This book is more about Scott McClellan than George Bush. It is not a tell-all book, almost everything in this book was in the news and the wrong facts are told about. This book suffers from a great lack of brevity.
For example when Bush hired him he tells how they ate a sandwich and talked for 20 minutes without saying what they talked about. I would rather know what was said; I don't care about them eating a sandwich. On 9-11 it is mostly about him and how he had to ride back from Florida in car with 4 people who shared driving to get back sooner. What Bush did after leaving that classroom is not discussed.
I did not actually read the second half of this book.

I got interested in this book when I saw Scott McClellan on "Meet the Press" one morning. It was either Tim Russert's last or next-to-last show before he died suddenly.

I didn't know what to expect from Mr. McClellan, so I watched. I was amazed to see a guy that seemed to be expressing genuine regret to the American people for letting them down. It wasn't exactly his fault, but he does seem to blame himself to some degree. Anyway, I was intrigued by his sincerity--and not only that, but his apparent forthrightness and honesty.

So when I saw the book at the library, I picked it up, and got very interested after just a few pages--you know, the way you do when you read a thriller-type novel. I enjoyed the book for the following reasons:

-It's well written. Good writing is always enjoyable (to me, at least).

-It had "insider information." It was like having a window into the inner workings of the Bush administration.

-It was even-handed. It was not a Bush-bash, just an honest reckoning of what happened (thus the title). When Bush failed, he points that out. When Bush did something right, he points that out, too. That gave the book a sense of genuineness that I thought was one of the book's major strengths.

As for the subject matter, it seemed the main points of the book were these (among others):

-That Bush is not an intellectual leader (i.e. someone who thinks things through to the end) but someone who leads by conviction and gut instinct. McClellan says that Bush is plenty smart, but that's not the way he operates. He leads on a decision-making level, leaving his cabinet and advisers to actualize those conviction-based decisions--to make them work in the real world. One of McClellan's major criticisms of the Bush's top people (e.g. Rice and Powell) is that they didn't challenge Bush enough on some policy decisions. McClellan describes Bush's top echelon for the most part as a group of yes men (and yes women? yes people?).

-Bush was not forthright about the motives for starting the Iraq War. Bush was interested in Iraq long before 9/11. He holds a deep belief that everyone should be allowed to live in freedom, free from repressive regimes. McClellan quotes Bush talking about his desire to spread democracy in the world. But when the time came to invade Iraq, Bush connected it to WMDs, not his desire to spread democracy. On the surface, it looked like Bush wanted to invade Iraq because of WMDs, but deep down he really just wanted to spread democracy. McClellan faults Bush for this, because when Bush was running for office he said he would restore honor and dignity to the office, and change the way Washington worked. In McClellan's view, this lack of forthrightness on Bush's part went against what Bush had promised to do earlier, and so Bush failed to keep his word.

-McClellan, in his role as press secretary, was used by those above him to deceive the press. Bush had promised to fire whoever was involved, but did not. Again, McClellan faults Bush for not keeping his word to do so...but this is somewhat of a complicated, convoluted issue, so you are on you own on this one.

There are other points, but these seemed to me to be the main ones.

One thing occasionally bothered me: McClellan seems to psychoanalyze Bush to excess sometimes. It's good to try to provide a portrait of Bush's thinking and leadership style, but sometimes the psychoanalysis went a little far (seems to me, at least). However, I got the feeling that McClellan was doing this not only to explain it to the reader, but to try to figure it out for himself, and make sense of it all, so he could sleep at night.

This book should have been titled "What Happened?" A question mark in the title would have been much more apropos. Scott McClellan, in his haste to publish a book, seems to have spent little or no time contemplating what did happen during his time in the White House.

Like his idol, George W. Bush, McClellan is a product of the "unexamined life" that Socrates warned about centuries ago. After reading the book, which is not recommended here, one can easily draw the conclusion that no amount of time would have been sufficient for McClellan to understand the extent of the failure and the damage caused by the administration for which he was press secretary from mid-2003 until his firing in 2006.

Every author needs a theme and I guess his publisher gave him the idea of reading a book called the "Permanent Campaign." He uses that book and the book "Shadow: The Legacy of Watergate" by Bob Woodward (though he does not indicate that he read it) to come up with his facile thesis. The conduct of the presidency was too politicized by the Bush administration as part of a permanent campaign. It is also harder to get away with a lie since Watergate. Incompetence is never posited as a possibility.

To McClellan, President Bush was not unqualified for the presidency. He merely let it veer off under the evil influence of Karl Rove and the installation of a permanent campaign in the White House. He accuses the Clinton administration of inventing the approach. He presents Karl Rove as the evil architect who took it to a new level. Bush's only weakness according to McClellan is a penchant for self-deception. His later revelations show that Bush also has quite a penchant for the deception of others.

