Dear ABC News,
I just watched Martha Raddatz's interview with Scott McClellan. I was surprised to see how upset she looked and sounded. Aren't reporters supposed to remain objective? She must have a lot of respect for President Bush; however, I give a lot of credit to Scott for telling the truth even though it was very difficult for him to do. At the time he was employed at the White House he couldn't come forward and speak his mind. Now he is free to do so, and I think the public deserves to know the truth about subjects as important as why we went to war. Martha's verbal and nonverbal communication showed too much emotion. It was very unprofessional and I was uncomfortable watching it. If she can't interview a controversial subject without showing bias, maybe someone else should have interviewed him. Thank you.
I give a lot of credit to Scott for telling the truth even though it was very difficult for him to do.
How do you know he is telling the truth? Every past and former press secretary of Bush says McClellan isn't telling the truth.
McClellan was fired from his position. He has been unemployed since. How hard is it to imagine that he skewed some of what he saw to make a book more likely to sell. It isn't to difficult to see how dollar signs could rule the day for McClellan.
I think his book should be taken as one side of a story. Not as gospel. I have no problem with the press interviewing him. I do have a problem with the press giving him unchallenged say.