Comments on: The AC360° McClellan interview – all of it

By: David

David — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:57:05 +0000

Anderson,
"Great interview" and a wonderful job you and your team at CNN have been doing asking all the "tough" questions. I especially enjoyed the question you asked Scott about resigning when you were actually a member of the Bush team. Anderson why did you, and the rest of CNN not resign during the buildup to the Iraq war? How many tough questions did CNN ask the Bush team during the buildup to the invasion and after? Please if you have a heart attached to that extremely educated brain of yours why don't you resign, and take as many of your co-workers with you based on principal. Keep up the great patriotic work you, and your team are doing, you are a true hero.

By: The Man from AUS

The Man from AUS — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:14:09 +0000

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

By: Dee Carroll

Dee Carroll — Sat, 31 May 2008 23:40:56 +0000

I want to thank Scott McClellan for being so brave in writing his book!
He is now one of my Heros! He doesn't seem to have a website or email, I would like to thank him. Please do it for me. I am 74yr. old and knew mostly what he writes about! I hope he will be called to Congress to tell his story about the lies. This administration is the worse I've ever seen and believe impeachment should be started. I hope more people will come forth with the truth!. My granddaughter was in Iraq for 10mos, with the Army national guard reserve. I want them to bring the troops home NOW! Thank you for all you do also.

By: Frank

Frank — Sat, 31 May 2008 21:42:27 +0000

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

By: Kim

Kim — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:53:16 +0000

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.

By: Matt Bowman

Matt Bowman — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:16:14 +0000

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.

By: Steve Miller

Steve Miller — Sat, 31 May 2008 16:42:08 +0000

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.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Sat, 31 May 2008 16:22:29 +0000

Anderson I applaud you for an amazing interview with McClellan.
Thanks for being the journalist you are. You were tough but fair and
it was obvious that Scott McClellan appreciated that.

By: Steve Miller

Steve Miller — Sat, 31 May 2008 16:19:55 +0000

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.

By: Steve Miller

Steve Miller — Sat, 31 May 2008 15:12:07 +0000

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.

By: Edward Allen

Edward Allen — Sat, 31 May 2008 13:31:15 +0000

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!

By: jacques blanchard

jacques blanchard — Sat, 31 May 2008 13:21:21 +0000

interesting reactions to Mr. McLelland's "re-birth/coming out" book from Bush supporters.
"That's not the Scott we knew when he was in the White House"

Of course it's not.... THAT ....Scott.
THAT Scott has started speaking truthfully instead of Bushfully.
jb

By: paul Frankford delaware

paul Frankford delaware — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:10:08 +0000

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.

By: Annette Larson

Annette Larson — Sat, 31 May 2008 10:05:49 +0000

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!

By: Bader

Bader — Sat, 31 May 2008 08:14:05 +0000

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.

By: lpfoong, Malaysia

lpfoong, Malaysia — Sat, 31 May 2008 06:41:36 +0000

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.
Spinning as spinning goes, there will come a point where people will loose prespective of which end is right.
The question is...is he saying anything really new here or is he just someone who use to be from the 'inside' who is relating what is pretty typical in bolder and glaring ways?
From my perspective, this is just to show, not only in America, but also the rest of the world, this path that politicians are still treading on, doesn't work and there is a need for change.
Isn't it a good idea to have honesty as a platform in politics as well as all areas of our lives? To be able to say what we think and feel without hidden motives and agendas?
But are we all really ready for such an undertaking?

By: Aerin

Aerin — Sat, 31 May 2008 05:30:12 +0000

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.

By: Scott Hankins

Scott Hankins — Sat, 31 May 2008 05:11:53 +0000

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
Norwich, CT

By: William

William — Sat, 31 May 2008 04:31:53 +0000

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.

By: Paula Rae

Paula Rae — Sat, 31 May 2008 04:16:37 +0000

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.
This group included my brother who I'd always thought to be a clear thinker. When he questioned my belief that we were rushing into war in Iraq "because 911 and Iraq were connected," even going so far as to question my patriotism for not agreeing with the Bush war premise.
McClellan is simply confirming what some people believed all along. By the way, my bro has done a 180 during the last three years.