The most disturbing part of McClellan's book is the more correct, though unconscious, theme that he repeats throughout the book. Politics to McClellan and others in the Bush administration is about selling political policies rather than persuading the public and Congress of their merits. There is one conscious admission that McClellan makes that rings true. Bush, Cheney and many others in the administration believe that the ends justify the means.

McClellan still does not seem to understand that such a view of life almost inevitably leads to lying and misrepresentation. How could he understand? Permanent campaign? The Legacy of Watergate? Hooey. The only redeeming value for McClellan in this book is that one does get a sense that he was naïve enough to believe anything he was told without question; not so redeeming, that he still is naive today because he did not learn a thing from his experience.

McClellan claims that he was stunned and shocked that Rove and Scooter Libby lied to him about their involvement of the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame. By that point in the book a reader is justified in exclaiming "Why?" He also seems more put out that their lies ruined his image with the press and the public rather than that the Plame leak was unethical and potentially life-threatening for a covert CIA operative.

It is clear from this book that President Bush declassified a selected portion of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in October 2002 (before McClellan became press secretary) so that Vice President Cheney, Rove and Libby could leak about Plame without being subject to prosecution for revealing classified secrets. Yet it does not seem to dawn on McClellan that Bush was a co-conspirator in the Plame leak through the declassification of the NIE. Bush lied to McClellan and saved the truth for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. That is not self-deceit, Scott. That is just plain deceit. And McClellan thinks this was the result of a "permanent campaign?"

McClellan also seems more interested in paying back Rove and Libby for making him look like a fool than he does about the number of American soldiers who have died for the sake of a poorly "sold" war. All one can say is that Rove, Libby, and Bush knew a fool when they saw one. That he still claims to admire George W. Bush even today is Exhibit No. 1 that he has no idea of what really happened in the Plame affair or the nature of the real George Bush that everyone else does.

If McClellan really wants to know what happened, and the frightful consequences of "selling" an unnecessary war, I have a book he should read; not for profit but for self-examination. "The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell" by John Crawford is a harrowing autobiographical account of an Army National Guardsman yanked off his honeymoon and sent to Iraq for over two years. There he experienced the Kafkaesque experience of serving on the ground in Iraq at the height of the insurgency. Catch-22-like Crawford continued to have his tours extended indefinitely.

The juxtaposition of McClellan's self-pity about his treatment while basking in the luxuries of political office and his new marriage, and Crawford's straight-forward account of his experience in Iraq that cost him his new marriage is almost enough to make one want to bring back the draft. And to make sure that guys like McClellan serve. His dedication of the book "To those who serve" is galling, self-serving and unseemly in the greatest sense.

His prescriptions for changing "the culture of deception" at the end of the book are as banal as all of the other lessons he supposedly learned in the White House. McClellan is a professional follower, not a political philosopher. So much for getting out of the White House "bubble" in order to get a proper perspective on "what happened" as McClellan claims he did.

McClellan has no idea what happened. He lacks the intellectual capacity, the introspective nature, and the inner moral compass necessary to ever know or understand what happened. Take a pass on this one.

I think Scott does a brilliant job of adequately covering his time in the Bush White house, and creating a good timeline of events to illustrate his opinion of life "inside the bubble." From the constant campaign to the collection of agreement, McClellan seeks to clarify the secretive world that existed while he was press secretary. I think the author goes to great lengths to specifically NOT bash or degrade anyone in this book. I found it an honest view that if anything, restated its point perhaps a bit too much. Overall, it was refreshing to have an honest look at the culture inside, something we as the public had wanted since day one. Well worth the read and quite interesting. You may not agree with Scott's opinions, but they are genuine and not malicious.

In my personal opinion, VP Dick Cheney gave the orders and decieved everyone for his own political gain. President Bush was just a prop giving Cheney all the power.

"What Happened" is full of great insider information put forth by an intensely reasonable story teller who seems to have no other agenda than the truth. I am no fan of the Bush administration. But I've had my fill of books that conclude that George Bush is either evil or stupid or both. It was refreshing to read an account that put blame on a bad mix of character flaws and events. Mr. McClellan has the perspective of an historian. I enjoyed being drawn into this inner circle and given a broader perspective on the most important events of our time.

I just finished Scott's book today and am shocked that Rove and others I have seen on the news have said that he turned on them. Instead of the expected bash on Bush, Scott was fair, polite, even respectful of Bush and the entire White House staff. What Scott did bash was the culture of deception, politics-as-war, permanent campaign, and care-more-about-party-than-America culture in Washington, D.C. This is a story of a guy who loves America and loves the political process, who went to Washington with a President who sincerely wanted to end the corruption there, but ended up getting caught up in it and perpetuating this secretive and partisan culture that sickens so many of us younger Americans. This book is very interesting, rational and fair. It is a call to all Americans to demand more of their leadership whatever the party, and more of their media whatever the network.

The audio cd version is narrated by Scott McClellan. He reads so fast you can't understand it. If you want to know what he has to say, buy the book instead.

Reading the wikipedia entry for this book is sufficient, unless you are really interested in his life story. I found this book uninformative, biased, and uninsightful.

As someone who is left-leaning I tried to read this book without any preconceived notions. Mr. McLellan's book is an extremely well written history of what happened during his time working for George W. Bush. When there are facts to be presented, he presents them as neutral as possible. When he gives his own opinion, he clearly states that it is his opinion, and shouldn't be taken as fact.

The first half of the book was basically praising Bush and explains why Scott joined him in the first place. The second half explains, in detail, what went wrong.

This book actually gave me a little bit more respect for Bush, as the mistakes he made could have been made by many people, myself included. However, we expect more out of the President of the United States, and he should not be excused for what he did.

Whether you're a hard-core conservative, a hard-core liberal, or some where in between, I highly recommend this book.

Scott McClellan's White House memoir is a somewhat erratic telling of his years working for President Bush. On the one hand, McClellan criticizes the mindset of the permanent campaign with its distortions and manipulations.

On the other hand, those same principles are okay with McClellan when it comes to elections. That distinction may sound great on the surface, but given midterm elections and even off year elections that occur in states like Virginia and Mississippi, where President Bush was happy to involve himself when he was popular, when is it not an election?

McClellan is also deeply torn on how responsible President Bush himself is for the problems that have plagued his presidency. With candor, McClellan admits that President Bush was not intellectually curious enough at times. He also admits that President Bush told him to do things that were incorrect, like speak up for Karl Rove during the Valerie Plame leak investigation. But at other times McClellan talks about President Bush's abilities honesty, how he would not intentionally mislead him, and so on.

The former press secretary has some blinders when it comes to President Bush. He says that he truly believed President Bush could unite the country as President. McClellan must have been watching a different guy then over half the voters were in November of 2000. McClellan also blames the media for not doing its due diligence in questioning the Iraq war, which is ironic since it was his own press operation that stifled the media. McClellan also likes to treat the Bush Administration's permanent campaign mentality as an extension of the Clinton Administration, basically failing to acknowledge how much more pervasive the take no prisoners political operation was in the Bush White House. For example, McClellan talks about the need for a more bipartisan cabinet, noting that Norm Mineta, President Bush's first Transportation Secretary, was too much of a token appointment. McClellan talks about the need for a Secretary of State, Defense, or Treasury from the other party. Which is exactly what Clinton did when he appointed Maine Republican Senator Bill Cohen as his third and final Secretary of Defense.

Unlike many partisan Democrats who praised McClellan for speaking out when the book was released, I give him no credit. Had he really felt strongly about the issues raised in the book, he should have resigned the first time he was asked to lie, or mislead. In fact, McClellan never quit but was fired. He makes some statements in the book that he had planned to resign in the coming months anyway, but these internal thoughts probably went through his mind throughout his years in the White House and I give them no credence. It is easy to see why McClellan was fired. He was press secretary during some of the Administration's roughest events and did not come off well on television. Ari Fleischer was abrasive, but effective. The late Tony Snow and Dana Perino have been press secretaries during periods of time when President Bush was less popular and more ineffective, but that has served to lower the stakes on their role. McClellan was there at a crucial time and did not serve the President, or the people, well. His book just confirms that.

One coda there is an excellent story in the book about President Bush calling McClellan's wife after McClellan was fired. It is a human moment for the President and makes you understand why McClellan has blinders for him.

BOUGHT THIS BOOK FOR MY HUSBAND. HE WANTED TO READ ABOUT THE INSIDE DIRT IN DC. THIS BOOK SHOULD DO IT!

If you're looking for a scathing critique of the Bush administration from an embittered turncoat, this ain't it. Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan comes off as merely disillusioned about Washington -- maybe a little peeved at Karl Rove, distrustful of Dick Cheney, and certainly disappointed in his one-time idol, George W. Bush -- but that's about all. He picks over the minutiae of the cooked pre-war intelligence on Iraq and the Valerie Plame scandal--his main bugbear as he was forced to lie conspicuously about it--without really denouncing them. His writing is as cautious as it is bland.

McClellan says he wrote this book to try to set the record straight, to recapture some of the personal integrity he feels the job cost him. Yet he seems unwilling to blame or condemn much beyond repeating how the "perpetual campaign mentality" and Washinton's deepening partisan schism makes for less effective government. He adds little to the public discourse on derisive partisan politics, nor does he make it interesting with pointed insider detail. McClellan seems reluctant to make enemies, so he spends 300 pages exorcizing his own small demons instead of fighting the big dragons.

The moments in this book I found most enlightening are the small personal observations he makes about Bush. His mean-spirited sense of humor. The way he belittles dissenters. His refusal to re-think any decision. His capacity for self-delusion. These bits of insight McClellan makes almost inadvertently -- remember, he claims to like and admire Bush for the most part -- speak volumes. Otherwise, this book -- like the career of McClellan itself -- is just a footnote to the great Machiavellian machinery of the Bush administration. History will forgive and forget mild-mannered Scott McClellan. The Bush-Cheney-Rove trinity will not likely get off so easy when at last the full account of "what happened" is written.

- mattmchugh.com

I really dislike tell all books, and tell all books concerning politics in particular. After reading this one, my opinion of this genre has not changed all that much. I will state from the start though, that I am probably one of the most apolitical humans on the face of the earth. My only interest in our current political process, as opposed to our history in this area, is that I hold both the extreme right and the extreme left in extreme contempt. My opinions of George Bush, his administration, et al, are of little consequence here, and I certainly am not going to bore you with my pontifications in that area. That being said....

I did find this book interesting in that it gives a good view on one man's view, and I emphasize, "one man" of the political process in our nations capital at this time. I found the workings of the Bush administration, congress, the press and all those associated with the entire process fascinating. There was interesting bits and pieces scattered throughout the book. I am certainly not going to summarize the happenings of this entire affair. If you don't know what happened, and where it led, and is possibly leading, then you have probably been living under a rock. If you believe ever word McClellan has written, well then, you have a problem. On the other hand, I do get the feeling that the author tried his best to come across in a truthful manner, addressing the situation as he saw it. I feel he is sincere in his personal assessment of the situation.

The book is rather poorly crafted and is so repetitive throughout that it makes you want to scream at times. Scott McClellan portrays himself as misled Boy Scout, and perhaps he was. I find it difficult to fully believe that a man that can reach his high position was as blind and naïve as he claims. Perhaps this is true though. There again, on the other hand, he does not cast full blame on anyone but himself in this area. In some eyes he is certainly a little turn coat weasel, but I feel an honest weasel, never the less.

I actually enjoyed this read despite the poor writing, which does become rather boring at a certain point. Overall this is a pretty light weight read and I personally doubt if it is going to be used as a source document my many historians in the future when picking this particular era apart.

For a quick read of one man's perceptions, for some political tidbits and some insight this is a good read. I of course feel in has to be countered with other works that are sure to come out in the near future, but fear that we will have to wait at least fifty years or so to be able to truly evaluate just "what happened. I am giving this one four stars because it did have some value as to information but knocking off at least one star due to poor quality of the writing. Where were this man's editors?

Don Blankenship
The Ozarks

A bunch of bunk! Doesn't deserve the one star - (wouldn't accept the review without it). Just a "ain't George great" or "he's not such a bad guy" apology for 'The Shrub'. A waste of my money.

As someone who has not read any political books before, I found this to be a good insight to the machinations of American politics and the Bush Whitehouse in particular.

I found this book to be well written and engaging. I finished it with a heightened respect for McClellan and a lurking question of who he will vote for in 2008.

McClellan came to Washington with a great deal of respect for Bush and trust in his ability to transform Washington. However, his disillusion with the administration finally reached its zenith beginning with the Plame/Wilson controversy. He was misled by Rove and Libby regarding their involvement in the Plame affair and, as a result, his reputation became tarnished for his role in defending them as press secretary. He recounts that he finally resigned after being "burned internally one too many times" (p. 298).

In the introduction he writes a passage that sums up his views nicely. "I thought the mentality of political manipulation had largely been a product of our predecessor in the Clinton White House and that the leader I placed great hope in, George W. Bush, was dead set on changing it. He chose not to do so. Instead, his own White House because embroiled in political maneuvering that was equally unsavory, if not worse, much of it related directly to his most controversial decision as president - the decision to invade Iraq. (p. 4).

The Bush administration is know for its secrecy and yet this book is written in a very self-reflective and candid tone. His criticisms of Bush are tough but not cruel, critical but not acerbic. What Happened is a compelling book that helps to shed light on the inner machinations of the administration.

I had heard so much about this book, but it was taking its time making it up to the top of my stack. I found it fascinating to walk through the recent events from Scott McClellan's eyes. To find out what he said he knew when he said he knew it. To hear what he believes about each of the participants in the events. It was interesting to me to see how he views President Bush now compared to how he viewed him before going to Washington with him. His comments on Dr. Condi Rice were really enlightening. I never dreamed that anyone would think things about her. I enjoyed how he wrote about how the White House works and the interactions with the press. I just wish he would have went into the media personalities like Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Helen Thomas, Andrea Mitchell and Jonathan Alter. I would have liked more details on the day to day work and also about 9/11 and the meetings afterwards. I didn't find this book to be extremely political. In my opinion, I didn't think he was slamming the Republicans. Mr. McClellan was very protective of them. I would recommend this book to anyone looking for some insight into the White House.

The advance publicity for former WH spokesperson Scott McClellan promised incredible revelations. The books itself? Not so much.

