What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception

by Scott McClellan

book data

469 ratings, 3.02 average rating, 219 reviews (more data...)

rating	frequency	%
5		7%
4		22%
3		41%
2		22%
1		6%

edit

published

May 28th 2008 by PublicAffairs

binding

Hardcover, 341 pages

isbn

1586485563 (isbn13: 9781586485566)

description

Scott McClellan was one of a few Bush loyalists from Texas who became part of his inner circle of trusted advisers, and remained so during one of the ...more

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | compare prices ($0.46)…

new topic
discuss this book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Book Challenge: * A-Z Title Challenge	133	1497	4 minutes ago
Bookmarks Subscri...: Getting the Stink Eye from Your Bookshelf	58	73	1 day ago, 11:37AM
The Next Best Boo...: OFFICIAL WINTER CHALLENGE - 2008/2009	2174	3161	03/04/2009 07:03AM
Belated Rationales: Good (Better Late Than Never) or Bad (CYA)?	1	8	07/01/2008 06:23AM

friend reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

This book is currently not featured on any Listopia lists. Add this book to your favorite list »

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 958)

sort: default (?) | date
filters: all | text-only

06/13/08

Xysea rated it:

bookshelves: non-fiction, political

Read in July, 2008

recommends it for: political junkies, poli sci students, the average taxpayer

Okay, let's be honest. This entire book is a rationale. Well, not just one rationale, but several: For why McClellan didn't do anything despite knowing (or at the very least suspecting corruption and dishonesty) as well as why McClellan won't disavow the GOP.

All in all, though, his rationales are plausible, and that's what makes the book work. In the Bush Administration, it's easy to envision Cheney and Rove, for example, viewing McClellan as a nobody, a mouthpiece, and therefore...more Okay, let's be honest. This entire book is a rationale. Well, not just one rationale, but several: For why McClellan didn't do anything despite knowing (or at the very least suspecting corruption and dishonesty) as well as why McClellan won't disavow the GOP.

All in all, though, his rationales are plausible, and that's what makes the book work. In the Bush Administration, it's easy to envision Cheney and Rove, for example, viewing McClellan as a nobody, a mouthpiece, and therefore it wouldn't matter if they lied to him about revealing the identity/cover of a covert CIA operative; to them, it was just business, not personal. Only their 'business' made him a liar and Scooter Libby a perjurer.

It's hard for me to read this stuff, looking around at the newspapers at the problems with the economy and the war this Administration has wrought, knowing McClellan for all his belated honesty and analysis is likely doing just fine financially - not only from his cushy job as White House spokesperson, but also from his book deal. But another part of me sees that he was, like many Americans, duped by this Administration. Should he have seen the signs? The answer is: Possibly. Maybe even probably, but many of us didn't either. (Personally, I wasn't ever in support of the Bush Administration, but many fine, upstanding, intelligent and intellectual friends of mine were...)

Still, it makes for compelling reading and the book maintains a decent pace; it slows a bit just past the halfway mark, but I didn't half wonder if that's because we already know the story, we already know how it ends. And by the mid of the book, he's done revealing his 'insider' knowledge and reverts to speculation. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of speculation. Between the punditry, and the news media, and the weekend political shows, I've had my fill of what people "think"; what I want to know is what are they doing to *do* about it. Scott offers few answers here, but it was heartening, if empty, to see he was willing to testify before the Senate - even if he essentially said, well, nothing.

This book isn't Earth-shattering, but it did give me a lot of insight into how the mind of George W. Bush works; there was a time where I thought that might be of little value. But as it seems the man is unlikely to be impeached, and will leave office fairly unscathed except in reputation, I think differently now. I want to know what he thinks and how he thinks, so that in judging future candidates if I see a similar pattern I can avoid it like the plague and spare this country unnecessary grief and suffering.(less)

Like this review? yes (6 people liked it)

1 comment

05/31/08

Jacob rated it:

Read in May, 2008

Title: Same Old Partisan Crap

I found reading McClellan's partisan memoir to be a total waste of time. I also feel the author lacks credibility and this book offers the same old partisan view we have been fed all along. This book has been targeted towards and panders to the left-leaning partisan audience. McClellan makes a ton of allegations against the Bush Administration but doesn't provide any backing/proof. The book reads like a conspiracy theory.
Although the media response ...more Title: Same Old Partisan Crap

