In case you don’t waste several hours a day reading the back and forth between political figures as I do, Scott McLellan, former White House press secretary and all-around douchebag, is coming out with a book in which he allegedly blasts the Bush administration for having done everything we knew they were doing but claimed to not be doing through mouthpieces like Scott McLellan. To wit:

Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes. McClellan defends the president’s intellect — “Bush is plenty smart enough to be president,” he writes — but casts him as unwilling or unable to be reflective about his job.

“A more self-confident executive would be willing to acknowledge failure, to trust people’s ability to forgive those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change,” he writes.

…

The former aide describes Bush as a willing participant in treating his presidency as a permanent political campaign, run in large part by his top political adviser, Rove.

“The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office,” he writes. “And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned.”

Shocking! Completely unexpected!

The best part is the reaction of everyone connected to the White House, which boils down to: we didn’t realize he had an honest streak. Here’s Karl Rove:

Two things, first of all, this doesn’t sound like Scott. It really doesn’t. Not the Scott McClellan I have known for a long time. Second of all–sounds like somebody else, it sounds like a left-wing blogger. Second of all, if he had these moral qualms he should have spoken up about them. And frankly I don’t remember him speaking up about these things, I don’t remember a single word.

Here’s Dana Perino, current White House press secretary:

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.

Here’s Dan Bartlett, former White House counsel:

It’s almost like we’re witnessing an out-of-body experience. We’re hearing from a completely different person we didn’t have any insight into.

For a slightly different take, here’s Ari Fleischer, interviewed on NPR:

MR. CHADWICK: He uses the term propaganda. That’s quite a term. And he’s talking about President Bush. I think he’s talking about you as well. He’s talking about the message from the White House.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that’s what really struck me is if Scott thought it was propaganda, then Scott should not have accepted the job as White House press secretary. If Scott viewed what the White House was saying was so irresponsible or wrong that it rose to the level of propaganda for him, it’s not a job he should have accepted. He should on principle have declined it.

Note that Ari doesn’t say it’s not propaganda. Instead, they’re making the case that Scott McLellan should not have taken a job in which he was forced to disseminate propaganda if he had a moral issue with it. It’s a mind-bogglingly bizarre strategy: because Scott did not express objections at the time, he clearly does not have objections, even though he is currently objecting. I guess we’re supposed to follow the logic and assume that he’s lying to sell books. I will be truly impressed if they can convince the American public that it’s more likely a man would lie after working for the White House than during the time in which he was paid to make the White House look good.