I really would like to believe this, but the timing is just so questionable.  Why not even six months ago?  I don't get it, and can't really rule out his trying to just make money.

"Off of" is not English.  Where are the editors?????

Jason,

Whether written for ca$h or history  the book should be judged on its merits.  Few of its critics dispute the truth of what McClellan wrote, but almost everyone wants to chatter about the angles.

The opinion of what's left of the W claque (and, to be fair, other claques before it) is that loyalty trumps all, loyalty being a Beltway euphamism  for omerta -- a code of silence that by implication transforms the American government inro an extension of organized crime.

Dan

Motives matter, but in this case not so much.  McClellan's book appears to confirm what we already knew - in other words, it seems to be a truthful account. If that is the case, why should we be so invested in the question of motivation?  

Frankly, I'm glad when people make money writing such books - if nobody got paid for their efforts, the only books would be written by the independently wealthy and zealots.  

Neil  

"Mr. President, you gotta cut me a break" pleaded Scott.  "How will I make a buck? I've given my life to you and my reputation is garbage and now you're putting me on the street."

W replied: "Scott, stop and think. This is America and you have a story to tell. Go out and earn a buck the old-fashioned way: sales."

So McClellan goes from being a professional liar - sorry, master of spin - to a guy telling a few simple and obvious truths, and he's trashed by the same gang of liars he worked for. And judging by the media coverage the gang of liars is coming out ahead.

I agree with dbuck: omerta seems to be what matters to the Bush crime family and the Clinton crime family.

McClellan, Richardson, et al need to be careful. Telling the truth can become a dangerous habit.

Michael: You definitely weren't channeling Dubya when you fashioned that quote. The mere fact that it is coherent and grammatical disqualifies it as a Bush utterance. For the lines to be plausibly considered Bush-like they should be mangled. The quotes should be a monument to Sheridan's Mrs. Malaprop.

Before you try again, try pickling your brain for a decade, then endeavor to acquire as little knowledge as possible. Whenever faced with a complex decision use your instinct. You know, your boundless horse sense. However, because you'll suffer from equine phobia, even that will be defective.  :-D

Kidding aside,  I've read in the NYT and WSJ that publishers, led by HarperCollins, plan to eliminate bookseller returns of unsold copies and abolish large advances. The advances will be substituted by profit-sharing plans.  Less cash upfront and small, initial print runs may encourage even the most obsequious toadies to . .  .???

Well having all the administration officials mobilize to denounce him has apparently made it quite popular -- #1 on Amazon.

lubetkin: untrue, off of is English, just bad English. Avoid such expressions as remember of, off of, had of

I agree with dbuck. Is the book true? Might this also be ego involved here. Ari's book is useless historically. McClellen's book might be one that lasts.  Being that he probably realized his book was going to be the only truthful one, then why not write it? Otherwise, in 100 years no one would have any idea who he was or even care, but to imagine that his book will be one of the ones first off the shelf has to be worth far more than money. He also has the added benefit of getting both, fame and fortune.

blackie:

Why didn't you include "should of" in your list of no-nos? You say it all the time. Ha, ha.

How 'ya hanging, angry,white, working-class, Irish-Catholic, Pennsylvanian?  (I've been reading your posts. That is how I know you are an Irish-Catholic Pennsylvanian.) :-)

I think Peter Osnos is being disingenuous here. But I am glad that we have Scott McClellan's book. Anything that discomfits this White House is great by me.

tec, yeah, that is right. it is should have, not should of. Same with can't help but, or might of or must of. It should be have. AVOID COMMON ERRORS.

Normally one questions an author's motives as a means of attacking his credibility.  It's interesting that in the chorus of condemnation emanating from the Bushies and their apologists, there has been not one suggestion that McClellan is lying or even exaggerating,  Who really cares about motive?  So what if he's disloyal?  What has this crew ever done to deserve anyone's loyalty?

Scotty's allegations are quite damning.  And, now it appears, quite true.  Shouldn't we be focusing on the message and not the messenger?

"Well having all the administration officials mobilize to denounce him has apparently made it quite popular -- #1 on Amazon."

Thank you, rozenson.  You made my weekend.