Scott, We Hardly Knew Ye
So former White House spokesman Scott McClellan’s tell-all book has hit the shelves. He treats it as an outpouring of conscience, horrified to see the presidential administration lie systematically to the American public. I’m not sure how much slack to cut him here: while conscience is a precious commodity in politics generally, and vanishingly rare in Bush’s gang generally, we’ve got a long list of Republicans suddenly very vocal about how little they really agree with the president. How very convenient, given record-setting low opinion polls and the looming sense that the public generally wouldn’t mind seeing a lot of these faces voted out of office, or even behind bars. Believing he was simply passing the unvarnished truth to the press during his term would require a mind-boggling naiveté on McClellan’s part; if he was deceived, it could only be with his willing cooperation.
Other members and former members of the White House staff are not at all uncertain how much slack to cut him: none at all. As you might expect from a group that, like other organized crime, considers loyalty more valuable than principles, honesty, or actual public service, they have nothing but contempt for a snitch.
Former White House counselor Bartlett considers claims in the book inappropriate: "Part of the role of being a trusted adviser is to honor that trust."
Former White House spokesman Fleischer is "heartbroken that Scott feels this way about his time at the White House." He blames McClellan for participating in the process: "If Scott had such deep misgivings, he should not have accepted the press secretary position as a matter of principle." (How he could have chosen not to accept on the basis of misgivings that arose after working as press secretary is unclear.)
White House spokeswoman Perino blames a personality change in McClellan himself: "Scott, we now know, is distruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during, and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."
Karl Rove states it more baldly: "It really doesn't [sound like McClellan]. Not the Scott McClellan I've known for a long time. Second of all, it sounds like somebody else. It sounds like a left-wing blogger. Second of all, you're right. If he had these moral qualms, he should have spoken up about them." Rove also feels that, because McClellan didn't experience every meeting, what he did experience is inconsequential: "And frankly, I don't recall Scott being in a lot of those meetings that first week, so maybe that's why he thinks we were in a state of denial."
But note a conspicuous absence in these responses. None actually go so far as to say that McClellan’s claims are untrue. Just inappropriate, disappointing, perplexing. President Bush himself is described as “puzzled” and “saddened.” (Bush is often puzzled and saddened when reminded of objective reality.) When you can’t dispute the message, attack the messenger.
Postscript: Between writing and posting this, someone called my attention to the following quote. Isn’t it just too perfect for words? I guess that settles the question of how much slack to cut.
"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"
—Scott McClellan, March 22, 2004, on the publication of Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies