Scott's tissue

At the gym last night, I nearly fell off the treadmill a couple of times--and not just because the Pittsburgh Penguins scored big and won their first game in the Stanley Cup finals. Go Pens!

No, instead, I was no doubt riveted to the twists and turns in the coverage over former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's newly released book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. In this book, McClellan reports that el Presidente "signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest," a sell he decided to make at least a full year before the war began.

Further, according to MSNBC, McClellan states that "Bush relied on an aggressive 'political propaganda campaign' instead of the truth to sell the Iraq war." Yet McClellan writes that "he did not believe Bush or the White House 'deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people.'"

So, let me get this straight . . . they consciously lied, but they didn't mean to consciously lie? Is that even possible--at least without your head exploding in the process of trying to manage two polar-opposite thoughts in your brain at one time? Only in official Washington perhaps. Only from the pen of a professional spin doctor.

OK, so perhaps I wasn't quite as riveted to the endless discussion on MSNBC, CNN, Headline News, and Fox News, as I claim to be. In fact, I would never claim to be riveted to anything emanating from the mouths--or whatever--of the talking heads at Fox News. Except perhaps if they were reporting on Steve Doocy's sudden, horrific disposal at the hands--or whatever--of a band of rampaging, dysentery-infected baboons.

To be completely honest--a rarity in this day and age, I realize--the entire time, I had the sound down, listening instead to the new Santogold CD on my Nano, and was merely watching the parade of red-faced, apoplectic TV hosts scroll by on the flat screen before me. With no big primaries in sight, the pundits have got to feed on something, and this will certainly do just fine, offering enough fresh meat (yet still with the vague tang of bleach about it) to fill their gullets for a day or two. Chow down, chimps!

So I staggered on the treadmill more out of disbelief, disbelief that the Pens came back from a 0-2 loss record in the finals, and disbelief that anyone is at all surprised by Scott McClellan's assertions. Haven't we known this all along, that the Iraq War was based on trumped up, nay, manufactured, charges? That there was no real national debate about going to war? (There was the illusion of a national discussion but, in reality, there was hand-wringing on the left, jingoism on the right, and a whole lot of stunned silence from the majority in the middle.) That the decision to go to war was a done deal from the get-go? That if you didn't agree with the need to go to war--or anything else the administration promoted--you were a disloyal American, actively supporting terrorism? That this president and his administration would do or say anything to win, to hold power, to be have their way--no matter how severe the consequences and losses are for others? Both in the short-term--the loss of life in Iraq--and the long-term--the loss of a healthy democracy in America?

Granted, it is surprising that McClellan, a former member of Bush's inner circle, handmaiden to the Henchmen of the Apocalypse, put all this in writing, especially while Bush is still in office. Finally! To have dissent come from someone on the inside, rather than an outsider, who could be so easily dismissed as, I dunno, disgruntled or something. And goodness knows, if Dana Perino tells me someone is disgruntled, I feel compelled to believe her, beacon of truth that she is.

Still, Scott McClellan's tell-all feels just a little too little and a little too late. The truths in this book might have made a difference five or six years before, as we were marching off to war. But now? What are we supposed to do with this knowledge now?

Soldiers are often criticized by civilians for unwavering loyalty to a cause, even when the cause is wrong-headed or harmful. But they are soldiers--they are supposed to follow orders, and those who command and lead are supposed to act wisely and responsibly, not misusing or abusing them.

Press secretaries by their nature need to be loyal as well. They are dependent on the wisdom and responsibility of those they represent, too, and, likewise, shouldn't be disabused by the superiors.

But wouldn't a press secretary, especially one with the ear of the president, vice president, secretary of state, and secretary of defense, have a little more leeway in following orders than perhaps a soldier in the field might? Wouldn't, too, a press secretary have some responsibility to the truth (at least some of the truth), no matter what pressures he or she might be under? There's quite a bit about this in journalism education, which is how most press secretaries receive their training, I would imagine. It's a little something called journalistic ethics.

And, finally, wouldn't someone who represents the American government and is, thus, a public servant, bear some allegiance to the government he represents, as well as the people he serves?

Or am I simply asking too many questions? Goodness knows, after this little dirty bomb went off in the public square, all I can pick out of the rubble are questions.

Oh, I'm sure Scott McClellan had his reasons for sticking to the party line and staying quiet until now, very late in the Bush presidency, when telling the truth could do little harm to the administration's reputation. (As in limbo, how low can you go?) Perhaps before something or someone truly sinister was afoot--the wolf was at the McClellan door, threatening to huff and puff and blow down his well-appointed house in the Virginia suburbs should he step out of line and speak with unforked tongue for a change. Karl Rove, the world's most venal troll doll, kidnapped his wife and tied her to the train tracks, while a steam locomotive barreled toward her. Or maybe there were widows and orphans to consider, and a ne'er-do-well, mustache-twiddling banker threatened to foreclose on poor Ma McClellan and all the lil McClellan children would go cold, hungry, and homeless should Sonny go agin him.

Boo hoo, boo hoo. It all sounds very tragic indeed. Like something out of an old melodrama--or maybe a fairytale. In fact, I feel all overcome! Somebody, quick, I need a tissue. But don't give me just any tissue--I need a Scott's tissue. This is a double-hankie weepie for sure.

Make sure it's the real thing, though. That thin, little, one-ply tissue the administration passes around--you know the one, sold under the label Tissue of Lies--just can't mop up a mess like this.