I had not intended to say anything about Scott McClellan's book, but I do have a blog, and apparently there is a federal law. You don't need to read the book to comply, and I am grateful for that.
Last night, on the News Hour, David Brooks allowed that he had read "most of the book," had learned "nothing," and found it "cliche-ridden and bland." I saw a lot of McClellan in action from behind the podium in the White House press room, and it is comforting to learn that, while singing a new song, he has retained the same imitable voice that back in the day aroused in me such strong feeling.
Brooks told sort of a goofy story that seemed meant to show that Bush has not been well served by lackeys like McClellan. A couple of years ago, he had been interviewing Bush with a couple of other columnists, one of whom, Max Boot, "challenged Bush hard" on the conduct of the Iraq war. According to Brooks, Bush was provoked, became flushed, and, in answering heatedly, said more than once that he was enjoying the exchange. "It was," said Brooks, "like a guy who had never had a chance to actually have an argument."
Brooks's point, which I think has merit, is that Bush surrounded himself with "intellectual mediocrities"--Brooks's phrase--who, if they had known enough to be able to challenge the president (which they didn't), nevertheless lacked the inclination. McClellan makes the same point in taking aim at Condi Rice, who, he writes in his book, "was more interested in figuring out where the president stood and just carrying out his wishes while expending only cursory effort on helping him understand all the considerations and potential consequences [of going to war]."
But this line of criticism is too timid. It's not enough to say that the president has been badly served by the sycophantic know-nothings who work for him. In that interview with Brooks and Boot, Bush protested too much. It occurred to him to say, repeatedly, that he was enjoying the match because he wasn't enjoying it at all. It was never his objective to surround himself with smart people who would challenge him to think. He prefers loyalty (read: toadies) to brains. Yes, he's been badly served by know-nothings, but he sought them out, and he is a know-nothing himself.
Comments