Hypocrisy and the Damage Done

If anyone confuses me with a George W. Bush supporter, I can only conclude that person

• doesn't know me, or
• hasn't read much in this blog.

Perhaps (or maybe that should be probably) both.

After all, Bush was still president when I wrote that his actions in office needed to be investigated.

I still believe that to be true, but, after revisiting that particular post, I feel I need to amend what I said — if only to make what I feel are somewhat obvious points about hypocrisy.

I'm not saying that Barack Obama was dishonest about his intentions in Iraq — but he has been, at the very least, inconsistent in what he has said.

On the surface, Obama appeared to be gracious toward his predecessor when he said, in his speech informing the public that he had fulfilled his pledge to end all combat operations in Iraq, "[N]o one can doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security," and he went on to observe that "there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it."

But there has long been a rising chorus in America of people who believed that the Bush administration (the president and all the others whose names will be forever linked to this tragedy) lied to the people to further its own agenda. And one of those voices had been Obama's.

In the now–forgotten days before the economic implosion, Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq and his desire to end American military involvement there was one of the main things that drew voters to him, not unlike Gene McCarthy's insurgent candidacy against LBJ four decades before.

It may be hard to remember now, but the campaigns for both parties' presidential nominations were conducted with the unpopular Iraq war as the backdrop, not the economy.

"There was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq," Obama told an audience in Ohio during the 2008 presidential campaign, "until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

Hmmmm. Seems to me Obama was asserting on that occasion (and on others in the spring of 2008) that both Bush and McCain had been guilty of lying when they pressed Congress for the authority to invade Iraq.

After all, the primary reason for going to war (which has long been discredited) was the alleged existence of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, weapons that supposedly were aimed at America, ready to launch at a second's notice. And those allusions to mushroom clouds from folks like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, et al., drove that message home.

And, because Al Qaeda was such an emotional subject for most Americans in the months immediately following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the proponents of a war with Iraq tossed around the suggestion that Al Qaeda had used Iraq as a base of operations. That, too, proved to be false.

But, without those two arrows in their quiver at that time, the so–called neocons never could have frightened the American public — or the American Congress — into going along with them.

Lying about the reasons for launching an invasion doesn't seem very patriotic to many Americans — especially Americans who were passionate about their opposition to the war (and believed their opposition was a valid expression of their own patriotism) and yet were slandered as unpatriotic by those who supported the war.

How do you suppose they feel when they hear Obama praise Bush's "love of country" in connection with the Iraqi operation?

Does it seem hypocritical to you?

Hypocrisy isn't an easy thing to confront, is it? Of course, no one is perfect, but Eugene Robinson, an Obama enabler from the Washington Post who complains that American voters are petulant "spoiled brats" who are ready to turn over the Congress to a party they loathe because Democrats haven't produced improvements fast enough to suit them, frets that what voters appear all but certain to do in November makes no sense.

Actually, in the context of the American experience, it does make sense. At the very least, it is consistent. In the midterm campaigns of 1982 and 1994, respectively, both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton repeatedly reminded the voters that they had inherited bad economies.

And surveys showed that the majority of respondents agreed with Reagan and Clinton — but the voters had moved on. They weren't thinking about who started the fire. They were thinking about who had been chosen to extinguish the fire. And, in both cases, that had not been done.

Robinson doesn't think it is fair, and maybe it isn't. But what does fair have to do with it? It's the way American voters have behaved as long as I can remember. It shouldn't surprise anyone.

I'm inclined to think Robinson makes a valuable point when he says Obama can "point to any number of occasions on which he has told Americans that getting our nation back on track is a long–range project." Yet, in the very same column, Robinson admits that, when he was running for president, Obama's "campaign stump speech ended with the exhortation, 'Let's go change the world' — not 'Let's go change the world slowly and incrementally, waiting years before we see the fruits of our labor.' "

And that's the point. Obama raised the bar for himself by making "change" the centerpiece of his campaign. And his words had an urgency, an almost revolutionary sound, to them.

