Scott McClellan's new book What Happened may not provide any new information but it does confirm many of our suspicions and beliefs with regard to Bush White House. McClellan says that the administration deliberately misled (lied to) the American people and sold the Iraq War like a product.
Sure, this is stuff we've said over and over but to have it said by McClellan, one of the original Texas insiders, is remarkable.
Follow me below the fold and I'll 'remark'.
The White house reaction to McClellan's What Happened was predictable: Why's Everybody Always Pickin' On Me? The WH steadfastly refuses to acknowledge any wrong doing and as usual blames the messenger. But now there have been something like two dozen messengers and all have been labeled 'disgruntled'. No surprise then that they said Scott was disgruntled.
What is new and somewhat surprising is their insistence that 'this isn't the Scott we knew' as if he'd been possessed by an evil, truth telling, supernatural being. Or possibly an extraterrestrial life form. The reality of a Texas insider, who's family has ties to the Bush family that go back generations, would break ranks plumb evades them (as they say in Texas).
The list of disgruntled defector detractors is long and includes Richard Clarke, Colin Powell, Paul O'neill, George Tenet, Michael 'Brownie' Brown, Larry Wilkerson and now Scott 'Scottie' McClellan. Strangely (or not), all their stories are similar if not identical. All tell of a White House bent on war no matter the cost, consequences or the despicable means necessary to sell it to the American people. Yet some (22%) still don't believe these stories because the messengers are 'disgruntled'. Even the press seems compelled to mention disgruntled as if it was somehow the inherent nature of the individuals rather than the result of their having witnessed wrong doing and possibly treason.
I for one would be 'disgruntled' if I saw this kind of behavior in my organization. I'm sure you would be as well. Why then does the label 'disgruntled' continue to have any relevance in this context? I suggest it is because the press and their corporate masters say it does. Where oh where is the mythical liberal media or any media with spine (testicular fortitude) for that matter?
As long as the fourth estate continues, unchallenged, to repeat the White House talking points and therefore give them undeserved weight - we will continue to hear GW Bush's plaintive cry, Why's Everybody Always Pickin' On Me?
Post Script: Last night MSNBC 'analyst' Pat Buchanan crowed repeatedly that is was Bush's belief in 'Democratic Imperialism' in the Middle East that drove his administration to launch a war with Iraq. Bullshit! Bush hated Saddam because Georgie blamed Saddam for his daddy's lost reelection bid and because "He tried to kill my daddy". That we would go to war so the petulant child GW could kill Saddam was a given if Bush was elected (or selected) in 2000.
I think Rove, Cheney and Wolfowitz provided the 'Democratic Imperialism' rap to give cover for Georgie's famously vindictive nature. Further I believe the afore mentioned had their own reasons for the war - chief among them; emptying the US treasury thus, making social programs impossible to support much less expand and enriching US global corporations.
Here endith the lesson.