I found reading McClellan's partisan memoir to be a total waste of time. I also feel the author lacks credibility and this book offers the same old partisan view we have been fed all along. This book has been targeted towards and panders to the left-leaning partisan audience. McClellan makes a ton of allegations against the Bush Administration but doesn't provide any backing/proof. The book reads like a conspiracy theory.
Although the media response dwelled on McClellan's criticism of Bush's road to war, the CIA leak case is the heart of this book. Throughout the book McClellan virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's role in leaking Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee to Robert Novak. That fits the partisan Democratic version of the Plame affair.
McClellan doesn't present the reader with a single page dedicated to substantial, credible evidence. In all honesty, a monkey with a pen in his hand could have done a better job at logical reasoning.
McClellan's only legitimate censure seems to be his unjust treatment during the Valerie Plame investigation. McClellan conceded in interviews that even when he was an important cog in the "propaganda machine," he never witnessed anything that seemed at the time to be deceitful or untrue. If McClellan had a problem then he should have resigned rather than being kicked out and more importantly he should have spoken up when he had the podium.
In claiming he was misled about the Plame affair, McClellan mentions Richard Armitage only twice. Armitage being the leaker undermines the Democratic theory, now accepted by McClellan that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and political adviser Karl Rove aimed to delegitimize Ambassador Wilson (Democratic partisan) as a war critic.
On page 173, McClellan first mentions Robert Novak's Plame leak, but he does not identify Armitage as the leaker until page 306 of the 323-page book -- then only in passing. Armitage, anti-war and anti-Cheney, cannot fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into. When Armitage after two years publicly admitted he was Novak's source, the life went out of Wilson's campaign. In "What Happened," McClellan dwells on Rove's alleged deceptions as if the real leaker were still unknown.
McClellan at the White House podium never knew the facts about the CIA leak, and his memoir reads as though he has tried to maintain his ignorance. He omits Armitage's slipping Mrs. Wilson's identity to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward weeks before he talked to Novak. He does not mention that Armitage turned himself in to the Justice Department even before Patrick Fitzgerald was named as special prosecutor.
McClellan completely ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered. Nevertheless, McClellan calls the leak "wrong and harmful to national security" -- ignoring questions of whether Plame really was engaged in undercover operations and whether her cover long ago had been blown.
I borrowed this book from a friend to read and I'm glad that my 2 cents didn't go into this turncoat's pocket and I pray that yours don't either. (less)

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

5 comments

06/12/08

Mattie rated it:

McClellan's memoir of "what happened" in the Bush administration really gets 3.5 stars, but since that's not an option, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt (or of the star).

Anyway - the thing about the book is not any "revelations" about what actually happened. Anyone who's been paying even a modicum of attention the past 8 years knows what happened. What McClellen does is provide an interesting perspective on how it came to happen. Admittedly, his basic theory...more McClellan's memoir of "what happened" in the Bush administration really gets 3.5 stars, but since that's not an option, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt (or of the star).

Anyway - the thing about the book is not any "revelations" about what actually happened. Anyone who's been paying even a modicum of attention the past 8 years knows what happened. What McClellen does is provide an interesting perspective on how it came to happen. Admittedly, his basic theory - that the conduct of public policy as part of the "permanent campaign" rather than as part of "governance" - isn't new with him. But he give appropriate props to Norm Ornstein & Thomas Mann as the authors and his experience is a stark example of the theory in action.

McClellan comes across as a decent guy who wants to believe the best in most people. Yet he manages to take and place enough blame to avoid coming off as self-serving or an apologist for the Bush administration. Even though he has every right to be livid with Rove and Libby over the Plame affair, he still clearly tries hard to be temperate in his comments towards them.

Again, although there's not much "new", I think a few of his observations from his experiences are really well taken. First, is that the White House really does create a bubble out of which its hard to see. Second, if you have a president without a penchant for self analysis or introspection, its all the more important for those who work for him (or her) to be willing to fight,not feed, that tendancy. Third, the tactics and mindset that make for a good campaign make for pretty lousy governance. These onservations/tendencies excuse nothing, but do help explain how public policy often goes awry, even when the people in charge are well intentioned and genuinely want to do the right thing.

I think his book also points out how easy it is for a few not-so well intentioned people to manipulate the tendencies noted above for their own purposes. I don't think that McClellan was actively trying to emphasize that point, but I can't help but think he knew he was making it. As well he should have.

What got the book the benefit of the doubt for the half-star is the fact that he ends the book with some suggestions for improving the system to help the president and White House staff avoid the worst excesses of the tendencies noted above. After all he saw, that he's still optimistic enough to offer suggestions and hold out hope that all is not lost is charming. As a native New Yorker and a Washington attorney, cynicism is both my birthright and my professional obligation. Even so, I cling to what's left of my idealism and find it heartening to know that I'm not the only one. Even more heartening is to find that one of the other people clinging to his is a Repubilcan. Maybe there's hope yet... (less)

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

2 comments

07/13/08

Rachel rated it:

It seriously takes a crappy book for me to not finish a book (I like to finish a book no matter how difficult it is to get through.) Now, the preface in this book is fantastic. It got me all rowled up. (Is that the right word: rowled?) I thought this book would be very interesting, and I guess a little part of it was. I wanted to get the scoop from a true insider. Someone who really was in the thick of it all. The problem with this book is when he blabs on and on about idealistic politics, his f...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

2 comments

08/05/08

Maria rated it:

Forget how smug he was at press briefings. Forget how he was a puppet and mouthpiece for all the bad decisions of the Bush administration. For me, these are givens, like saying a croissant tastes nice or summer is pleasant.

McClellan doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know - not really - in spirit if not in detail.

But what really annoys me about this book is that an editor somewhere let it go out in such bad condition? I get the man's not a writer, but jeez. You'd ...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

07/08/08

Samantha rated it:

Read in September, 2008

I had heard so much about this book, but it was taking its time making it up to the top of my stack. I found it fascinating to walk through the recent events from Scott McClellan's eyes. To find out what he said he knew when he said he knew it. To hear what he believes about each of the participants in the events. It was interesting to me to see how he views President Bush now compared to how he viewed him before going to Washington with him. His comments on Dr. Condi Rice were really enlighteni...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

07/01/08

Ray rated it:

(review of isbn 1433214342)

Read in July, 2008

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...more 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.
(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

06/25/08

Scott rated it:

For some reason I am fascinated by reading first-hand accounts of what happened behind the scenes in recent U.S. Presidential administrations. I am particularly fascinated with reading about the George W. Bush administration and how they have become so out of touch with reality. McClellan's account was fascinating to me. As someone who thinks George W. Bush beats out only Andrew Johnson in a contest to be a good president, it was interesting to learn from a true insider how decisions were made a...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

06/08/08

Caroline rated it:

Read in June, 2008

recommends it for: Politicos (My People)

So exciting! I normally read the conservatives at the library, so my consumer dollars won't fund their destruction of my country - that should tell you which side I'm coming from. This one, I BOUGHT! I make this offer to any Bushie who wants to roll over and tell the truth - I will buy your book! (David Kuo, I will grandfather you in)

Mr. McClellan started off kinda rocky; he gives us a background story about difficulties he experienced as head of his fraternity... and cites these as...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comment

12/01/07

Tom rated it:

Read in June, 2008

recommends it for: nobody

I am NO fan of Bush, and was mildly interested to see what McClellan has to say (even though I distrust presidential turncoats) about possibly the worst president in history.

This is a terribly written book with disjointed rhythm. I've read better written stuff on bathroom walls. Considering that McClellan was not thought of well by the press corps or the public like Ari Fleischer was, he seems to think he did a wonderful job. Plus, for a book that is supposed to be an insider's view...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

07/27/08

Lisa rated it:

bookshelves: non-fiction

Read in August, 2008

recommends it for: absolutely NO ONE!

This was a hard one to put into the non-fiction category.

To summarize:
Pure drivel or more accurately pure partisan drivel that lays the responsibility of the Bush administration's lies and deceptions at the feet of the press.

The most honest paragraph in the entire book, “President Bush has always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader. He is not one to delve deeply into all the possible policy options-including sitting around engaging in ex...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

02/07/09

Dan rated it:

(review of other edition)

Read in July, 2008

When I heard that the former White House press secretary had written a "tell all" book on his years with the Bush administration, I was interested in much the same way that rush hour drivers are interested in an accident on the other side of the freeway. I knew that McClellan had been press secretary through some of the most harrowing days of the Bush administration and felt a bit sorry for him because I believed that he had been lied to on numerous occasions by the President himself a...more When I heard that the former White House press secretary had written a "tell all" book on his years with the Bush administration, I was interested in much the same way that rush hour drivers are interested in an accident on the other side of the freeway. I knew that McClellan had been press secretary through some of the most harrowing days of the Bush administration and felt a bit sorry for him because I believed that he had been lied to on numerous occasions by the President himself as well as the inner circle of the administration. I didn't expect the book to be enlightening but I found myself wanting to read about the carnage.

