Cranky Bastard

If you want to read a serious book about the intervention in Iraq, try War and Decision. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine: "I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that, that there was a certain amount of 'spin' or propaganda involved in his job description. Well, give the man a cigar. Beyond that, the book is effectively valueless to the anti-war camp since, as McClellan says of the president, 'I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people.'"

And from this very blog:
"Putting a guy like Tony there is what should've happened after Ari left. There was never a good excuse for McClellan. With access to the whole country, he picked Scott to speak publicly for him. An outsider would wonder if there was no better candidates available. This shows much better taste.
Monday, November 15, 2004
A Request, Mr. President?
While you are making all of these changes to your cabinet, could you do me one favor? Could you please replace McClellan? Unlike Ari, Scott is boring. Maybe you want him to be so that the presidential briefing does not so often end up on the 11 o'clock news, but you couldn't have picked a blander briefer."

As usual, Hitchy says it better, but also as usual, I agree. In fact, going back to see my words on McClellan, I was shocked to find my words were not sharper and more venomous. I remember cursing the decision. I suppose I was trying to sound more diplomatic or professional. Not sure why.
I simply never understood why we would choose him to follow Ari, who I quite admired. This is, however, pay back for such a stupid choice. He was never smart enough for the job, and he is clearly not confident enough to be loyal to those that gave him the job he never deserved in the first place. This is not to say that a person should be loyal above all, if there is something of value to share. McClellan, however, does not really say anything. Interestingly, I saw someone trying to defend him (can't remember who) by saying that the publisher "talked him into" a negative piece, using the carrot of bigger sales. That is terribly sad that a man who was the spokesman for the leader of the free world could be "talked into" something so stupid and that his defenders had no better explanation. They could've simply said, "Scott does not have a mind of his own. Poor guy."