Richard Clarke accused the Bush administration of ignoring warnings on terrorism.
"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Clarke said in a "60 Minutes" interview on the book with CBS. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe, we'll never know."
Scott McClellan provided the White House response.
"Let's remember why we are having this conversation, because Mr. Clarke made assertions that we have said are flat-out wrong," McClellan said. Moreover, in his book, "Mr. Clarke certainly decided on his own to go ahead and reveal conversations that were considered private previously," the spokesman said.
And Scotty didn't stop there.
McClellan pointed to the timing of Clarke's book.
"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.
(The lancing pain between your eyes is only a needle of pure irony. Don't worry, it'll pass. Kind of like a Slushee-induced brain freeze.)
When Paul O'Neill said the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq all along and only used 9/11 as a justification.
Former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has provided the grist for an unflattering tell-all book about the Bush White House called "The Price of Loyalty". ... Mr O'Neill said President Bush was disengaged, "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," and said the administration was hatching plans to invade Iraq from the day Mr Bush entered office.
Scott McClellan provided the White House reply.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan brushed off O'Neill's criticism.
"We appreciate his service, but we are not in the business of doing book reviews," he told reporters. "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people. The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."
When it was Scott's turn at the plate, it was up to Dana Perino to deliver the smackdown.
Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad - this is not the Scott we knew.
"The book, as reported by the press, has been described to the President. I do not expect a comment from him on it - he has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers."
Positively McClellan-esque.
How long will we have to wait for Dana Perino's book? It's hard to tell. Lawrence Lindsey was shoved from the National Economic Council way back in 2002 for giving an estimate that the Iraq invasion could cost as much as $200 billion ("baloney" was the official response that time), and his book didn't make it till 2008.
But Dana likes to make the rounds of the talk shows and the entertainment value of watching ex-Bushies admit to their complicity has just about run its course. I'm guessing the press will pretend to be "shocked" by her revelations and whoever has the sad job of post-presidential Bush handler will be moaning "that doesn't sound like the Dana we all know" well before 2010.
While the rest of the nation still has to worry about retirement, the Bush administration seems to have solved the problem for their own: fat contracts for admitting they're liars. We can only hope that publishers soon note that we're not that shocked, we're not sympathetic to people who passed off propaganda they knew was false, and we're not interested in lining these people's pockets just to have them fess up to what we knew all along.