Well, it turns out that "Bush lied, people died" is not too far from the mark -- so says his former press secretary. From today's WaPo account of McClellan's new book:
McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not "employing out-and-out deception" to make their case for war in 2002.But in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."
"Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."
McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."
Et tu, Scotty? That's the White House take, naturally. Weasel though he may be, I'm glad McClellan wrote this memoir. I think books like this are important for the historical record. The Iraq War is a debacle likely without precedent in our nation's history. We need to know why it happened, and what kind of men and women ran this country for the past eight years.
This, I think, is especially important, about Bush's temperament leading to mistake upon mistake:
"A more self-confident executive would be willing to acknowledge failure, to trust people's ability to forgive those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change," he writes.In another section, McClellan describes Bush as able to convince himself of his own spin and relates a phone call he overheard Bush having during the 2000 campaign, in which he said he could not remember whether he had used cocaine. "I remember thinking to myself, 'How can that be?' " he writes.
The former aide describes Bush as a willing participant in treating his presidency as a permanent political campaign, run in large part by his top political adviser, Rove.
"The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office," he writes. "And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."
And here, I think, is the key to McClellan's mea maxima culpa:
McClellan admits to letting himself be deceived about the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, which resulted in his relentless pounding by the White House press corps over the activities of Rove and of Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the matter."I could feel something fall out of me into the abyss as each reporter took a turn whacking me," he writes of the withering criticism he received as the story played out. "It was my reputation crumbling away, bit by bit."
Like many Republicans felt as the Nixon Administration played itself out in corruption, you get to the point where it costs too much of your own integrity to go along with the b.s. any more.
("And yet," you say, "you're thinking of voting for McCain." Yes. The damn courts. Woe betide us all.)

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Simon, I thought your above post was interesting and smart. But your final line is not in keeping with the intellectual character of the overall post. The 'Left' is hardly some monolithic crowd of leering imbeciles. Any more that the 'Right' is all evangelical fans of President Bush. But you know that. Remember the Rawlins mantra: the Far Left are clueless hypocritical idiots and the Far Right are elitist amoral jackels. Somewhere in the middle we are all better than that.
Sorry for the overheated rhetoric, Rawlins.
You are right that the ending of my post is over the top, and I retract it.
All this talk about "Constitutional rights" amazes me.
Since when was America known as "the land of the Constitutional rights" instead of "the land of the free"?
Whatever happened to liberty and justice for all?
Whatever happened to the (actual) right to the pursuit of happiness?
Oh wait - I remember - Bush happened.
I'm no legal scholar in the formal sense, and while I tend to lean in that direction, I'm also not a legalist. So have a grain of salt handy...
The Constitution was born from the context of change, and it was designed to be a dynamic document in which future citizens could codify the changes they deemed necessaary.
As I see it, there are really two entities there.
1) Implied constitutional rights, applied in a social context and/or formalized via litigation;
2) Explicit constitutional rights, enacted by legislation and enforced in the usual ways.
Same-sex marriage proponents have valid claims under #1, but not under #2 in the absence of formally enacted laws. The Marriage Protection Act was an attempt to remove an implied right by excluding it under #2. The ERA was an attempt to codify gender equality inherent in #1 by placing it under #2.
As I see it, Recovering, your rhetoric is firmly based in #1. Claims to #2, in that light, are not valid until legislation makes it so.
To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, where honest open government is impossible, tell-tale journalism by weasels is inevitable.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.