30 May 2008

BushCo Coming Unraveled

Scott McClellan, serial purveyor of dis-information for BushCo, has a new book out. He has created quite a splash, suggesting that, just perhaps, it is possible that in their enthusiasm to safeguard the country (hah!), Bush and his minions might've (unintentionally, of course) dissembled just a smidgen about the massive folly known as our war in Iraq.

Of course, McClellan, in his post as Press Secretary at the White House, was a professional liar and bullshitter. He was integral to the propaganda campaign the administration waged. So it is unclear why anyone should believe anything he has written. Maybe he thinks that coming clean ex post will save him from historical ignominy. Who knows?

In any case, I heard a segment on npr yesterday afternoon. In McClellan was quoted disparaging Richard Clarke (he of the counter-terrorism office under Clinton and Bush) for having written a book in 2004 highly (and as it turns out accurately) critical of Bush and his staff in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks. Here is what McClellan said of Clarke in March 2004:
"Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. [. . .]"
I have to say that I laughed out loud. Well, Scott? Have you woken up only just recently? The advert for the new book claims that McClellan wrote it "with no agenda other than to record his experiences and insights for the benefit of history." Right. Maybe Scott hopes to follow in the footsteps of George Stephanopoulos who, having served up spin for Clinton, stepped quickly into a mainstream broadcast post. And of course, now Scott seems to have apologized to Clarke. But why should we take him at his word on that either?

Labels: , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home