What's Really Important It’s hard to express just how disgusted I get when hearing this “loyalty to the President while he is still in office” crap! We’ve repeatedly been the recipients of this faulty logic as various former members of the Bush Administration have been unabashedly attacked for saying anything negative about their previous employer, the President and his staff – names such as Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, Joseph Wilson, and now Scott McClellan come to mind. How clearly can it be stated -- The loyalty of any government employee is ultimately to the United States of America, not to any politicians or leaders, or to the offices they hold! Any government office is only as important as the person who holds it. Though the oath taken by the President is to the nation, and the oath of the military is to the President, the implication of the latter is that the President will be loyal to the nation. If he is not, that oath, and any loyalty to him is forfeit.
I’m surely hopeful this is self-explanatory, and that there is no need to iterate Common Sense Ethics 101. I’m appalled that there is an existing mindset that insists one be loyal to one’s boss, rather than to truth and integrity. One of the reasons I stopped watching any and all Mafia movies years ago is because I got terminally fed up with hearing about their dubious “loyalty and honor,” and it’s “just business.” My answer to this absurd nonsense is best articulated by Charles Dickens: "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" What a concept!
It’s amusing to listen to all the White House and right wing pundits in all their present perplexity. Why didn’t former Presidential Press Secretary McClellan speak out before? How dare he say anything while the President is still in office? Why is he speaking out now at this critical time before the 2008 national elections? This isn’t the Scott McClellan I knew. It’s all so puzzling. Yada yada yada. And, I find it quite intriguing that the whole right wing seems to be equally and collectively puzzled at the same time. Is this just a major coincidence?
Perhaps all these pundits weren’t aware of the Scott McClellan that grew a pair, the man who decided that truth and integrity trump loyalty to people who don’t deserve it. And maybe he believes the American people should be informed about the observations and perceptions of a Bush insider before the 2008 election while it might do some good, especially since John McCain is running as a Bush clone. Will McCain be hurt by all this? I certainly hope so! Also, it takes time to write a book; it is not something that is accomplished overnight.
Some claim McClellan didn’t know enough. Well, he sure was closer to this presidency and the goings on in the White House than Bob Woodward, whose unflattering take on the Bush Administration in “State of Denial: Bush at War Part III,” has been taken quite seriously. I’ve also heard other pundits exclaim that there is nothing new in McClellan’s revelations. What McClellan has accomplished, and which is extremely important, is to affirm all the other works that have exposed the corruption in this White House. His position as a White House insider and close Bush loyalist gives great import to what he has to say.
Though I didn’t care much for Scott McClellan while he was the Press Secretary, the reason was because he represented nothing more than a Bush mouthpiece. And though I didn’t believe he came off as particularly accomplished while holding that position, compared to Dana Perino he appears in retrospect quite brilliant. In her, we have a Press Secretary who didn’t even know about the Cuban Missile Crisis; this gives her a political IQ of about room temperature. One has to wonder how often she is being lied to by her bosses? Perhaps, to McClellan’s credit, he often appeared as less than certain because he was indeed conflicted. He was very loyal to a man he still says he admires, but at the same time he was beginning to smell the rot of fish emanating from the oval office. And this had to be greatly exacerbated by being the person called upon to sell that same rotten fish to the American public. Not an easy or comfortable sell, at least not for a man of conscience.
Perhaps McClellan is now exonerating himself. It takes great courage and integrity at this juncture to do what he has done. At the moment, he is a man without many friends. Those blind Bush Loyalists and serial liars still defending this miserable Administration certainly have no love for McClellan today, and there are still many who look upon him with distaste, remembering his performance as the Administrations lap dog/liaison person. I for one, am extremely grateful that he has come out and affirmed what so many of us have known for quite a few years now, and that which so many others continue to expose, namely that Bush et al lied about reasons for invading Iraq, and blithely disseminated misinformation and chronic misdirection to justify same.
In their defense, the White House gives us the latest rationale for invading a sovereign nation without real cause – the policy of “Imperialistic Democracy,” which McClellan labels, “a philosophy of coercive democracy.” There have been so many justifications/rationalizations for this war. First there was the Hussein has WMDs mantra. (Well of course he had chemical and biological agents, the ones we supplied him with in the 1980s.The nuclear threat along with the “mushroom cloud” turned out to be totally bogus.) Then we had the “Saddam Hussein is an evil man and has evil sons” argument.This was followed by Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bush actually had the temerity to publicly and embarrassingly state that it is “better to fight our enemies in Iraq than here.” I wonder just how many Iraqis appreciated that we were fighting in their nation, and allowing their nation to be destroyed, their citizens to be killed and maimed, so that we didn’t have to fight “our war” in our own country, all the while doing it in the name of “Iraqi freedom?” How’s that for farcical and outrageous?
It’s high time that people in this nation “get” that you can’t force democracy on any nation. Democracy only occurs when the people themselves are ready for it, and they themselves are the motivating force to make it happen.
Personally, I want to say thank you Mr. McClellan. I’m still angry that you allowed yourself to look the other way when you were Press Secretary, and that you waited so long to reveal the truth, or that it took you so long to perceive it. But, I’m so very grateful that you not only finally had your necessary epiphany in time to inform the people of this nation before the next national election, but that you have the extreme courage to go public with it. It’s never too late to find out “What Happened!”
Though Mr. McClellan will lose some friends, he has gained my admiration, as well as all others who are desperate for the truth at a time when that has become a dirty word. George Orwell so accurately stated, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Thank you Mr. McClellan for setting the proper example!
I can only hope that Colin Powell and several others who have participated firsthand in the worst presidency in our history will also grow a pair and follow Scott McClellan’s example, and while it can still make a difference! A citizen’s loyalty should be to the United States of America, not to the temporary occupants of government agencies… PERIOD!
Stephen,
Excellent article. It is interesting to me tho' that those who seem to hear people like McClellan know and have known what this administration is and what they have done. Those who don't get it will likely take their cue from the Bush people, shake their head and disingenuously wonder why he didn't "speak up" at the time. Not wonder if any of it could be true, just shift the whole question off course. No matter how many people come forward with the same story, I fear that this adminstration will never be held accountable for what it has done.
Your point is well taken, Stephen. When did loyalty become the virtue above all others? And when did the worthiness of the person or cause to which we are loyal become irrelevant?
The attacks on Scott McClellan are simply one more case in which right wing hypocrites attempt to manipulate people by using a value trigger, in this case “loyalty.” They take the name of this virtue, isolate it from all that defines its true meaning, and then hold it aloft as the most admired of all virtues.
Since they cannot argue the facts of what Scott McClellan said in his book, they are resorting once again to the rant and smear duplicity that has, in the past, muffled the message and concentrated attention on the messenger. It is encouraging to note that this time most people are just not buying into this “shoot the messenger” tactic.
Of great importance in McClellan’s book are his remarks about mainstream media as enablers for the White House propaganda leading up to the war. It is the duty and obligation of journalists to enlighten the public “by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.” (Professional Journalist’s Code of Ethics)
Instead of doing that, the media was complicit in promoting the war. According to CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin, who was not with CNN at that time, network executives pushed her not to do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration as the build up to the war progressed. Yellin told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that “The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation.” (Watch video http://blip.tv/file/945895 )
Professional integrity is the foundation of journalistic credibility. When mainstream media fail to put the interests of the public first and question the official view, our democracy is at risk. Conscientious journalism - thorough, honest and diligent - is particularly critical during times of war. It should not be possible for the White House to use mainstream media as a propaganda machine. Hopefully, the congressional investigation, into the NY Times revelations about the Pentagon program to recruit and place pro-war military pundits on nearly every major news outlet in America, will expand to include the media’s own role in spreading pro-war propaganda.
As for Scott McClellan, he should be commended for telling the truth. Yes, it would have been better if he had done it at the time, but there is no statute of limitations on truth and as author Max De Pree said, “The greatest thing is, at any moment, to be willing to give up who we are in order to become all that we can be.” That is just what Scott McClellan has done.
Perhaps McClellan wasn't ready to lose his job way back then. Perhaps he wasn't aware of many things that he pieced together later. Perhaps it took him some time to make the decision to lose all his "friends" and compromise his political career. Big decision. I have to wonder why Colin Powell hasn't made it.
I'm with you Louise, in wondering why so many on the right wing don't seem to pay any attention to the COUNTLESS scandals and revelations that have been coming out of this Administration for a few years now. I would have thought that these same revelations coming out of such an extreme loyalist and insider as Scott McClellan would lend some credence to them, and make even the skeptics in heaviest denial see a bit more clearly.
The idea that McClellan sold out all his old friends to make a buck is ludicrous in my opinion. I think he would have much rather written something positive and still had a career. I just think he's that type of person. He was used and abused by these same friends and then thrown out to dry, having his eyes open wide during the process.
It is noteworthy that just as with Dan Rather and CBS, the right wing attacked both with a fury, without really refuting the story. We have the same thing here. This is just the another example of that voracious and unprincipled right wing smear, spin mob out on another feeding frenzy to attack another personality for having the audacity to question anything this Administration does.
And from what I'm observing that beast is beginning to run out of steam, as more and more people are slowly becoming aware of how it's more noise than essence. There are the diehard loyalists who will never see the light of day, basically because they don't want to. These are the people as Jack Nicholson once said in "A Few Good Men,"-- "You can't handle the truth!"
In order to really hold this Administration accountable, the Republican sabotaged Congress would have to do some work, and remember their separate branch role of oversight. The Congress has been the great enabler of this Administration, and they will have to be the ones to call it out. I'm afraid this won't occur until a lot more Republicans lose their seats there, and hopefully this is in the offering in the upcoming national election.
Yes Trish, your take on the morphing of the real meaning of "loyalty" is well taken. It would appear that to the political rabble in the White House the word loyalty is basically a one-way street, flowing only in their direction.
Like I said to Louise, this attacking McClellan as a man, with all the irrelevant questions about his character instead of the factual truth of his allegations, is the same scenario we saw play out when Dan Rather and CBS exposed Bush's military service. If and when they can't refute the truth of a thing, they will instead attack the truth sayer. This alone, should make those in terminal denial a bit suspicious, but I imagine it's not in their nature to be easily awakened out of their zombie-sleep.
And McClellan's claims that the MSM facilitated this Administration by not really doing their research homework and asking the hard questions is not new. Most of the media has already half-heartedly admitted they were derelict in their duty. "Conscientious journalism" as you put it, has been as scarce as Congressional oversight in the past seven years.
Perhaps now that the troubled economy is fueling widespread dissatisfaction in the present direction of the nation, a lot of people will begin to more diligently explore all the cracks in the White House rationale and smear campaigns? Maybe even the media will start taking their jobs more seriously, as their corporate masters can't even justify the smell from the White House any longer.