Thursday, May 29, 2008

Karl Rove is Right?

I was shocked to find myself in agreement with Karl Rove’s assessment of Scott McClellan’s new book. I suppose it is theoretically impossible to tell lies 100% of time, so Rove was probably just caught in a moment of careless truth-telling.

McClellan was the Bush press secretary right after the war started, and revealed the stunning news that senior administration officials (gasp!) lied to the public about the Iraq war. He now apparently believes this was a bad thing. Rove had this to say about it:

“If he had these moral qualms, he should have spoken up about them. And frankly I don't remember him speaking up about these things. I don't remember a single word.”

Also, in the article:

McClellan said deception "permeates our national political discourse" and has "become an accepted way of winning the partisan wars for public opinion."

And this:

He also blames the media whose questions he fielded, calling them "complicit enablers" in the White House campaign to manipulate public opinion toward the need for war.

Hold on a minute. Every bit of this is true, but wasn’t it McClellan’s job to mislead and lie to the public? To manipulate the press in order to manipulate public opinion? He may not have been as good at it as Ari Fleischer was, but I’m confused as to why he only now seems to be understanding what the purpose of his job was.

What is it about people in power who are unable to tell the truth until they are out of power?

I know it is easy to sit back and say that someone else should have put their job on the line by speaking truth to power. People generally don’t get into power in the first place by arguing with those with more power - agreeing with them is generally the way to go. And remember that at the time the Bush Administration was acting like the Gambino family, and anyone who disagreed with official policy got whacked out of their careers.

Still. This wasn’t a decision about whether we should hand out $500 bonuses or $750 bonuses at Christmastime. It was about starting a war whose likely result could have been predicted by anyone who had periods of semi-consciousness during the run up to the war. McClellan was in a position to advocate for sanity, and possibly avoid hundreds of thousands of lost lives and trillions of dollars of waste. A entire generation of death and destruction could have been avoided had the Scott McClellans and Colin Powells of the world stood up and said no when they were in a position to do so. If there is ever a time to put your job on the line for moral objections, that would be the time to do it. Geez.

So, while I appreciate McClellan’s willingness to at least set the record straight, I wish someone somewhere will eventually decide to do the right thing when it actually matters, rather than when it is time to cash in on an insider book.


brownie said...

I think that his motivations for both NOT saying anything then and NOW writing his book are the same: money.

He got to keep his job then, he gets to make a buttload now on his book.

Just spitballin'

Fingtree said...

Karl Rove is the epitome of how dispicable and discraceful white people can be. He also represents how right wing Christians can conveniently look the other way when it is their guy doing the evil deeds and secretly laugh smugly to themselves when someone is smeared that is their opposition or other religions are being targeted negatively. His arrogance is unprecedented and his outing of a National CIA operative (Valerie Plame), along with his co-corruptors: Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Robert Novak, is beyond treason and should have taken down the Presidency. Scott McClellan exposes this in his book. It really doesn't matter what McClellan's motivation is, that is just another diversion from what does matter. The Bush administration has gotten away with more corruption and deception than any administration in our nation's history, that is what matters. Anyone that bought into their lies and propaganda or voted for Dubya, should feel betrayed or politically violated or just plain duped........SUCKERS!

Robert Sievers said...


In the book about Karl Rove titled, "The architect", Karl Rove is identified as an agnostic. Karl Rove himself claims he is an Episcopalian. If you believe Episcopalians are right wing Christians, just what denomations would you consider liberal?

Fingtree said...

I was not referencing Karl Rove in particular with my comment: "right wing Christians can conveniently look the other way when it is their guy doing the evil deeds". I was talking about the whole Bush administration collectively. I don't care what denomination or non-denomination Karl Rove may be. Right wing fundamentalist Christians as a block, voted for Bush and his cronies like Karl Rove, have made excuses for their actions along the way and continue to attempt, like yourself, to justify them with religious arguments. The Bush administration have been careful to not tie religion into their reasons for occupying their country. Yet, people like yourself make ridiculous statements about Islam and the diverse Muslim demographics that make up the country of Iraq, as if it is the religion itself that we are fighting against. It is really no different than your automatic, jumping to conclusions assumption that just by mentioning right wing Christians within the context of American politics is a matter of Liberals vs Conservatives.
Tread lightly..........

PG said...

If McClellan had "spoken out" during his job, he would have been toast. Look what happened to the general who said the war would cost $200 billion. He was gone. He told the truth, sure, but it didn't make a difference. No point in blaming McClellan or ascribing motives to him at this point. Bush and Cheney may have had the best motives in the world in invading Iraq, but their actions took us onto the road to hell, paved with those same good intentions. I say, good for Scott McClellan. And now, let's start the impeachment proceedings. And later, the world court for international war crimes.

Dan S said...

Yes, McClellan would have been fired, but if he had resigned in public protest, and said that they were lying about their reasons for invading, and had enough insiders done the same, I do believe that the war could have been prevented. Instead, everyone went along with it.

Don't get me wrong - I *am* glad he is coming forward with this, as another nail in the coffin of the Bush presidency's historical legacy. I just wish more people would do the right thing when it matters.