FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bush, Rice and McClellan

With the publication of What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan sheds yet more light on the disdain President Bush has for anything beyond his own twisted vision for the world.

Mr. McClellan states that Mr. Bush “signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest.” At this point, few people should consider this a major revelation, but it is interesting coming from someone who was there from the earliest planning stages of the war.

The reaction from the White House to Mr. McClellan’s book is not unexpected, and we have Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Bush’s happy-face cheerleader, ever ready to follow her leader down whatever rathole to which he takes the nation, leading the way. In response to Mr. McClellan’s charges, she said this: “What I will say is that the concern about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was the fundamental reason” for the U.S. invasion. And further: “It was not the United States of America alone that believed that he had weapons of mass destruction that he was hiding.”

Perhaps it wasn’t the U.S. alone that suspected Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction; but then again, perhaps it was. And perhaps, as Mr. McClellan alludes, the U.S. knew that Iraq had no such weapons. But as former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has clearly stated, the war was and is about oil. Even Mr. Bush’s clone, Arizona Senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain has admitted this, although he later attempted to withdraw his damning statement.

If it wasn’t just the U.S. that worried about weapons of mass destruction, then why did most of the U.S.’s major allies decide to pass on joining ‘The Coalition of the Drilling’ (no, that is not a typographical error)? And why did the U.S. have to provide approximately 93% of the soldiers for the invasion, and an even greater amount for the occupation, as several nations have folded their tents and gone home? And even those that joined in may have been encouraged to do so for reasons totally unrelated to any belief of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Bush Administration fast tracked a free trade agreement with Australia in return for its sending 900 soldiers. El Salvador may have deployed its 300 troops in exchange for membership in the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). And England was granted lucrative reconstruction contracts, although such an incentive may not have been necessary. Then Prime Minister Tony Blair has long been known as one of Mr. Bush’s adoring minions; he’s not called the Yankee Poodle for nothing.

And it wasn’t only Congress and nations looking for a handout that followed Mr. Bush to war. The U.S. media at least allowed, and in many cases encouraged it. In a recent interview, CNN Correspondent Jessica Yellin, with MSNBC prior to the start of the war, said this: “When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation… and my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president’s approval ratings… the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the President.”

Even the New York Times, in 2004, issued a kind of mea culpa for its coverage prior to the war. In a May 26 editorial of that year, the editors said this: “… we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.” Apparently the newspaper with the motto ‘All the News that’s fit to Print’ found some that would be displeasing to Mr. Bush, and was, therefore, unfit to print. So much for the much-vaunted U.S.’s freedom of the press.

Yet in his indictment of Mr. Bush, Mr. McClellan himself equivocates; along with saying that Mr. Bush was “less than candid and honest,” he continues to state, incredibly, that the president did not consciously seek “to deceive the American people.”

Someone needs to tell the former press secretary that he can’t have it both ways; if Mr. Bush was less than honest than he certainly did seek to deceive the world. Even if he only succeeded in deceiving Congress, his deceptions have caused untold suffering in the world, far more than Saddam Hussein ever caused.

Among the pearls of wisdom that Mr. McClellan provides the world is this one: wars, he advises us sagely, “should only be waged when necessary.”  If Mr. McClellan only learned this after encouraging the U.S. disaster in Iraq, then we are all in more trouble than we thought. Surely the president of the United States should surround himself with people who know that fact to their very core. Realizing once again that that is not the case with the current administration, perhaps we should all be grateful that Mr. Bush has only launched two unnecessary wars. But let us not breathe a sigh of relief quite yet; Mr. Bush still has several months left in office, and Iran and Cuba are potential targets.

Prior to his Supreme Court appointment as president, Mr. Bush talked about returning ‘moral values’ to the White House. He described himself as a ‘straight shooter,’ a president any U.S. citizen could be comfortable having a beer with (how that qualifies someone to be president is anyone’s guess) and, for many people, most significantly said he was a devoted follower of Jesus Christ. Now the lies that were so obvious, for so long, to so many people are being detailed by his inner circle.  And those members of the inner circle are as culpable as Mr. Bush for all they have done to forward his personal agenda for the country and the world, an agenda based on greed and a total disdain of the needs of the people.

Moral values, by any definition, have been lacking in the White House for generations. They are not likely to return any time soon. Those looking for such values are best served looking elsewhere. A President Obama or a President Clinton may not show the same degree of disdain for human life and common decency as does Mr. Bush, but they cannot be expected to be moral leaders. A President McCain will only extend the same disasters that Mr. Bush has authored.

ROBERT FANTINA is author of ‘Desertion and the American Soldier: 1776–2006.

 

Your Ad Here
 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

Robert Fantina’s latest book is Empire, Racism and Genocide: a History of US Foreign Policy (Red Pill Press).

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Justin Anderson
Don’t Count the Left Out Just Yet
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail