Cashing-In with Confessions
It looks like the latest in a series of diatribes by former White House staffers is about to make its debut; Scott McClellan, the former White House Press Secretary, has written a book about controversial events that transpired during his tenure with the Bush administration. While tell-all compositions are nothing new for the Bush White House, this one seems to be getting special attention because of its source - McClellan isn’t simply a disgruntled ex-cabinet member, he’s the guy who once stood at the podium day after day as the administration’s public face.
Sufficed to say, this book about controversial events is generating a lot of controversy itself. McClellan bluntly asserts that while the Bush administration may not have lied to the American people it nonetheless distorted the truth in making the case for war in Iraq (is there a difference?) Current White House Press Secretary Dana Perino has accused McClellan of simply being a disgruntled employee, and general sentiment on the right is that McClellan is a traitor. Not surprisingly, many on the left are viewing this book as one more nail in the coffin of Bush’s legacy - further vindication for their criticism of his presidency.
If there’s one thing that bothers me about these tell-all novels by ex-administration officials - from Richard Clark, to George Tenet, to Scott McClellan - it is the hypocrisy of attempting to benefit from their role in the alleged mistakes of this White House. All of these authors admit to personally letting the American people down in some way - their books frequently contain an apology for failing to live up to the ideals of public service. Yet, how much money are these men reaping from their confessions?
Does this mean that former administration officials who participated in egregious errors should remain silent? Not at all - but if things really are as bad as they claim, and if they played any part in those mistakes, the apology needs to be validated by a forfeiture of the profits generated by their books. If, as Richard Clark claims, he could have done more to prevent 9/11, then he should be willing to give back the proceeds of his writing to the families who lost loved ones on that fateful day. Likewise, if Scott McClellan believes that the administration was not forthright in making the case for war - that war itself was not truly necessary - and he helped sell that war to the American people, then a similar offering should be expected. This shouldn’t be too hard - the last time I checked the American people will gladly accept cash, check or money order.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
