printYou mean there still is no consensus about the unconstitutional, unjust war an American government waged? That’s right; the “nation” is still litigating the invasion of Iraq. What’s more, the stakeholders are circling the wagons.
Here is something of the smorgasbord of McClellan coverage; it’s some of what you should take away from the publication of a stale, tell-all by a former low-level Bush administration functionary. Admonitions are in order for most members of the media who were right by Scotty’s side, whooping it up for war crimes. For or against Scott, send in some of the reviews you like (but take your pro-war crimes comments elsewhere):
• “Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner?”—Richard A. Clarke
• “It would have been nice if he had told us some of this at the time, back when it was his job to keep the public informed.”—Karen Tumulty, Time magazine [Not so fast Ms. Tumulty; it was YOUR job too to apprise the public.]
• “The memoir strikes me as the standard stuff: ‘I was an insider to a corrupt group but the head of the group and I weren’t corrupt; we were misled.’”—liberal blog called American Street
• “Bush displayed a ‘lack of inquisitiveness’; the administration operated in a ‘permanent campaign mode’; the Iraq war ‘was not necessary’–other than that McClellan’s chosen to reveal them. But is that even really that surprising?” And: “the book displays a calculating mind that was never much in evidence in the White House press room.”—Jason Zengerle, The New Republic
Update (June 3): After watching Scott McClellan handle the raging bull, Bill O’Reilly, I’ve changed my opinion. This young man was strong, courageous and filled with a certain conviction. He did well against the man who acted as an accomplice to the administration, and who sold the war to those who’d have to go out and fight it. This was Bush’s war, Blair’s war, Podhoretz’s war, and Billo’s war. Billo showed his discomfort by flaring his nostrils and pursing his lips. McClellan, who was calm and comfortable, got to the man.
McClellan’s ability to admit over and over again that he had been completely wrong in his judgment and ethics served as a good contrast to Billo, who was prepared to concede nothing of the kind.
Granted, McClellan is not opposing the war on the most solid of grounds: Implicit in the case he makes is that if Iraq had WMD—irrespective of it not threatening the US or having any ties to al-Qaida—the US would have had a case for war. McClellan implies that we had a right to enforce UN resolutions, be a global governor. (Suddenly the US is an arm of the UN). We don’t.
Still, I will buy McClellan’s role as a bellwether of sorts—another insider sounding a warning—when the evidence against this corrupt administration results in impeachments, disgrace, and loss of face. There are no signs of that so far.
Well, at the very least, the rats are leaving the ship.
“Sometimes the chief purpose of a life is to serve as a warning to others.” [Years after the fact?–IM]
Take comfort in this, George W. and Alan Greenspan.
If Scott was so concerned, he should have raised the constitutional issue long before now. He was a low level functionary and he really isn’t all that concerned with constitutional issues, it appears that he may just be looking to increase his portfolio, by several million dollars.
Ilana, the thing that makes me laugh about this whole charade is none of the Neo-Cons are are coming out and saying “this is why he’s wrong”. It’s all about attacking his character.
I think my favorite comment came from Karl Rove when he compared Scott to a “Left-wing blogger”.
It all goes back to what I call the “Continuing Intellectual Bankruptcy of the So-Called Conservative Movement”.
I never understand why anyone would waste even a penny on reading some “tell-all” book by some ratfink mediocrity on his/her participation in the political disasters.
Sadly, the debacle that is the “Liberation” of Iraq was not some brilliant idea that happened to go wrong. It was completely idiotic from its conception. Ilana Mercer knew it. I knew it. Ron Paul knew it. Jim Webb and Anthony Zinni and William Odom and many people who knew the capabilities of our military and the nature of Iraq said so. The media just couldn’t care less – and when the media even bothered to have an “opponent” speak, they would pop-up some paranoid 9/11 truther type who would make the neo-cons look sane by comparison.
As for whether the lies were deliberate or based upon stupidity, it really does not matter. Mixing up the possibility of having leftover mustard gas with nuclear weapons was complete nonsense whether or not McCain or Bush is capable of telling the difference!
[Paul O’Neill also stood up when it counted.–IM]
1. McClellan did attempt on O’ Reilly to get at the truth – namely that nuclear weapons could be a real threat and that poison gas was NOT a threat to America… Of course, Bill shouted him down constantly and brought up the “hate America crowd” and “Bush-haters” when McClellan tried to say anything of substance.
2. I liked your essay on “Global Governors” – sadly, even many “libertarians” seem to get into the Utopian World Order mindset – whether it is “Objectivists” who want to invade every “savage” country or Gay Rights militants at the LP Convention who object to different states having different definitions of marriage. If libertarians can succumb to the Global Perfectionist mentality, it is hard to expect much better of neo-cons, leftists, and the mainstream.
3. But perhaps there is a chance that at least some Americans who were too young to see the folly of Vietnam might learn a lesson from the “liberation” of Iraq. Certainly, FOX news will not teach it since they hold the “US versus THEM” mentality as personified by Bill O’ Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.