When walking through a field, my dog has the unfortunate habit of finding a dead critter and with great glee rolling around on the critter to ensure maximum transfer of stink onto her doggy person. This image comes to mind as I read Dave Newquist's lapdog take on Scott McClellan's new book on McClellan's years working in the White House. Mr. Newquist joins his fellow Bush haters in joyously rolling in the dead animal in order to savor the stink of the Bush carcass.
If something confirms all of my prejudices, I am immediately skeptical and suspect a work of hackery. Others, Barack Obama included, find something that confirms all of their prejudices and roll in it with total credulity.
Maybe Scott McClellan is right on, and maybe not, but here are some reasons for incredulity. First, Scott McClellan was not Press Secretary during the run up to the Iraq war. He was not, as they say, in the loop. Even as Press Secretary he was not involved in making policy. It was just his job to promote it.
Second, as many have pointed out, if McClellan was so disturbed by what was going on in the White House, why did he not quit? All reports indicate that he was forced out, not that he left of his own accord.
Third, George Bush made Scott McClellan who he is today. Does it not seem like a dishonorable act to dump all over the man who gave you your career, especially while Bush is still in office? Should that not give us pause?
Does not the fact that McClellan's book represents precisely the storyline and is being released at precisely the time guaranteed to get a bevy of media attention and sell scads of books give a cautious reader some reason to pause and consider his bona fides?
Relatedly, why are some so sure that Scott McClellan preaches the truth while Douglas Feith is so wrong? Feith, by all accounts, is a serious, scholarly individual who has written a sober policy book about the Iraq war and his involvement as a member of the Bush team. Why does McClellan get splashed all over the news while Feith is relegated to the sidelines? Feith (whose book I have not read but I have heard extensive interviews with him) presents a complex and detailed account of war decision and the plans for a post-war Iraq. One possible explanation of the feeding frenzy over McClellan and the disregard of Feith is precisely that McClellan confirms a previously believed story line. In other words, McClellan is right because he confirms our prejudices while Feith can be ignored because he challenges them. And let's be honest. McClellan's book is tabloid. Feith's book is policy. Which do you think will get more headlines?
To be sure, I'd be remiss if I rejected McClellan's account and bought into Feith's merely because of my own prejudices. In particular, McClellan's charge that the Bush White House ran a "permanent campaign" strikes me as true, although I would add that on this matter the Bush administration is no different from the Clinton administration. But I think those who roll in the stink like a dog in the field should ask themselves whether they are being told the truth or are they just being handed a dead animal that will sell books.
Recent Comments