Another Voice For The Obvious

The White House and its few remaining friends were huffing and puffing yesterday when advance copies of Scott McClellen’s new book were released.  In Scott’s tell all accounting of his time as White House Press Secretary, he adds no new information to the underhanded methods used by the White House to coax America into invading Iraq.  Scott does, however, add credibility to the already made claims because he was there.

You do have to scratch your head a bit.  It is almost 3 years since Scott left his assignment and 5+ years since the Iraq War was falsely justified.  Why so long, why at all?

One is left to speculate that career-wise things have not gone as well as they could have for McClellen and for sure he will receive big bucks for the book and speaking appearances.  I would like to think, however, that over the years McClellen has had time to think about how he was used by Bush, Cheney, and Rove.  How he was sent repeatedly out infront of the press corps and like a puppet, made to mouth things he knew not to be true or at least should have figured out were false.  This must be a heavy weight to carry for anyone other than a Rumsfeld or Cheney (where ends always justify means).

McClellen in his early interviews since the book release has stumbled about why he didn’t say something at the time.  He, like Hillary and many others, claims that the Goverment information was worrisome and threatening, and after all, it was the Government speaking.  It must be true.  The great disconnect is “what is the appropriate response to the facts known or claimed?

1. Assume for a minute that the Bush Administration claims were true.  Hussein had WMDs including the beginnings of nuclear weapons.

2. Why would the correct response not be to first verify these allegations with the UN and obtain a UN mandate?

Or consider this

1. There were contradictory claims about WMD and no proof of nuclear weapons.

2. Why not wait until such information was substantiated?

Or try this

1. For whatever the reasons, the US decided to invade Iraq.

2. Why would you not wait until all units were suitably equipped and there was a plan for the peace and a plan for a safe exit?

These are questions that McClellen does not answer and the American public must try to answer in the years ahead.  The best possible answer will be sheer incompetence on the part of our chief executive.  The dark shadowy hints at the answer suggest political and financial favoritism with a good measure of desire to alter the US political process for choosing its elected officials.  Hopefully some future authors will propose and provide supporting reasons why the Iraq War is a result of something other than incompetence.

Explore posts in the same categories: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War, John McCain, Politics, Republican Party

Tags: ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: