st, 2008 12:01 am ET Let us turn this to the conduct of Anderson Cooper and CNN. As one who is a VN veteran and was sure that the Bush admin was beating the drums of war against Iraq from 2001, why the hell did not your news org report the NEWS, instead of the hype? You have a lot of brass to focus on just the press secretary. Get your own NEWS organization in focus, and lay off the entertainment and fluff! Give us the news of our nation and the world. Christiana Amanpour is about the only credible source of Middle Eastern reports that ring credible. Imbedding journalists is part of the problem, when our own administration is an inbred circle. You have *been* in bed with them! |
|
| SLade |
May 31st, 2008 12:02 am ET this is def not what the founding fathers meant by representing the publics best interest. in a day that is more compelling to worry about other countries than making good policies for the protection of its citizens .. it is better to pander to big business than national health plans we have to many govt officals that rather be controled by big business. than worry about the fact we having the fed lower its lending rate. what happened with those hearings about highway robbery credit card rates or was just a way for congress to pass their pet projects .. their def not intouch with this country and its financial standing.. seems that someone does nt care how its run as long their agenda is addressed in their term. sad!! USED TO BE AN HONOR TO REPRESENT THEIR CITIZENS. GUESS THEY WERE NEVER TOLD . BUT THEY DONT MISS A PAY RAISE . AMERICA WOULD LOVE A PAY RAISE . NOT A CHANCE . JUST HIGHER TAXES,AT LEAST THE GOVT OFFICALS SHOULD HAVE TERM LIMITS THEN MABY AMERICA WILL HAVE GOVERNMENT THAT KNOWS LIKE ITS CITIZENERY YOU CANT GET IT RIGHT YOU WILL BE REPLACED. |
|
| Carlos Pagan |
May 31st, 2008 12:07 am ET Dear Anderson, |
|
| Ali Bram |
May 31st, 2008 12:12 am ET McClellan's news is old news. Of course there has been constant fear mongering from the White House. How could you miss it? Anthrax, terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, mass searches at airports, video surveillance, wiretapping... "Homeland Security"..endless references to and re-plays of 911, the list goes on and on. The Bush Administration's use of flag pins is a good example. Presidential candidates who aren't wearing them are having their allegiance to America questioned. The McCarthy era lives on. |
|
| Paula Rae |
May 31st, 2008 12:16 am ET Scott McClellan has not written anything I had not sensed from my reading in the press in the leading up to the war, information despersed via white house officials, the press corps, from being on the ground hearing the 'over-the-top' spiels from cohorts who were 100% Republican. Did any them ever question the 'truthiness' of the White House spin at the time?: No! Hell, no. |
|
| William |
May 31st, 2008 12:31 am ET Let me try this one last time in a way that is less likely to be deleted from by the moderators of the Blog. (By the way, they are doing an excellent job for you Anderson in eliminating overly-critical comments). This post will likely still be deleted, but there is nothing in the content to warrant it. Great Interview Anderson. You were obviously very passionate. I would have liked to have seen a little less aggressive approach toward McClellan. Nevertheless, I learned alot from the interview about both of your perspectives toward the controversy raised by his book. I also came away with greater respect toward McClellan's stance than I had before. Many Thanks. |
|
| Scott Hankins |
May 31st, 2008 1:11 am ET Anderson, I just want to thank your, from the bottom of my heart, for pursuing truth at the expense of everything you have. I recognize a fellow-spirit here. You go, man! Scott Hankins |
|
| Aerin |
May 31st, 2008 1:30 am ET This is really funny - Anderson, don't you realize that you are just as much in a "bubble" as Scott McClellan or any other number of Washington insiders when it comes to Obama vs. Clinton? You talk about questioning yourself and guarding against bias on your own part and that of your guests, but from what I've seen of 360 lately, the pro-Obama and anti-Clinton bias could not possibly be any clearer. BTW, when are we going to see a story about how the Obama campaign has gamed the primaries to maximize the delegate count despite the fact that many more Democrats actually support Clinton? Very clever, but hardly in keeping with Obama's oh-so-pure and above politics image. Anyone who thinks electing Obama will mean an end to "politics as usual" is in for a disappointment. |
|
| lpfoong, Malaysia |
May 31st, 2008 2:41 am ET In my opinion, Mr. Cooper, you have every right to question Mr. Scott Mc Clellan's integrity and the authenticity of what he had written. |
|
| Bader |
