HOME ARCHIVE CARTOONS BIOS/PHOTOS PARTNERS SUBSCRIBE SUPPORT US CO-OP AMERICA CONTACT US FUNDERS PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WORD COUNT 660                                                                                                                                                                            JUNE 4, 2008

YOU MEAN THEY LIED ABOUT THE WAR? – by Donald Kaul

 

President George W. Bush is puzzled. And sad. So is Karl Rove, his former political strategist; as is Ari Fleischer, his former chief flack, and Dana Perino, the current chief flack, and Dan Bartlett, former counselor to the president. All puzzled. All sad.

 

The object of their puzzlement and sadness is, of course, Scott McClellan, another former chief flack, who has written a memoir that casts doubt not merely on the president’s motivation for taking us into war in Iraq but on his grasp of reality.

 

The book is called “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95) and it tells the story of an administration that convinced itself (and argues yet) that Iraq was a threat to our national security that had to be dealt with. No evidence to the contrary---and there was plenty---was admitted and instead of leveling with the American people the president relied on propaganda to sell the war.

 

In the process, McClellan says, Mr. Bush made “a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.”

 

The Bush loyalists immediately circled the limousines and began taking potshots at their former colleague---sounding more hurt than angry, as though their pet Labrador had bitten them on the ankle.

 

“This doesn’t sound like Scott, it really doesn’t,” Rove told Fox News. That sentiment was echoed by any White House type who could reach a microphone. Puzzled. Sad. Not the Scott McClellan they knew. You would think they were reading from the same script or something.

 

I believe I can clear up their puzzlement for them.

 

“Of course he’s not the Scott McClellan you once knew. When you knew him, he was a lying weasel in the employ of the president. He is now a turn-coat weasel out on his own, trying to make a buck by telling the truth for a change.”

 

McClellan is critical not merely of the Bush White House; the national press corps comes in for its ration. He writes: “If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration….The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never come as such a surprise….In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

 

How sharper than a serpent’s tooth is the scorn of a weasel once held in contempt.  He’s right of course (although the press is reluctant to admit it) but it should be noted that the American people were in no mood to hear discouraging words about the war in its early stages.

 

Fox News scored a huge ratings triumph over its competitors by providing the most flag-waving, jingoist coverage of the invasion. That was a lesson that did not go unlearned at the other networks.

 

Washington, never forget, is a town that runs on BS. It is rare indeed to find a major politician, Democrat or Republican, who will speak candidly on a controversial topic. They will not tell you the truth about the Medicare financing problem we’re facing, they will only promise you more benefits. They will not tell Iowans that corn ethanol is a bad idea or Kentuckians that tobacco is a killer or West Virginians that coal is a dirty fuel or Westerners that guns kill people or anybody that gasoline should be expensive in order to discourage its use.

 

Because people, in general, don’t want to hear the truth. They, like the president, prefer sweet lies.

 

Many observers are pooh-poohing the impact of McClellan’s book on the presidential election but I don’t. Now when John McCain accuses Barack Obama of being inexperienced and naïve, Obama can say: “I’m naïve? You’re the one who was bamboozled into supporting this miserable war and you haven’t figured things out yet. If that’s experience, spare me. And read Scott McClellan’s book.”

 

--

 

Don Kaul is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-losing Washington correspondent who, by his own account, is right more than he's wrong. Email: dkaul2@earthlink.net -- A photo of Donald Kaul is available at www.minutemanmedia.org

 
EDITORS NOTE: MinutemanMedia.org is seeking, after all these years, to become a bit higher profile. For this reason we would be grateful if you would credit us with any piece you may use: "Distributed by MinutemanMedia.org." (or similar).