McClellan's book is part hero worship of George W. Bush, part apologia (W didn't *mean* to play "the Washington game") and part autobiography. But while I appreciate Scott's service to our country, I didn't read this book to hear about him. What I got was a mindless mush of misperceptions and, yes, more spin. How did Bush come to run his administration as a perpetual campaign? Why, it was Bill Clinton's made 'em do it! Want to hear about the skullduggery around the contested 2000 presidential elections? Don't expect to hear about Republican mobs in Broward County or the Supreme Court intervention -- it was Democrats poking the chads out of ballots -- and Scott's got an envelope full of them as proof!

The book offers such a half-baked and brain dead opinions about the great events of the past 8 years that it should be called "What Happened?" -- the first confused words of an accident victim coming out of a coma. It's no wonder this book is burning through the hands of its readers: it has nothing to say in spite of the cat-bird-seat view of the author. It's hard to be sure whether Scott is really as unperceptive as his own book makes him out to be. The cynic in me wonders whether he purpose of this "tell-all" memoir is to throw more sand in the public's eyes. "See?" it seems to say. "Scott was right there and this is all he had to say.

"What Happened" belongs solidly in the "Don't Bother" category.

The book is much better than any of the political commentaries made when it was first released. Strongly suggest reading it -- whether one is a confirmed Democrat (as I am) or a devoted Republican.

"What Happened" is more of an intimate look into an American presidential administration, with an honest assessment of the political problems within and without. It wasn't a smoking gun or a book full of any particular damning revelations against the Bush administration (just about everything in this book hyped as such was already known), but was rightfully critical of how certain things were handled by the administration. Most notably, the war in Iraq (including the selling of the war to the public, and the Plame-affair); and the communications response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The overlying theme of the book is that there is something seriously wrong with Washington, and has been for a while. After the ugly political atmosphere between Clinton-Democrats and Gingrich Republicans, Bush promised to change things, but then quickly fell right in line with the status quo by the 2002 mid-term elections. Needlessly politicizing serious matters (such as a war) serves to kill intelligent discourse on all sides, and ends up leading to grave consequences, not only for national security, but in damaging the people's faith in their government, faith that is seriously needed in times of crisis and danger. That is something with which a vast majority of the people in this country agrees, no matter what their political affiliation or leanings. In addition, it is something that politicians often embrace during campaigns, but rarely have the courage to embrace once in office.

As a registered Republican, this book did not make me want to suddenly join the Democratic party. But I appreciated the honest assessment of the problems plaguing American politics on both sides, and by pointing out the failure of the Bush administration to stand up against it, I hope that future administrations of either side might learn from it and finally do so.

The author spends a lot of time writing about his early life and the years leading up to the subject of the book. It's understandable, but the readers are primarily interested in how, in his opinion, the Bush White House got us into a needless war.

The book is interesting and thoughtful, but does not share much that we don't already know via assumptions and speculation. Still, if you're interested in certain Washington character flaws and evasiveness, it's worth a read.

This is a good book. Its not always an easy read (it can be tedious at points) but I'd say it was well worth reading, to get the inside scoop

I think Scott is kinder to Bush than he deserves, considering the facts laid out in the recent Bugliosi book The Prosecution of George W Bush For Murder

Very informative,well written,even enlightening ;but, just not that entertaining. I didn't have any trouble putting the book down and was almost relieved when I finished the book.

Excellent purchase price for this book which arrived in a very timely manner. It was purchased as a gift for my son.

I'm no fan of the Bush White House so I jumped on the chance to read this memoir of McClellan's time with the administration. It's eye opening, though not that surprising. The things those people will do. And it is written, no surprise here either, in a very clear and entertaining matter. A must for anyone who thinks they are a Republican or any one interested in current affairs.

This book was well-written and thoughtful. It helped me to see President Bush in a new light. Mr. McClellan makes an excellent point about the "permanent campaign" and it's toxic divisiveness.
However, I found this book disappointing in some ways. While I don't doubt his sincerity, the author stops short of explaining the motivations and actions of the more controversial GOP policies. It's as though, after a lifetime in politics, he's honestly incapable of being completely sincere and apolitical.

Michael Hirsh wrote, in Newsweek, a criticism of pundits, asking why the public should acquire this information from McClellan and not the media.
Hello?
"Why do we have to hear this from him?"--because HE WAS THERE. Scott McClellan's THE person to hear it from! And thanks to him for writing the book! His report is far more measured and thoughtful than anything, so far, written by "pundits."