It was no surprise that this book was ruthlessly attacked by those within and close to the Bush administration. The book was mostly characterised as an angry response by a bitter former employee. At first, this actually made some sense to me. But then I thought about the interviews that McClellan had given around the time he resigned from his post. At that time, he seemed like a loyal Bushie who had simply reached burnout. So why would he change his tune a year or so later?

The reasoning became more apparent when I read the preface to "What Happened." According to the author, it wasn't until he began the process of reflection that the writing of a memoir requires that he began to formulate the views he chose to include in the book. This felt honest to me so, I decided to plunge in and see what he had to say.

The crux of this book, which I think is being left out of much of the discussion surrounding it, is the concept of the "permanent campaign" and it's negative effects on our government, society and citizens. McClellan recounts his political career prior to the White House and his years in the Bush administration from the perspective that we have gone horribly wrong in our approach to government. By treating every issue as if it were a campaign and making governing decisions entirely based on the way they will play to a particular political base, we have lost sight of the true function of government.

Although his writing isn't always as eloquent as I'd like it to be, I think Scott McClellan makes some very important points in this book. There are a lot of voices shouting for the end of bipartisanship and the removal of money from politics but, McClellan speaks to these issues with a unique inside viewpoint that gives his message and it's ability to add to the dialogue an added resonance. The fact that McClellan is, for the most part, a political conservative, helps to enforce his point that the "permanent campaign" reaches far beyond ideas of liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. It is, to steal a phrase from the Nixon era, a cancer on the heart of our political system.(less)

Like this review? yes

add a comment

01/06/09

Sharon rated it:

Read in January, 2009

Scott McClellen, George W. Bush's former press secretary, is the first of the Bush inner circle to "go public" with a look into this most secretive of administrations. McClellen, a fellow Texan, went with Bush to the White House as an assistant press secretary and moved up to press secretary right before the Valerie Plame outing.

McClellen puts the blame for what happened in the Bush administration on the "constant campaign culture." By this he means that rather ...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

11/26/08

Dj rated it:

bookshelves: politics

Read in July, 2008

I finished reading Scott McClellan’s memoir: What Happened: Inside the Bush White and Washington’s Culture of Deception. This is my first political memoir of a recent event. Normally, I’d pick up a book written many years after the fact, letting distance provide some context. But, I just had to have this book as McClellan worked the media and blog circuit. As you may know, he was a loyal Bush supporter and fellow Texan who served as White House Press Secretary from July 2003 until April 20...more I finished reading Scott McClellan’s memoir: What Happened: Inside the Bush White and Washington’s Culture of Deception. This is my first political memoir of a recent event. Normally, I’d pick up a book written many years after the fact, letting distance provide some context. But, I just had to have this book as McClellan worked the media and blog circuit. As you may know, he was a loyal Bush supporter and fellow Texan who served as White House Press Secretary from July 2003 until April 2006.

The memoir focuses primarily on the selling and secrecy around the Iraq War and the outing of a CIA agent as payback for challenging the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) claim for the war. It touches ever so briefly on the political effects of Hurricane Katrina on the Bush presidency.

There are a few tidbits that McClellan confirms. Bush decided to go to war with Iraq by November 2001 (p. 127). However, McClellan says that the war was right, but that it was marketed wrong, emphasizing WMD instead of spreading freedom. This revisionism is expected from loyal Bush folks, but it seems weird coming from a person who is persona non grata these days in Republican circles. He said Bush’s primary failing was not admitting that WMD’s weren’t the real reason for Iraq War. With respect to Katrina, he blames state and local officials, and Karl Rove, for any failings in the government’s reaction to one of its worst natural disasters. Also, Karl Rove is definitely fingered as someone who exposed Valerie Plame’s CIA cover, in an attempt to discredit her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson.

