Scott McClellan recently published a book about what he did as press secretary for President George W. Bush. He says that the staff made him tell lies and say things he did not agree with when he addressed the public. He wanted to expose what the administration did and verify what the Bush critics have said for ages.
Sounds just, right? How about cruel and two-faced.
So let's look at what led up to this. McClellan started to work for Bush when he was first elected Governor of Texas. He did what the the then governor and now president said to do. He did his job. He held his job in the White House for six years before resigning because of differences between the president and him. Then this happened: he published a book and is making a ton of money.
How is any of this ethical or right?
McClellan was voluntarily employed by Bush to do a job, not comment on it. His job was to say what the White House wanted. He was paid for it. He did it for six years before saying that enough is enough. Then he made a book and is gaining more dollars every second it is in the marketplace. He completely turned on the man he had supported for years and complained about his job that he was being paid to do. Paid a lot.
It is unethical and wrong to tell a lie, but as the saying goes, "Don't kill the messenger."
I wouldn't have a problem with McClellan if he had done this earlier, but it's just that he had to do it when it was most profitable. It's not like Bush was a stranger to McClellan; he worked for him during his governorship and was good friends with him.
This just doesn't make sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Ben, I thought you liked capitalism. Now Scott wants to tell us everything he has been through, and I think that is fair. I would at least read his book before I would criticize it.
Disregard the capitalism and actually think of what he did.
And, Jake if McClellan thinks that the "lies" that the administration told him to say were, he should have quit long ago and wrote a book at the same time. The lies started in 2001. They didn't surface later; he was well-aware of what he was saying for years.
I don't have a problem with a man selling an honest book, but when the only reason is to make a quick-buck, that just pisses me off.
I think there's more to the story than the public knows. As far as his book goes, I am in the middle of his decision to publish something like that. In one way, Scott McClellan worked for George Bush from the beginning of the 2000 Presidential Campaign. First as a traveling press Secretary, then as his Deputy Press Secretary. He's said many things on behalf of the President and his staff. If he had any problems with what they made him say, he should have resigned earlier. On the other hand, he did what any other person would do: He found a way to make money and pulled the trigger. The exposition of Bush and his "senior most aides" is just the cherry on top. He is not alone in the theme of his intentions. Many others have done the same thing. SEE: Barnes & Noble
ya ben i thought you were all about the free market, capitalism, unregulated shiznat? People want and love to read stuff like this. Besides, what he did was certainly not nice, but you go way to far in calling it unethical. He is perfectly within his bounds to write this book, as long as he is not revealing any top secret material this is his 1st amendment right (which if you support america, you should support the 1st amendment) to tell people. Wouldnt you feel bad if you your job for the last six years was lying to the american people? I would hope you would feel like crap. but ya he should have done it sooner
That's just it: he should have done it sooner. He had to have known what he was saying was wrong. If he did have a problem with lying, I would think that right after the first one that you make to the entire nation in 2001, you would probably want to resign then and not go through with having to lie anymore.
I agree with Ben. If he was so unhappy and felt "so terrible" about lying, then he should have left the first chance he got, but he didn't because he needed the money. His book is probably full of shit anyways, so if he didn't like lying, then why did he write a book full of them. He's just trying to write about what people want to hear, and that's what will make him money.
Isn't it good if you disagree with someone or something, to change your ways? I see that you are okay with his resignation, but I don't understand why you think his publication is wrong. He is possibly exposing truths that the American people can't see without such books. We pay for it because we want to know.
But yes, I dp agree with your response to jake. If he didn't like the lies, he should have resigned earlier. However, such things are easier said than done. Think about it as if you were watching a horror film. You see the young teenage girl walking up the stairs going in to the dark, ridiculously suspicious room. You're sitting there in the theatre, yelling in your brain "ARE YOU IDIOTIC?! TURN AROUND!" But when you're in the actual situation, when do you know to turn around? When do you realize that you've gone too far? Do you play along until you know that you should've turned around, or get out early, and miss out on the potential chance of a lifetime?
The situation more complpicated than it seems at first glance.
Let me just say before my comment that I'm not trying to make a stab at you in any way, but how is this unethical? In America, we are so lucky to have the freedom of speech/ the press and the right to petition the government. I would not have done something like that myself, but I certainly think he had the right to. And by the way, if he had to lie about how he felt in front of the public, I hardly think he supported Bush the whole time... I'm not saying he did this the right way, but I wouldn't go so far to describe his actions as cruel.
Post a Comment