This book was well-written and thoughtful. It helped me to see President Bush in a new light. Mr. McClellan makes an excellent point about the "permanent campaign" and it's toxic divisiveness.
However, I found this book disappointing in some ways. While I don't doubt his sincerity, the author stops short of explaining the motivations and actions of the more controversial GOP policies. It's as though, after a lifetime in politics, he's honestly incapable of being completely sincere and apolitical.

not as well written as George Tenet's book, but some good inside info as to the deception behind the "leak", and the drumming up of the reason to go to war with Iraq. Skipped over the chapter about his grandfather tho... wasn't much interested in that topic. Seemed to be more of a "filler" chapter to make the book a bit larger. All in all, some good inside info into our current administration.

not as well written as George Tenet's book, but some good inside info as to the deception behind the "leak", and the drumming up of the reason to go to war with Iraq. Skipped over the chapter about his grandfather tho... wasn't much interested in that topic. Seemed to be more of a "filler" chapter to make the book a bit larger. All in all, some good inside info into our current administration.

I read this book mostly out of curiosity. I'm glad I did. It's nice to see someone who has a conscience and says that perhaps he was in error, but due to the fact that he was misled. Mr. McClellan appears to be a responsible type, who realized he was used, and has come out to publicly set the record straight. There are those who would take the Mafia approach and claim that Mr. McClellan should have kept things to himself to protect those above him, although they were doing things to mislead the American people. He chose not to take this road and showed us all that mistakes had been made, and we are still paying for them. Others who were around him at the time continue to be deceptive. Mr McClellan should be proud of what he has done.

This is an incredibly frank account of the inner workings of the Bush Whitehouse. This is not from some anti-Bush liberal but a member of the inner circle. Scott McClellan was a loyal "Bushie" from almost the beginning in Texas. His account of systematic deceit which he calls (but did not coin) "the permanent campaign" is telling and alarming.
The book is not a "settle the score" account from a disgruntled employee. In fact, McClellan spends a lot of time defending Bush as a person, his policies and many of his actions. He does not, however, pull any punches when it comes to the activities of coordinated spin, misrepresentations, and out-right lies to the American people, which he was a participant in. Lies which, among other things, landed the US in a costly and unnecessary war in Iraq.
McClellan explains the actual rational the President had for war (and it had little to do with terror or WMDs or anything Bush sold to the American people).
I believe this book will be the definitive answer to many of the questions future historians have about "What Happened" during this disastrous time in our history.
Everyone who cares about America should read this book.

This essence of this book was covered brilliantly by Frank Rich in "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" - early on in this book McClellan talks of how he witnessed hazing in his college fraternity (and by witnessing it condoned this behavior until the authorities blew the whistle). THEN he came clean!

Since he spends a lot of time talking of himself he points out other incidents where he is in a position to effect change and just stands by - naivete? or clueless? or just blindsided by events.

Now comes his being on the scene for all Valerie Plame scandal, the entry of the US into the war on Iraq and other major gaffes of this administration - for many years he has known and worked with W - once again he stands by the wayside as these horrifying events occur and says nothing, until someone else blows the whistle - the result? This poorly crafted book. Future readers won't be able to know what the heck is going on in his book as there is little context and serious omissions.

There are other books that tell the story much better - I paid the Kindle price but it was not worth even that!

More lying liars and the lying lies they tell. Only wish there were a way to give zero stars; I've already expended too much energy on this garbage.

What Happened ---- nothing new!

I have followed public affairs and political matters since my youth, which is well behind me. I read memoirs of public officials and commentary by keen and recognized observers. I voted for President Bush and would do so again given what I saw and see in his opponents. I take this position while fully recognizing the many, many lapses in competence that President Bush has displayed. Hence, the desire to gain insight form someone who was up close and personal was strong.

However, virtually nothing in Mr. McClellan's book added to the body of knowledge all ready in the public domain. Rather Mr. McClellan delivered a repetitious regurgitation of his own concept as to how a president should govern. It comes across as an unedited plaint with not an original thought or insight to offer.

Looking at the illustrations in the book, including the cover, one frequently can read vexation in the presidents face as he cornered by Mr. McClellan almost as if the president is thinking how can I escape this pest!

After reading the book I can understand his apparent frustration.

What is clear is that Mr. McClellan never understood what the ultimate fate was for virtually all press secretary's, or front men for those of a certain level of power in every walk of life. He actually thought he was a "player" and he never was and from his presentation never will be.

In the end I found the book sad and non-informative.

Scott McClellan was part of the Bush White House from day one, and was the president's Press Secretary between 2003 and 2006. In this book he reveals much of the deception practiced there, focusing on two issues, the "sale" of the war in Iraq on false premises and the deliberate outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

But McClellan is a Texas Republican and believes in George W Bush, so you have to take much of what he says with a pitch of salt. Even if he is more critical than any previous Bush insider, he still plays down the faults. In the background there is a sense of "the Democrats did this stuff too, we just failed in our attempt to be better than them".

Not everyone would agree with that opinion.

On the war, McClellan claims Bush had a dream from the beginning of overthrowing Saddam to create a domino wave of democracy spreading through the Middle East. But instead of presenting that vision to the American people Bush and his people chose instead to use Weapons of Mass Destruction as an excuse for war. Since there were no WMD, the later change to the democracy issue looked like a bait and switch, which McClellan claims, could have been avoided had Bush been more honest about his motives from the beginning.

While McClellan claims Bush wanted to work through the United Nations, there isn't a single mention in this book of the UN arms inspectors under Hans Blix, who wanted to keep working, but were stopped by the American invasion of Iraq. Obviously had they been given that chance, the proven lack of WMD would have made going to war much harder.

McClellan goes into great detail on the Plame affair, in which he twice told the Washington press corps that specific top officials had assured him they not leaked the name of the CIA agent. He describes how both the Vice President's chief of staff Scooter Libby and Bush's top aid Karl Rove out and out lied to him. McClellan is at his strongest here, and his story is very credible. What he leaves unclear is how much Dick Cheney or George Bush were behind the illegal exposure of an agent. But there are slight hints (very slight) that both, especially Cheney, were somehow involved.

What isn't in this book is any description of the Bush administration's war on civil liberties. Abu Ghraib is mentioned (and deplored) only once in passing, and the word "Guantanamo" is conspicuous by its absence. It's hard to believe the White House Press Secretary didn't have to deal with these issues during a five year tenure, and while McClellan comes across as a decent person with strong ethics, this omission is curious.

But this is probably as critical an insider's view of the Bush White House and its abuses as we are ever going to get.

When I heard that the former White House press secretary had written a "tell all" book on his years with the Bush administration, I was interested in much the same way that rush hour drivers are interested in an accident on the other side of the freeway. I knew that McClellan had been press secretary through some of the most harrowing days of the Bush administration and felt a bit sorry for him because I believed that he had been lied to on numerous occasions by the President himself as well as the inner circle of the administration. I didn't expect the book to be enlightening but I found myself wanting to read about the carnage.

It was no surprise that this book was ruthlessly attacked by those within and close to the Bush administration. The book was mostly characterised as an angry response by a bitter former employee. At first, this actually made some sense to me. But then I thought about the interviews that McClellan had given around the time he resigned from his post. At that time, he seemed like a loyal Bushie who had simply reached burnout. So why would he change his tune a year or so later?

The reasoning became more apparent when I read the preface to "What Happened." According to the author, it wasn't until he began the process of reflection that the writing of a memoir requires that he began to formulate the views he chose to include in the book. This felt honest to me so, I decided to plunge in and see what he had to say.

The crux of this book, which I think is being left out of much of the discussion surrounding it, is the concept of the "permanent campaign" and it's negative effects on our government, society and citizens. McClellan recounts his political career prior to the White House and his years in the Bush administration from the perspective that we have gone horribly wrong in our approach to government. By treating every issue as if it were a campaign and making governing decisions entirely based on the way they will play to a particular political base, we have lost sight of the true function of government.

Although his writing isn't always as eloquent as I'd like it to be, I think Scott McClellan makes some very important points in this book. There are a lot of voices shouting for the end of bipartisanship and the removal of money from politics but, McClellan speaks to these issues with a unique inside viewpoint that gives his message and it's ability to add to the dialogue an added resonance. The fact that McClellan is, for the most part, a political conservative, helps to enforce his point that the "permanent campaign" reaches far beyond ideas of liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. It is, to steal a phrase from the Nixon era, a cancer on the heart of our political system.

D.T. Holt
http://igotalottosay.blogspot.com/

When I heard that the former White House press secretary had written a "tell all" book on his years with the Bush administration, I was interested in much the same way that rush hour drivers are interested in an accident on the other side of the freeway. I knew that McClellan had been press secretary through some of the most harrowing days of the Bush administration and felt a bit sorry for him because I believed that he had been lied to on numerous occasions by the President himself as well as the inner circle of the administration. I didn't expect the book to be enlightening but I found myself wanting to read about the carnage.

It was no surprise that this book was ruthlessly attacked by those within and close to the Bush administration. The book was mostly characterised as an angry response by a bitter former employee. At first, this actually made some sense to me. But then I thought about the interviews that McClellan had given around the time he resigned from his post. At that time, he seemed like a loyal Bushie who had simply reached burnout. So why would he change his tune a year or so later?

The reasoning became more apparent when I read the preface to "What Happened." According to the author, it wasn't until he began the process of reflection that the writing of a memoir requires that he began to formulate the views he chose to include in the book. This felt honest to me so, I decided to plunge in and see what he had to say.

The crux of this book, which I think is being left out of much of the discussion surrounding it, is the concept of the "permanent campaign" and it's negative effects on our government, society and citizens. McClellan recounts his political career prior to the White House and his years in the Bush administration from the perspective that we have gone horribly wrong in our approach to government. By treating every issue as if it were a campaign and making governing decisions entirely based on the way they will play to a particular political base, we have lost sight of the true function of government.

Although his writing isn't always as eloquent as I'd like it to be, I think Scott McClellan makes some very important points in this book. There are a lot of voices shouting for the end of bipartisanship and the removal of money from politics but, McClellan speaks to these issues with a unique inside viewpoint that gives his message and it's ability to add to the dialogue an added resonance. The fact that McClellan is, for the most part, a political conservative, helps to enforce his point that the "permanent campaign" reaches far beyond ideas of liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. It is, to steal a phrase from the Nixon era, a cancer on the heart of our political system.

D.T. Holt
http://igotalottosay.blogspot.com/

Scott McClellan makes me sick. Why did he not communicate his disappointments with the president and his staff while he was doing his job? What a hypocrite. He uses terms like 'propaganda' with no evidence. Even his colleagues are stunned and not sure what other motives Scott had for writing this. He's a traitor. He should have quit a long time ago, if he truly believed this. We found out now that he was fired, and he's getting back. The money he makes from this book should be donated to "Bite the Hand that Feeds You".

His editor is also an ultra liberal!!

President Bush went over every reason why he went to war, and weapons of mass destruction was only one of them. Clinton and his administration also believed they had weapons. They have found evidence of chemicals in Iraq.

An excellent read! Gives a great insight into the inner workings of the Bush Whitehouse as it participates in the "permanent campaign" of Washington. The great thing about this book it has the credibility of being written by a former Bush insider and loyalist.

We already know everything that Scott McClellan reveals and does not reveal in his book. In my opinion, the author is more of a Bush apologist, with an endearing fondness for Bush, although he does point out his human failings and admits that hindsight is better than foresight. There are intimations of Cheney's secret and paranoic personality and his large influence over Bush - and of Condie Rice's sycophantic attitude which helped to bring the Bush presidency down.

McClellan does not even approach the corruption in the Bush administration in terms of payback to the special interests that elected this administration. He does admit he was not included in many of the meetings of Bush and his cabinet and Cheney, where I imagine their true agenda was being hashed out, and in my opinion, McClellan was used as an unwitting mouthpiece to coverup the Bush/Cheney lies.

All in all, McClellan appears to be a reflective person who sees his own shortcomings and does know right from wrong, as opposed to his former boss. And he seems to have a balanced view of 'what happened' in hindsight, even offering some good suggestions on how to change the culture of deception in Washington. He also refers to the websight factcheck.org as a good source of revealing deceptive reporting and political ads.

I found this book to be amazingly informative. Well written, concise and I am sure correctin detail. Reading this has confirmed my view that the Iraq war should never have happened, there was no reason for it, and too many lives have been lost. I hope there will never be an administratio like this again in the White House. It is incredible what deception there has been, and who can trust anybody? I would recommend it as good reading to anyone believing in the truth.

I found this book to be amazingly informative. Well written, concise and I am sure correctin detail. Reading this has confirmed my view that the Iraq war should never have happened, there was no reason for it, and too many lives have been lost. I hope there will never be an administratio like this again in the White House. It is incredible what deception there has been, and who can trust anybody? I would recommend it as good reading to anyone believing in the truth.

I am enjoying this book and am actually surprised how informative it is about our political system!

I won't write a whole book review here, but this was an excellent read for someone on either side of the party line. I enjoy the fact that the book is written by Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary, who identifies himself and his up brining as relatively conservative. Then he goes on to describe the challenges in the White House (to put it lightly).

I would consider myself a democrat, but after reading this book, changed my view regarding Bush. Not my party, just my view. Yes, Bush is probably not the smartest president (ever), but he does seem like a genuinely nice person surrounded by people with individual agendas that led him in the wrong direction. This is not to make an excuse for a President who should be able to make an intelligent final deicision. Overall, it's a great read that's difficult to put down and gives excellent insight as to what led up to some unintelligent decisions.

At first I was surprised by how forgiving Scott McClellan was of Bush in his book. I also wondered why the White House treated the book as such a betrayal because it was not THAT incriminating. Then I began to wonder--perhaps McClellan wrote the book, conceding some degree of incompetence and deception in the White House, in the hopes of covering up the higher crimes that were and are being committed. For instance, the events of 9/11 and the many questions still surrounding that horrible day were not addressed at all in the book. I understand this is called, "speaking well of someone while pretending to speak ill." Finally, the White House pretends to be offended by the book to make it appear more legit. Hm.

At first I was surprised by how forgiving Scott McCLellan was of Bush in his book. I also wondered why the White House treated the book as such a betrayal because it was not THAT incriminating. Then I began to wonder--perhaps McCLellan wrote this book, conceding some degree of incompetence and deception in the White House, in the hopes of covering up the higher crimes that were and are being committed. I understand this is called,"speaking well of someone while pretending to speak ill." Finally, the White House pretends to be offended by the book to make it appear more legit. Hm.

This is an easy read with incontravertable details of life in the Bush White House. When you compare the descriptions of what went wrong with the actions of the current candidates, you will see they are in danger of making some of the same mistakes.