It’s been big news over the last week or so that former Bush mouthpiece Scott McClellan wrote a book including passages about the Administration’s propaganda and falsehood campaign with respect to creating support for the Iraq war, and other important news stories during his tenure. Predictably, lefties pointed to this, err, revelation? as conclusive evidence that the Bush/Rove/Cheney Iraq war was, err, inadvisable. It’s sort of like pointing to NFL Films putting out a NY Giants’ “Year in Review” DVD as conclusive evidence the Giants won the Super Bowl.
And the neo-cons, predictably, went on the attack, calling the, errr “new allegations”? simply sour grapes from a disgruntled former employee. I assume Scott couldn’t find another job after having “Bush White House” on his resume and was steamed about that.
So, predictably, the coverage of this has centered around the cable news tabloids asking two very loud people to expound on the new proof and the complete lack of credibility of the person providing said proof.
Here’s the freakin question I want to ask: Why didn’t you announce your resignation and the reasons therefore at the time you discovered the wrongdoing? That’s when blowing the whistle would mean something. That’s when it might have encouraged others to take the courageous stand.
Which brings me to the Democratic National Rules Committee. I understand that you can’t piss off Florida and Michigan. The slightest margin of error in those states could leave us in the position of a sold out McCain steering the ship and the real possibility the old bastard could go Captain Bligh on us (google Thad Cochran McCain cold chill). But here’s the thing. The Rule of Law has to be above these considerations. The last eight years have seen a major decline in the Rule of Law, one that I believe poses a greater threat to our society than many of the things that capture our imagination. The committee said at one time the states would not count; now, in light of the close race between Obama and Clinton, that seems like a poor decision. But you cannot change the rules midstream. They should have been ignored altogether. To have acted otherwise is to diminish and endanger the effect of future party rulings. I personally think the candidates could have and should have reached a compromise on these states that would have given their innocent voters a voice, but inexplicably, they could not.
I see this issue come up almost weekly, and I cannot recall a political figure taking a courageous stand on anything in years. Which brings me to John Adams. First a disclaimer–the sum of my knowledge on the man comes from viewing the HBO mini-series and following up with a bit of research-i-pedia. But Adams was depicted as egocentric and vain to an extreme degree. He seemed to have an unhealthy fear of being under-appreciated. He surely was consumed by creating his legacy. But faced with the overwhelming pressure of his party and the public to enter into war against France to retaliate for their interference with American shipping and subsequent insults at Court, he opposed them all. He sent diplomats to smooth things out. He knew the war would be un-winnable. And he knew to prevent the war, he would lose his office and his prestige. I wonder if he knew it would be the end of his Federalist party? But he did the right thing, achieved an honorable negotiated solution (days after the election) and probably kept the country in existence by his actions and inactions.
Of course he did sign the Alien and Sedition Acts. I wonder if Rove and Cheney see the glass half full or half empty with this guy?
QUOTE OF THE DAY “The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberty is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body.” — John Adams