the “aha” moment…

Posted on Monday 2 June 2008


As the response to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s new book enters its second week, the focus has shifted to the messenger rather than his message. McClellan is a flawed vessel for any serious communication. From behind the podium, he made a mockery of the press and the public’s right to know, most notably by repeating non-responsive and sometimes ludicrous talking points. He has yet to persuasively explain his change of heart. And his insistence that self-deception rather than a conscious disregard for the truth was behind what he now describes as the White House’s consistent lack of candor is spectacularly self-serving.

But the significance of McClellan’s book is that his detailed recounting of what he saw from the inside vindicates pretty much all the central pillars of the Bush critique that have been chronicled here and elsewhere for many years now. Among them:
  • That Bush is an incurious man, happily protected from dissenting views inside the White House’s bubble of self-delusion;
  • That Karl Rove’s huge influence on the Bush White House erased any distinction between policy and politics, so governing became about achieving partisan goals, not the common good;
  • That Vice President Cheney manipulates the levers of power;
  • That all those people who denied White House involvement in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity were either lying or had been lied to;
  • That the mainstream media were complicit enablers of the Bush White House and that its members didn’t understand how badly they were being played.
By coming back again and again to the CIA leak story, McClellan also validates a key theme of the Bush critique: That the Plame case was a microcosm of much that was wrong with the way the Bush White House did business.

No one could have predicted that the Plame case would play such a central role in McClellan’s personal conversion to Bush critic. But his eventual recognition that Rove and then-vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had flatly lied to him when they denied any involvement in the leak, along with his sudden realization that Bush and Cheney declassified secrets when it was politically convenient, were evidently two major factors. (A third was his unceremonious firing by Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.)

McClellan’s revelation that on Oct. 4, 2003, Bush and Cheney directed him to vouch for Libby’s innocence once again raises the question of how the president and particularly the vice president have been able to avoid any kind of public accountability. McClellan even raises the possibility, repeatedly hinted at by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, that Cheney directed Libby to disclose Plame’s identity…

"To err is human, to forgive, divine"
Alexander Pope
An Essay on Criticism. 1711

"McClellan is a flawed vessel for any serious communication. From behind the podium, he made a mockery of the press and the public’s right to know, most notably by repeating non-responsive and sometimes ludicrous talking points. He has yet to persuasively explain his change of heart. And his insistence that self-deception rather than a conscious disregard for the truth was behind what he now describes as the White House’s consistent lack of candor is spectacularly self-serving." This seems a little harsh to me, but I don’t want to agrue with Froomkin. In fact all the preoccupation with the motives for McClellan’s change of heart strikes me as misdirected. What he’s saying now does sound, as Karl Rove says, like a "Liberal Blogger." The reason for that is that these "Liberal Bloggers" have been telling the truth. Once one awakens to the truth, it’s hard for the person to answer questions about what they said before. I’ve mentioned this in relationship to alcoholics who, in recovery, can’t fathom some of the idiotic things they said during their drinking years. People who get free from cults are the same way – they can tell you what they used to think, but don’t know what to say when asked why the believed such things. They don’t know either. Divorced people, when talking about their former spouses often can’t answer, "Why did you marry him/her?" The term denial gets thrown around like it’s something people do, and know they’re doing. That’s not at all the case. It’s truly un-conscious. What happened to Scott McClellan is typical of deluded people who have had a "moment of clarity." Why didn’t he have that moment sooner? Because he didn’t. It’s a great moment in a psychotherapy when a patient has such a moment. It means they’re on the road to a better life. The ad hominem attacks on McClellan are also typical. No one’s refuting the content of what he says. Most of us don’t even see his book as particularly eye-opening. We already know these things. We’ve read them and written them for years. In my case, the writing is in part my way of holding on to that thread of the truth. It’s getting easier now, but for two or three years, it wasn’t at all easy in the face of all the smoke and mirrors. It’s the theme of the "Emperor’s new clothes." Scott McClellan is the kid in the crowd who yells, "The Emperor is naked!" I just hope he helps the rest of the crowd wake up…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.