411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 90

Posted by Brandon Crow on 06.04.2008

This week, there can only be one topic--Scott McClellan's "revelations" about Bush and the charges against his administration. Enough of a tease?

The Big 9-0! Yes, it's Week 90 of Politics Fact or Fiction! As far as topics and questions for the celebratory 9-0 goes, there really is/was only one topic for discussion this week—Scott McClellan and the heavy charges he leveled at former boss, George W. Bush. Let's not waste time with chit chat. Let's get straight to the meat.



This week, we welcome third-time participant Peter Nguyen and former 411 Politics columnist Ray Church. Get to it, fellas.

Ding, Ding!

1. In his new book, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan revealed that in the run up to the war, Bush and Co. exercised an "aggressive political propaganda campaign" to sell the war and that the administration made a conscious decision to "turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed," with the country on the brink of war. Being that he was there working in the White House, McClellan's charges are credible.

Peter Nguyen: FACT. As the press secretary, McClellan was essentially the president's mouthpiece and spokesperson to the country. Does anyone believe that every statement and response uttered from behind his podium was not fully vetted by the entire White House power structure? In fact, presidential propaganda often begins with words emanating from the press secretary whose candor, or lack thereof, is carefully calculated to serve the political and policy goals of the administration at whose pleasure he serves. Finally, the press secretary, as a communications specialist, also has input into how other members of the inner circle express themselves and often develops talking points to help them avoid contradicting the current "official" White House position.

Ray Church: FACT. Fact, but not for the reasons given. OK, I'm equivocating here. McClellan's charges are credible, but not because he was working in the White House at the time. It's like one of those riddles where someone tells you that they always lie and you can't work out if that's a lie or not...

The reason McClellan's description here is credible is that it meshes with the facts as we currently know them. This book comes out in the same couple of weeks that it was revealed most of the "military experts" that were advising the local networks were paid to take their marching orders straight from the pentagon. It comes after revelations of fake reporters in the newsroom (anyone remember Gannon?), after the machinations of the outing of Valerie Plame were revealed, after Karl Rove pushed Kenneth Tomlinson into the Broadcasting Board of Governors, after it was revealed that the administration was targeting al-jazeera, after it was revealed that the Bush Administration was paying for media outlets to print there story.

It's not credible because it's McClellan. If he didn't tell the story this way we would all be asking what reality he's living in.

1 for 1. Like most of America, these two believe McClellan over the president and the administration.

2. McClellan also took time to describe Bush's "presidential management" style as being "continually in campaign mode, never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising." This portrait of Bush as president is absolutely surprising because Bush has been the epitome of openness and sincerity.

Peter Nguyen: FICTION. This is absolutely false. Campaigning and governing are two related, but different things. Campaigns are often dominated by uncompromising statements, entrenched philosophies, and saber rattling. Governing requires working with the other branches of government, negotiating with other nations, exercising prudence, proper temperament, and engaging in reflective though about long-term goals. During this on-going eight-year debacle that history will call the Bush Administration, does anyone believe that this president has been engaged in competent governance? Look at our economy, foreign policy, environmental record, and struggling education system. Good governance also requires accountability, transparency, and openness. The Bush government has been completely unforthcoming about torture, contracting with private firms in Iraq, allowing Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzalez, and Harriet Meyers, among others, to testify before Congress, and spying on its own citizens! There is nothing open or sincere about this, one of the most secretive presidencies in the history of the country.

Ray Church: FICTION. I'm laughing. Uncontrollably. Bush... open... next question…

Ok, now that I've picked myself off the floor.. What happened to Karl Rove last week? Oh, that's right, John Conyers was threatening to indict his arse for contempt of congress. Ditto Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales. This is a government whose policy of "openess and sincerity" was so extreme that the British government felt the need to send a memo stating "the facts are being fixed to fit the policy". While we're on the question... what happened to those couple of years worth of emails that mysteriously disappeared off of Karl Rove's computer, or the emails on the RNC server which was being used as a way to get around government documentation laws enacted after the Nixon Tapes scandal (and don't you all want to see Bush on the White House lawn trying to torch some Dell Laptop with firestarters and a can of BBQ lighter fluid). What about the Administration's denials of Rendition? What about the fact that Lawyers and International Organisations were denied access to Gitmo for years, and even the sercretive camp 7 (and no, that's not another urban myth, it's where they kept Abu Zubaydah) which, even after knowledge of the camp was revealed in the New York Times, the army refused to acknowledge the existance of.

2 for 2. Why do I get the feeling that lots of people are rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off at that question? It's telling that both Peter and Ray hit on the same names and the same indiscretions.

Switch!

3. Much ado has been made, especially by conservatives, about the bias of the "liberal media." McClellan jumps into the fray with the following thoughts: "If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq…[t]he collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise…[i]n this case, the ‘liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served." (emphases added)

McClellan is absolutely correct about the failure of the "supposed" liberal media in relation to the Iraq War.

Ray Church: FACT. 
 Forget liberal media. The media is opportunistic. Playing the good soldier was good for business, and the few people who said otherwise (Bill Maher, Bill Moyers, Knight-Ridder, the Dixie Chicks) were castigated for being unpatriotic. The media is focused on one thing... ratings. To expect truth when a newspaper or network is focused on the bottom line is akin to asking a fox to watch the henhouse.

Peter Nguyen: FACT. I have friends in Europe who see CNN's international coverage of the war in Iraq, complete with images of the dead and wounded and American firepower hitting near or on civilians. Meanwhile, domestic CNN, Fox, etc. deliver a falsely sanitized version of these very same events, such that, as a people, we lack the proper information to truly evaluate the course of the war and in what manner we should hold our elected representatives accountable.

If there ever were a "liberal media" in this country, it is certainly dead. Bush has been given a free ride while allowing our country to be controlled by ever-merging corporate interests, incarcerating our own citizens without charging them, and attacking the very principles upon which our Constitution is based.

3 for 3. The vote is in. What liberal media?

4. If Scott McClellan truly had these kinds of moral reservations, he should have raised these concerns more forcibly, and if necessary, resigned his position in protest. The fact that he "toed the line" and waited over two years after he left office to turn around and bash Bush speaks poorly of McClellan.

Ray Church: FACT. OK, so McClellan is not the sniveling toad we thought he was, and not the scumbag someone like Ari Fleischer has proven to be since he left the White House (and maybe this explains why McClellan was pretty bad as a press secretary... a bad case of conscience perhaps). But, yes, he toed the party line and fed lines to the media on behalf of a criminally negligent, if not hopelessly criminal, government. That makes him an accomplice...

Peter Nguyen: FICTION. The laughable Republican counter-spin on these revelations is to attack the messenger, McClellan, while glossing over the message. I do not believe McClellan is a hero or a morally elevated person, however, I think the path he took is understandable. How often have we, or our friends, been in a job where we hated our boss, despised the work, but hung on to the job, because we needed it or did not have any better alternative? Now, multiply that sentiment by ten for McClellan, because he held a very prestigious, well-paying job. On top of that, it probably took two years to for him to spill the beans on Bush, because he had to take certain steps to protect himself legally and politically from the retribution he knew would come. In any case, who cares about the minor defects of Scott McClellan? He does not have nuclear launch codes, unlike the dangerous idiot that is the subject of his book!

3 for 4. Oh, so close! We almost had total consensus two weeks in a row.

Well, that's a wrap for Week 90. Thanks to Peter and Ray for participating in the historic Week 90. Only ten more weeks till the BIG 1-0-0!