May 31st, 2008 4:14 am ET I enjoyed watching your interview with the former press secretary. It would have been nice to have a spokesperson from the White House actually debating with Scott McClellan in order to discern his actual reason for waiting so long to write a book about "what happened." Having you, Anderson, as the moderator would have made the interview more interesting. You were the enthusiastic interviewer who was direct in his questions. McClellan could have been much more like you in this regard. I'm skeptical of his responses to your questions because whenever you put him in the limelight, he gives roundabout answers. I love watching your show, even when everybody else that I know thinks the people that you interview are boring to listen to. |
|
| Annette Larson |
May 31st, 2008 6:05 am ET I hope now many of you who voted for this stupid Bush Adminstration will take a hard long look before you decide to vote for John McBush. John McBush will only give us more of the same of what we have and worse. Please join me and vote for change. Barack Obama is the answer. Obama 2008! |
|
| paul Frankford delaware |
May 31st, 2008 8:10 am ET Pitiful, nothing more than a washed up washington insider trying to cash in. I wonder what the bonus was for releasing the book now? Enjoy your 15 minutes Scott, Like most of your press conferences as I recall , your book too will vanish like a fart in the wind. |
|
| jacques blanchard |
May 31st, 2008 9:21 am ET interesting reactions to Mr. McLelland's "re-birth/coming out" book from Bush supporters. Of course it's not.... THAT ....Scott. |
|
| Edward Allen |
May 31st, 2008 9:31 am ET Coming from the UK, where political interviewers regularly take a tough, often combative but well researched line with interviewees, (John Humphreys, Jeremy Paxman et al) I'm often critical of the kind of lightweight superficial interviews I see on the major US networks, but Anderson you did a great job! Can you employ this style more with more heavyweight targets please? those are the folks who really need to be held up for proper scrutiny if voters are to get a real chance to evaluate them properly, and not by sound bites, or by well orchestrated media events. Go get 'em Tiger! |
|
| Steve Miller |
May 31st, 2008 11:12 am ET Writing a book is hard work, any author should get paid for his work. If Americans had any common sense they would welcome a legitimate insider of our government when he/she reveals actual incidents that he alone knows. Scott knows for a fact that Rove and Libby lied to him directly about leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent whose husband Joe Wilson exposed the lie that Saddam had bought yellow cake uranium to attack America. This is one of many lies used by Bush & Cheney who claimed CIA intelligence indicated there would be an imminent attack delivered by Iraq against America that would cause a "mushroom cloud". Rats are guilty participants of a specific crime. Attacking Iraq was a horrific crime that murdered our troops, ripped off our treasury, and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. America needs witnesses like Secretary Paul O'Neill, Scott McClellan, and other officials to testify so Bush, Cheney, & Company can be prosecuted for their crimes now. Americans are weak minded and foolish to allow authors with inside knowledge to be shunned. |
|
| Steve Miller |
May 31st, 2008 12:19 pm ET Let's suppose Scott McClellan truly believes that the Bush White House propaganda, relentless campaign that was obsessed to start the Iraq war had good intentions, then Scott is truly delusional. Being delusional doesn't mean that his facts are wrong. He keeps claiming that the manner in which people perceive their facts eliminates being liars. That is a delusional bottomless pit. American culture is now a delusional swamp. The simple lie by Hilary Clinton that she was being shot at in Bosnia was just brushed off as a slip instead of an outright lie. Senator Clinton should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. The American media is responsible for serial delusional acts. There is no mechanism by the media for accountability. The media constantly denies its own part in the delusional propaganda stories it broadcasts daily. The media protects Bush & Pelosi while they keep America in Iraq searching for some way to make themselves legitimate to American voters. The media executives are clueless. All Americans are not brainwashed imbiciles unable to watch this vivid farce without understanding its reality. |
|
| Michelle |
May 31st, 2008 12:22 pm ET Anderson I applaud you for an amazing interview with McClellan. |
|
| Steve Miller |
May 31st, 2008 12:42 pm ET Anderson really pinned McClellan down. To follow-up on his outstanding questions I suggest that Anderson interview Karen Hughes. I am sure that I could trip up Karen Hughes to corroborate the deceptive mission being exposed by McClellan. Hughes is very smart and very close to Bush. She is the closest insider to Bush that there is on this planet. It might be tough for Anderson to trap Karen Hughes but it would be fun to watch. AC: BUT WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT YOU THAT YOU ONLY GET DISILLUSIONED WHEN THEY LIE TO YOU, BUT WHEN THEY’RE LYING TO EVERYONE ELSE AND YOU’RE A PART OF IT THAT’S OK. If this statement was played half as many times as the Reverend Wright clip it might sink into the minds of the voters so we demand impeachment of Bush, Cheney, and Pelosi. Pelosi protected Bush & Cheney from the 80% of Americans who demand impeachment. |
|
| Matt Bowman |
May 31st, 2008 3:16 pm ET With all due respect, why did Anderson Cooper interrogate Mr. McClellan instead of interviewing him like a professional? This is the same disturbing approach that Mike Wallace used later in his career and it is just as abrasive and unwatchable when Anderson Cooper takes the same approach. There is no respect left in the business of reporting the news. CNN has turned into an entertainment variety show. |
|
| Kim |
May 31st, 2008 3:53 pm ET Scott McClellan's book is a fundraiser for the Republican Party. He has said enough to get everyone buying the book but doesn't go far enough to make us believe that he has turned on his good friend, George W. Bush, who gave him his shot at the limelight in the first place. And as for John McCain, he is the front guy for Condoleeza Rice, the person who is remarkably quiet right now, and who I think is the real choice for president. |
|
| Frank |
May 31st, 2008 5:42 pm ET Hi Anderson, Were you serious when you said Scott was supposed to tell the truth without spin or partisan marketing? Do you really think people will be shocked? I know he is a civil servant, but surely nobody in their right mind believes he will be objective and will leave out the partisan selling. I think even you, Anderson, know that and when you made a comment two nights ago about, are you serious?, how long have you been in Washington? (I do not remember the exact context) , you were expressing that feeling that everyone in Washington uses spin. –Frank |
|
| Dee Carroll |
May 31st, 2008 7:40 pm ET I want to thank Scott McClellan for being so brave in writing his book! |
|
| The Man from AUS |
May 31st, 2008 9:14 pm ET As an outsider looking in. I am absolutely gob smacked (shocked) with the so called democratic political system in the US. I have been watching the coverage on CNN. The current US government and the US political system seem to be FAKE. The stories and the messages that come from the government seem shady, twisted and un-authentic. There now seems to be some truth prevailing – through Scott. Scott seems to have been through a conscious and moral dilemma balancing this with his role as Press Secretary; where he is morally blackmailed to twist/blur the truth, to be deceptive, to push a message, and to promote party ideals. During Scott's interview with Anderson he appears honest and genuine in his comments. He seemed reasonably relaxed and quietly confident. However, it is interesting to see how defensive people get when the truth is exposed and the great attack it has on the ego within individuals. The 'Bush government and so called bush supporters' have nothing to fall back on, so what do they do? they attack the character of the person telling the truth. This is a sure sign that the truth is present! Even notice the defensiveness and agitation in the interview by Anderson. Why is there this defensiveness and agitation in Anderson? Shouldn't he be neutral and respectful to both sides of the issue? I think it is important for transparency and openness and for truth and honesty to prevail. US people apparently pride themselves on their democratic values. The US government appears to have lost the trust and respect from the people they govern and not to mention the international community. Thanks |
|
| David |
June 2nd, 2008 10:57 am ET Anderson, |
|
|
Comments have been closed for this article |
||
A behind the scenes look at “Anderson Cooper 360°” and the stories it covers, written by Anderson Cooper, the AC360° staff and a network of contributors. Insight you can’t find anywhere else.
We search the news each day to show you what’s on our radar and what we’re planning for the show each night.
For more details, read our tips on how to win 360° approval for comments.
Send your instant feedback to Anderson Cooper 360°.
- Live Blog from the Anchor Desk 11/16/09
- New mammogran recommendations
- Evening Buzz: Pension Outrage, Tracking Your Tax Dollars
- Task force opposes routine mammograms for women age 40-49
- Sarah Palin wants to friend you
- Who would be most impacted by the Stupak amendment?
- Video: Killings at the Canal
- Beat 360° 11/16/09
- Terror in Mumbai
- The lessons of Mumbai
