What Happened by Scott McClellan; Public Affairs; 341 pages; $27.95.

This is a book about the slice of history that Scott McClellan witnessed during his years as White House press secretary. That history of the Bush administration, he hopes, will deepen the reader's understanding of contemporary history, especially what happened after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. McClellan, through his actions and those of others, shows how Washington has become the home of the permanent campaign, a game of endless politicking where shading the truth, partial truths and spin are the norm.

AP file photo (ENLARGE)

Press secretary Scott McClellan is peppered with questions by White House reporters at a daily briefing in 2005.

He writes: "Governing has become an appendage of politics rather than the other way around, electoral victory and the control of power are the sole measures of success. That means shaping the narrative before it shapes you. Candor and honesty are pushed to the side in the battle to win the latest news cycle.

"Of course, deception in politics is nothing new. What's new is the degree to which it now permeates our national political discourse."

He then cites a series of events that make his point:

When McClellan became White House press secretary, he writes that he did not fully appreciate how contentious and venomous the atmosphere in Washington was – and how controversial and polarizing the Bush administration was about to become. It emerged that the White House had deliberately blown the cover of Valerie Plane, a covert CIA official, to discredit her husband, who had publicly alleged that the administration had knowingly misled the country into the war with Iraq. McClellan had been assured that Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams and Lewis Libby had not leaked classified information. Believing this, he told the press corps the same thing.

As it turned out, he had unknowingly passed along false information. He didn't learn that what he'd said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later. When the truth finally emerged, McClellan's credibility was tarnished. Like the war at the root of the leak scandal, the story just wouldn't go away.

On the subject of war with Iraq, he takes the media to task: Only a few journalists questioned the administration's rationale and focused on the necessity and realities of war. Most were neglecting their watchdog role. He faults them for focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding.

Carefully orchestrated campaigns meant to shape and manipulate sources of public approval are used to any presidential administration's advantage.

"But today," he writes, "as I look back on the campaign we waged to sell the Iraq war to the American people ... I see more clearly the downside of applying modern campaign tactics to matters of grave historical import. Reflecting on that period has helped crystallize my understanding of the permanent campaign, with its destructive excesses, and how Washington, in its current state of partisan warfare, functions on mutual deception. The picture isn't pretty."

In his opinion, the vast majority of the nation's elected officials are good people. But they are caught up in an endless effort to manipulate public opinion to their advantage. "Driven by partisan interests, they engage in deception, whether intentionally or not, (and I believe in most cases the deception is, in fact, unintentional or subconscious). It is part of the political propaganda effort to advance one's causes," he writes.

Scott McClellan served as White House press secretary from 2003 to 2006 and before that as principal deputy White House press secretary and as traveling press secretary for the President Bush's 2000 election campaign. Earlier in his career, he served in various statewide Texas campaigns. Born in Austin, Texas, he graduated from the University of Texas and now lives near Washington with his wife, Jill.

An Excerpt

Many a time, I would see the president walk into a room or area where the family of a fallen soldier was gathered. He would hug the mom or wife. He would visit with them and the dads and children, listening to them share stories of their loved one. Often a mom would look the president in the eye and say, "You finish the job. You make sure my son did not die in vain."

These visits had a way of reinforcing the president's resolve to successfully complete the mission – to press ahead. The momentary doubt became, in the end, another reason for his unshakeable determination. Still another motive for Bush to avoid acknowledging mistakes was his determination to win the political game at virtually any cost. Bush was not about to give the establishment Washington media anything critics could use to damage him and his re-election effort. He knew that, in today's political climate, if he admitted error on a consequential matter like the decision to go to war, partisan critics would seize on it and use it to tear him down. On this, he probably wasn't wrong, but I believe that embracing openness and forthrightness could have redeemed him, transcended partisanship, and brought together leaders of both parties to chart a consensus way forward in Iraq. It may not have been on Bush's exact terms or to his preferred way of achieving a successful outcome, but it would have served our country and those we asked to defend it a lot better.

Finally, there was Bush's insistence on remaining true to his base. Wary of replicating any of his father's political errors, Bush feared that his conservative base would begin to fracture if he appeared to back away from his commitment to Iraq. Bush and Rove believe that the base wants a leader that is strong, decisive, and firm in his beliefs above all. Since holding the base and keeping it energized was an absolute must in their view, Bush's reluctance to admit error was at least understandable – if not wise.

As far as Bush and his advisers (especially Karl Rove) were concerned, being open and forthright in such circumstances was a recipe for trouble and perhaps they were right – for the short term. In the long run, the president's inability to face the reality of his own decisions, as illustrated by the emblematic moment in the press conference, would become a large and steadily growing barrier between him and the American people.