(What had started as a short observation has kept getting longer, so I'm going to break this up into two parts. Part two will be posted within the next few weeks.)
Not quite breaking news any more, but former Bush Administration Press Secretary Scott McClellan has written a book (What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception) that has been reported to be critical of the Bush Administration, including the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. I haven't read the book yet, so I can't comment on the content. But I do have enough horse sense to know that the most inflammatory quotes, especially if and/or when taken out of context, tend to make the headlines.
One thing I did find peculiar though was the Bush administration's response. According to them, McClellan is, essentially, a disgruntled ex-employee.
As I was watching and reading some of the media coverage on this, I remembered something like this happening before...
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror--What Really Happened by former National Security Council Advisor Richard Clarke came out in 2004. It was critical of the Bush and Clinton Administration's handling of anti-terrorism, and was also critical of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as not really aiding the war on terror. Clarke had served in varying capacities from the Reagan administration onwards, and began his government career with the Department of Defense in 1973. While I don't recall any Bush Administration officials stating it directly at the time, the refrain I heard on talk radio and Fox News was that Clarke was, essentially, a disgruntled ex-employee.
Earlier in 2004, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the education of Paul O'Neill by Ron Suskind was released. The book was based on extensive interviews with the Bush Administration's first Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, as well as review of essentially every unclassified document that crossed Secretary O'Neill's desk during his tenure in office. O'Neill took issue with the overall management of the Administration's first two years, as well as the Administration's policy on Iraq (note that this was pre-invasion, as Secretary O'Neill resigned effective 12/31/02). While O'Neill also has deep roots in government (serving under President's Nixon and Ford, and passing on being Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush while recommending Dick Cheney for the job), he also has a long and successful track record as a corporate executive. Again, while I don't recall any Bush Administration officials stating it directly, I remember the frequent talking point of commentators on talk radio and FNC at the time was that O'Neill was, essentially, a disgruntled ex-employee.
I read both the Suskind and Clarke books within a few months of their respective releases (thanks to the Menomonee Falls Public Library for making them available!). I heartily recommend the Suskind book as it's a broader view of the management of the Bush Administration's first two years, and especially for Secretary O'Neill's views on fiscal policy (now THERE is a fiscal conservative and realist!). The Clarke book is a pretty good read though the issue focus is narrower, and his writing seems to be self-serving at times.
Anyway, points to ponder: (1) Does releasing a political book in a hotly contested election year help sales? (2) If said book has content critical of the invasion of Iraq in retrospect, is it truly newsworthy? (3) Can all three of these men be, essentially, disgruntled ex-employees?
