There are plenty of books out there critical of Bush and his adminstration [ e.g., books like Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City", or Corn's & Isikoffs "Hubris", Hersh's "Chain of Command", Rick's "Fiasco", Unger's "House of Bush, House of Saud", Woodward" "Bush at War", "Plan of Attack", or "State of Denial", Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty", etc.] It's not really true, but one might dismiss them as being written by liberal Democrats or political outsiders. Harder to dismiss are those written by ex members of the Bush team, like former EPA Administrators Christine Todd Whitman's book "It's My Party", former terrorism advisor Richard Clark's book, former CIA head George Tenant's book, etc.]. Here's another ex-Bush insider who is saying the same thing - Bush didn't do a very good job overall. I believe it was the same Scott McClellan who dismissed some of these earlier books as "sour grapes", or just someone trying to make a buck once outside the administration, it's amusing that the same is being said of him and his book.
But repeated enough times by many former insiders, you have to start believing the common theme. McClellan's book actually is the kindest of Bush of them all in my opinion. He doesn't seem to be condemning Bush as much as the way politics is played, especially in Washington. McClellan seems to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in many areas, and still believes he's a decent caring man. Instead, he blames the policical atmosphere in general, and the likes of Rove, Cheney, and other key advisors for the problems in the current administration. My impression, by the time I finished the book, was there really wasn't much new here, and McClellan's main gripe was personal, e.g., he was misled by Rove, Libby, and others about who leaked inside information about a CIA agent to the press for political reasons, and ended up being caught himself in an inadvertent lie to the press. My feeling is that he simply wanted to get his side of the story out there, clear his name, and not specifically to bash Bush any more than has already been done.
( )

It was just sitting on the NEW shelf at the library so I picked it up. It's not particularly well-written, and Scott (though I think he's a pretty good guy) doesn't really seem too, too smart, but the inside stuff is very good reading. Nothing, of course, too surprising unless you'd been in a coma (or dizzy for some other reason) for the last eight years, or couldn't read, perhaps, previous to 2000, and had no idea who the Bushes are.

One interesting bit has to do with SMcC's view of Candy Rice. He thinks she specifically let GW down by not presenting him with alternative views and possibilities during the time she was his Natl Security Advisor or Sec'y of State; that it was very much her duty to do more than just go along with what Bush already wanted or was being pushed by others. ( )

This is not the best book out there on the inner workings of the White House. Nor is it the best written autobiography that you'll ever read.

However, it is an entertaining book, and does give a good sense of McLellan's point-of-view on Plamegate, the illegal outing of spy Valerie Plame.

Despite the right-wing blather, this is not a partisan book, and while McLellan clearly has opinions about people he feels betrayed him by feeding him false information, he portrays George W. Bush as likable and engaged, if not fully up to the task. ( )

Just started reading this book. The introduction made for some very interesting reading.

Just started reading this book. The introduction made for some very interesting reading.