The main points I took away from this book are:

* McClellan portrays himself as a do-gooder who can do no wrong. He’s smitten with the President and never stabs him in the back, or front, during his tenure or in this book.
* It’s never McClellan’s fault. It’s always someone else’s fault. He is always doing the best he can. For anything bad that happened, he says that he was deceived, lied to, kept in the dark, or manipulated by dark foes (pp. 124, 138, 146, 153, 155, 163, 259, 297).
* Republicans are portrayed as being misunderstood, while Democrats are often wrong from the get-go. He blames the “system” constantly, but never blames individuals for making the system into what it is today. My personal thoughts are that the partisanship of the Republican leaders of the House during the 1990s led to the extreme partisanship we see in the White House today.
* McClellan says that while Bush won in 2004, the narrowness of the win “supplied no real mandate” (p. 252). Bush and Cheney would never say this, claiming they had a mandate to do whatever they wanted, especially after November 2004.
* His blame summation: Rove was bad. Libby was bad. Cheney was secretive. Bush was misled. Scott McClellan was lied to (p. 306).

McClellan also appears to have some serious masculinity hang-ups. He constantly uses parenthetical asides to assert that he truly is a manly-man. Talking to his mom, discussing stuff with his wife and being beaten up by his older brothers are addressed with unnecessary machismo (pp. 103, 112, 26). Additionally, when offering up his thinly-sketched fix for partisanship, he says that “for the rest of this chapter, I’ll refer to the hypothetical leaders of tomorrow simply as ‘he,’ to avoid the awkwardness of saying ‘he or she’ repeatedly. No disrespect is intended to any current or future national leaders of the female gender” (p. 314) What the heck is that? He then spends the next 9 1/3 pages saying he over and over again. Why not alternate? Why choose he over she? I’m sorry, it’s much more awkward to erase the contributions (past, current or future) of women in the leadership ranks of our government.

Clocking in at 323 pages, this book went on way to long. It could have been cut down to 100-150 pages and still gotten across its points. Was it a good read? Not necessarily. It certainly didn’t fit the bill as something that would alienate Republicans and rally Democrats.(less)

Like this review? yes

add a comment

07/03/09

John rated it:

Read in January, 2009

This is a good view from inside the White House bubble, from the experience of the White House Press Secretary, who actually was a career politico with roots in Texas. Initially impressed by his entry into the inner circles, he eventually becomes disillusioned.

I think liberals should give McClellan credit for stepping out of the party line. McClellan does clearly admit that the Bush administration misled us into the Iraq war ("What I do know is that war should only be waged when...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

06/14/09

Sueij rated it:

Read in June, 2009

I was surprised by how much I liked this book. I heard about it on the Diane Rehm show, then found it on the "new" shelf in the library. I expected just a "here's what happened around me" kind of book, but it was much more than that.

Mostly I was surprised that McClellan really had a point; namely, that what's wrong in Washington is the culture of permanent campaigning. He argues that elected officials used to use campaign tactics to get elected, then got on with t...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

12/26/08

Johnsergeant rated it:

bookshelves: audiblecom, audiobook, politics-current-affairs

Read in December, 2008

Narrated by Scott McClellan
Unabridged: 12 hrs and 28 mins

Publisher's Summary
Scott McClellan belonged to President Bush's select inner circle of trusted advisers during one of the most challenging, contentious periods of recent history. Over a period of more than seven years, he witnessed, day-to-day, exactly how the presidency veered off course, not only by its decision to topple Saddam Hussein, but by an embrace of confrontational politics in the face of an increasingly ...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

05/28/08

Sarah marked it as to-read

bookshelves: nonfiction, to-read

The Bush administration misled the American public?! Really? I had no idea. Thank goodness Scott McClellan, former White House press secretary, wrote a book about it.

When I get around to reading this, I'll be looking for any acknowledgment of the author's own wrongdoings as White House spokesperson. When speaking truth to power, timing is important... I'd be more impressed by Mr. McClellan if he had spoken up years ago -- before being pushed out of the White House.

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comment

05/14/09

Serryl rated it:

Read in October, 2008

This book pretty much covers the entire period that Scott McClellan worked with President Bush, starting during the lead up to his run for the republican nomination. As far as the major historical events he discusses, I'd say the big three are the Iraq War, hurricane Katrina, and the leak of Valerie Plame's identity and ensuing investigation. He presents these events from the point of view of someone not only within the administration, but who also largely supported the administration at the tim...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

06/09/08

Laura rated it:

Read in June, 2008

Did I like it because it completely vindicated all that we thought we knew already about Bush and Co., with the added deliciousness of having been written by a Bush insider? Yes, to a large extent. Nothing like seeing the bad guys getting called out by one of their own. In the end, I found McClellan to be a pretty sympathetic character, and his explanation of how he went from devout apologist to reluctant Cassandra, believable. Better late than not at all.

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment