"This book has left many of [former Bush White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's] closest friends puzzled and shocked. He draws broad and definitive conclusions from events and meetings that he himself admits he didn't even attend. He never expressed any reservations while serving; to do so in a highly publicized book is what makes people lose faith in those who work in Washington." - anonymous quote from a former senior advisor to the Bush administration, according to NBC News' David Gregory on the Today Show, 05/28/2008 (emphasis mine)
No one should be surprised by the backlash that Scott McClellan has received and will receive in the days and weeks following the release of his new book, What Happened. But this is one in a long list of contradictions perpetrated by Bush, his surrogates and the entire right wing machine in the hopes of warding off any criticism, valid or invalid, and cutting off any debate on the merits of any argument levied against the Bush administration.
Jump right about...now!
Note: Personally, I think McClellan's a little weasel who deserved every bit of abuse David Gregory dealt him when he was behind the White House podium. He had no fewer than two opportunities to refuse to salute, and resign his post. He didn't. McClellan deserves to get punk'd by everyone around him, but no doubt, the response from the right is clearly incredulous.
It was the Bush administration that left the door wide open for McClellan to, upon leaving the White House, air out his laundry list of grievances he had accumulated during his time as Press Secretary. This is a White House BUILT on loyalty during service. Perhaps rightfully so, as aides to then-President Clinton occasionally plotted and schemed inside the White House to help defeat various pieces of legislation they didn't like but their President did (per Dick Morris; I wish I knew where to search for this anecdote, but this is a story I heard directly from him as he gave a talk to my political science class during my time at NYU).
This was made clear by the air of secrecy over the administration during the U.S. attorneys' scandal and the wave of subpoenas on supposedly confidential documents that Congress saw necessary to shed light on the situation at the Department of Justice:
"Striking a theme used by other presidents being investigated by Congress, [White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding] wrote that Bush is taking the position to preserve what he termed a 'bedrock Presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice' from top aides.
"Advisers would be 'reluctant to communicate openly and honestly' if they feared being dragged before Congress to testify or provide documents of their deliberations, he wrote." - Michael Abramowitz and Amy Goldstein, Washington Post, 06/29/2007 (emphasis mine)
Put simply, it is ridiculous to expect aides to speak their mind in public and on the record during their time of service to the administration.
Meaning, you should admire all those White House aides for being so loyal, perhaps dissenting behind closed doors, but having the wisdom to shut their traps once a decision is reached by the President. Isn't it, after all, treason and treachery to publicly rebuke your own boss?
Perhaps that's a valid point. But that makes the quote from David Gregory all the more ridiculous when it suggests that, despite leaving the White House and being freed of the commitment given to the President, a former aide has no right to say what he thinks when he didn't speak his mind on the record while he worked there in the first place.
Can't talk honestly when you're serving, can't talk honestly once you're finished. When is this administration ever open to valid criticism from within?
This is not some isolated incident of demanding the privilege against on-the-record criticism. The Iraq War has had its share of critics, perhaps none more muzzled than the military itself. Don't doubt that there are critics among the ranks: the infamous Military Times poll taken in December 2006 indicated only a 35% approval among service members of the way Bush was handling the war, compared to a 42% disapproval rating.
When it comes to the troops, the Bush administration has had one standard to judge the conduct of the war: listen to what the commanders on the ground are saying. But even that argument is specious at best:
"I've seen them play this little game before, where Bush says, 'You know what, I do what my leaders on the ground tell me.' But then, he sort of tells his leaders on the ground what to say. And they say it, and he goes, 'Well, I can't do anything. My leader on the ground just said that.' It is a little bit of a shell game, isn't it?" - Bill Maher, Real Time with Bill Maher, 04/11/2008
Counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke confirmed as much while a guest on Real Time. General George W. Casey, Jr., perhaps not the strongest supporter of the 2007 surge, was pulled from the line and replaced by someone, then-Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who could find it in him to support a surge that has yet to have any lasting effects in Iraq. The silence from Casey since 2006 is deafening, and should be a stark reminder to all about how allergic this administration has been to opposition.
Perhaps this is our fault. Perhaps we Democrats and liberals have not been vocal enough in calling BS as we see it. Perhaps we let Bush open the door to allowing the changing of standards for dissent and criticism as circumstances have changed over time. Maybe we should have been more forceful when the argument to support the war changed from this:
"'We are at war, so we need to support our president, support our troops,' said [Kelli Barnhard, pro-war rally attendee], regardless of personal feelings about the war." - San Francisco Chronicle, 03/24/2003
To this:
"President Bush says we cannot leave until the mission is accomplished..." - Joe Conason, Salon.com, 12/09/2005
In eight years, America has seen a really bad form of politics played out in front of them: the changing of standards as time passes and events unfold. Sometimes, even the players themselves get shuffled in and out of the picture to suit Bush's view of reality. The truth in the world of the right wing changes, because the circumstances for allowing candor and allowing which actors can speak candidly change.
I remember that they put this kind of label of inconsistency on one John Kerry, way back in 2004. They said he was a man who said one thing one day, and another thing the next, ostensibly for political advantage. Perhaps worse than that motive - since we've seen that sort before - is the evolving of new standards for the purpose of political survival.
This kind of tactics shouldn't yield any great epiphany among the liberals who read this. Rather, it should document the repeated frequency that the shell game in front of us has been played, and played successfully, by an administration who believes the electorate really is that dumb.
And maybe we are. The question now is what do we do about it.