Now, not only is change coming too slowly for some, most can't agree on what kind of change the campaign was really about (and, therefore, the Obama presidency should be about).

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Obama campaigned under the banner of change, and change is what the voters expected. If the voters can't see it, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It might mean it isn't the kind of change they expected, or there hasn't been enough of it to make a difference in their lives.

It may well be true, as some have suggested, that some economic indicators are doing better and that this is a stubborn economy — and that, even though it will be years before most Americans see any change in their health care, it is a landmark achievement (that could well be repealed if the other party takes legislative power in a few months) — but real change, the kind that makes a positive difference in people's lives, is hard for many to see, especially when the latest report from the Labor Department showed unemployment moving back up in the direction of 10%.

Perhaps that explains why Gallup reports finding that less than 40% of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing on the economy. And, while Obama may be proud of passing health care reform legislation, he would be wise not to bring it up too much if Gallup is right. His handling of that issue is only marginally more popular than his handling of the economy (Gallup's finding, by the way, is confirmed by CNN polling, which tends to be more pro–Democrat than the typically neutral Gallup).

Some voters continue to take it on faith that the economy is getting better and blame the previous administration for all their difficulties, and Obama eagerly embraces that approach, as other presidents have.

But it just seems hypocritical to me that the same man who, in the days before his inauguration, urged his countrymen to look to the future instead of the past by investigating his predecessor's actions in office — who launched his presidential campaign with an eloquent plea for taking responsibility ("We've been told that our crises are somebody else's fault. We are distracted from our real failures and told to blame the other party, or gay people, or immigrants, and as people have looked away in frustration and disillusionment, we know who has filled the void") — now excuses his own failings by reminding people, at every opportunity, who was in office when the recession began.

And then he praises his predecessor's patriotism as he concludes a war that predecessor began.

This isn't exactly what I would call an "alternate history." If you're looking for something like that, may I recommend David Brooks' piece in the New York Times this week?

While his column rightfully could be considered an example of Monday morning quarterbacking, Brooks does suggest a plausible scenario in which the prospects for the midterm elections wouldn't be as dire for the Democrats — even if the employment numbers were fundamentally unchanged.

American voters may seem like petulant children to Robinson, but the lessons one learns from childhood do have a staying power all their own. They can continue to guide one's steps in adulthood.

And, while I may seem blase about the concept of being fair, I do understand that desire for fairness, justice and all that — and the bitterness one can feel when fair treatment has been denied.

I recall that, when I was about 6, I found myself in a situation in which the people around me were discussing something of which I knew nothing. I don't remember the specifics — or what I opted to do in that situation except that, whatever I did, it must have backfired on me because I felt compelled to discuss it with my mother.

(For some reason, I think this incident involved a discussion some of my peers were having about a TV program. But not everyone had a TV in those days, and it seems to me that, at the time, my family didn't have a TV set, so I knew nothing about TV programs. I probably felt left out of the conversation and decided to change the subject to something I knew about — resulting in a predictable outcome.)

Anyway, Mom told me there would be times in my life when the people around me would be discussing something in which I had no interest or knowledge to contribute to the conversation. In such situations, she told me, there were three things I could do. I could

• ignore the feelings of those I am with and change the subject to something I feel more comfortable talking about,
• try to contribute to the conversation, even though I have nothing to add to it, thereby embarrassing myself and wasting the others' time, or
• be respectful of those who are talking and remain silent.

She told me the third option was the best. And, although I don't remember the specifics of the incident that led to this conversation, I still remember what she told me: "Show courtesy and respect for others, and wait your turn."

I loved my mother very much, and I always wanted to please her. I don't recall if her answer made sense to me at the time, but it made sense to her, and that was all I needed to know.

As I think back on moments from my childhood, it occurs to me that I accepted many of the things Mom told me on face value. I didn't always understand the things she told me or the advice she gave me — and, in that case, I may well have been equally influenced, even if I didn't realize it, by the admonition that supposedly came from Mark Twain that "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt" — but if she believed it, I believed it, too.

I guess I should have asked more questions, though, because there have been times since Mom died when I have wondered if the sense of justice and fair play that she passed along to me might have been somewhat askew. Or maybe I've just applied her lessons wrong.

I know of at least one occasion about five or six years ago when I was having lunch with a group, and the women in the group were discussing something to which I had nothing to contribute. I don't remember now what the subject was, only that it was something I knew nothing about.

I was in a situation I had neither foreseen nor prepared for. I was also sensitive to traditional gender roles, and I was aware of the issues that always exist just beneath the surface, even if they aren't spoken out loud. I didn't want to trample on anyone's feet. And there were other factors at work as well.

So Mom's advice kicked in. I sat there in silence. I thought I was being courteous and respectful. Apparently, it wasn't taken that way. I say "apparently" not because any of the women in the group ever showed me the courtesy of telling me that my silence had been offensive to them in any way but because one of them told someone else — and he told me.

I've been paying the price for my "transgression" ever since. So much, I suppose, for the sense of fair play and justice in which I believed since I was a child.

Well, that's on a very small (albeit personal) scale. And it may not be entirely applicable.

Maybe I would have gotten the same response if I had said something stupid or insisted on changing the subject. Considering what I have long known of these people who have crucified me ever since for remaining silent, I was in a no–win situation. I believe there was nothing I could have done that would have been right in their eyes, even if I had had hours to carefully consider my options because nothing I have ever said or done has been right in their eyes.

I guess the moral for a president, who faces more demanding critics, is that there are times — especially when the economy sucks — when a president is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Maybe it's like the moral I always drew from "Short Cuts," Robert Altman's film of several Raymond Carver stories that eventually intersect.

One of those stories dealt with a young boy who was hit by a car being driven by a woman who was distracted by her personal problems. The woman tried to persuade the boy to let her take him to his home, but he seemed OK and, because his mother had always told him never to accept a ride with strangers, he politely refused her offer and insisted he was all right.

But he wasn't. Apparently, he had severe injuries that became more and more apparent after he got home. He fell into a coma and was rushed to the hospital, where he eventually died. His parents spent virtually every waking moment by his side.

Meanwhile, a baker who had been commissioned to bake a cake for the boy's upcoming birthday grew angrier and angrier as the days passed and no one came to pick up the special order (and pay him for all his hard work). The baker, knowing nothing of what had happened to the boy, began making harassing, anonymous calls to the parents' home.

It's always seemed to me that the moral was that life would be a lot simpler and things would turn out a lot better if people knew the whole story before they jumped to conclusions (as neatly as such conclusions may fit their particular world view).

The baker probably wouldn't have made those calls if he had known the family was facing a crisis. And that crisis might have been avoided if the boy had realized that, when his mother told him not to accept rides with strangers, she didn't mean to turn down a ride from someone who has hit you with her car and wants to make sure you are all right.

For that matter, the driver of the car never knew the fatal consequences of her inattentiveness. She told her husband about the incident, but she believed it had been a narrow escape.

Anyway, the grieving parents put two and two together and confronted the baker about the phone calls. When he learned what had happened to the boy, he regretted making the calls and tried to do what he could to make amends for his behavior, offering them some of his freshly baked rolls. "You should eat something at a time like this," he said. And they accepted his offering, perhaps more as a courtesy than because they were hungry.

And the rolls were good. I haven't read all of Carver's short stories, but I have read that one — eventually, I'd like to read the others that were brought to the screen in Altman's movie — and it describes the reassuring flavor of the rolls and the soothing warmth of the kitchen. The parents had not asked for the rolls, but they were good and the parents were grateful for the baker's act of kindness.

But the baker couldn't give the parents the one thing they did ask for. When the mother asked if she could see the cake he had made for her son, he had to confess that he had thrown it away.

And maybe that really is the moral of the story.

Sometimes the damage is done. Sometimes it is too late to know the whole story — or for that knowledge to make a difference.

Six Years and Counting ...

---

---

Precisely six years ago, in the early morning hours of March 20, 2003, the United States invaded Iraq.

And, six years later, American troops are still in that country. It has cost the taxpayers of this country more than $606 billion and about 5,000 American lives.

I must confess that I have wondered whether I should mention this today. The new administration has already announced its timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and there have been, after all, other noteworthy things that happened on March 20. For example,

• on this date in 1852, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was published,


• on this date in 1916, Albert Einstein published his theory of relativity,


• on this date in 1942, Gen. Douglas MacArthur made his famous "I shall return" speech, and


• on this date in 1969, John Lennon and Yoko Ono were married.

Today is also the birthday of

• Norwegian writer Henrik Ibsen,


• actor Michael Redgrave (the grandfather of Natasha Richardson, who died earlier this week), and


• Fred Rogers (the host of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood," who assured his audience that all children would be cared for and urged parents to promise to take care of their own children during the Gulf War of the early 1990s. His message was repeated when the Iraq War began in 2003, ironically about three weeks after Rogers' death), among others.

Like any other date on the calendar, there have been many things that happened on March 20. Some have been good. Some have been bad.

But most will take a back seat in the minds of contemporary observers. The Iraq War will forever be associated with this date.

I was opposed to the war from the beginning, even though that put me in a distinct minority. I was never sold on the arguments of "weapons of mass destruction" (in spite of the smokescreens about freeing the Iraqi people that the Bush administration used to justify the war in subsequent years, it was the fear of weapons of mass destruction that was given as the reason for the invasion in 2003) nor did I believe the words of Colin Powell when he addressed the United Nations shortly before the war began.

But it became clear to me, in the late winter and early spring of 2003, that the invasion was going to happen, no matter how I felt about it. And I reached the conclusion that one of two things would happen — if the weapons of mass destruction really did exist, an invasion of Iraq was precisely the kind of thing that would prompt Saddam Hussein to use them; and, if they did not exist, American troops would be able to use their superior might to topple Baghdad fairly quickly.

As we all know now, no weapons of mass destruction were used. In fact, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. And American troops rolled into Baghdad virtually unchallenged. There were no mushroom clouds. Saddam Hussein fled but was captured by American troops in December 2003 and eventually executed three years later.

Public opinion has turned against the war in recent years, but I derive little satisfaction from having been proven correct. That knowledge will not bring back the Americans — and Iraqi citizens — whose lives have been lost. It will not restore all the bodies that have been maimed in the conflict. It will not return the billions of dollars that have been wasted — and could now be used to prop up the economy.

Barack Obama has put America on a sensible course for withdrawing troops from Iraq in a way that will gradually turn the responsibility for its future over to the Iraqis themselves. I share the frustration of those who would like to see all American troops brought home from Iraq right away, but, after nearly six years of occupation, to pull out all troops immediately would invite chaos into that country, and America has brought enough of that to Iraq already.

So we must live with the war for another 17 months.

But, at last, we can see light at the end of the tunnel.

Mission Accomplished?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told CNN's John King today that the Bush administration achieved "nearly everything we set out to do" in Iraq.

I'm tempted to let the statement speak for itself.

But I have to wonder a few things — well, actually, more than a few things, but I'll try to contain myself:

• Does "nearly everything" mean a war that continues, almost six years after it began, and has cost American taxpayers more than $600 billion?


• "We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq," Cheney said, "and it is in fact what we set out to do."
  
  I think Seth Meyers should devote one of his "Really!?!" segments on "Saturday Night Live" to that statement.
  
  Whatever happened to the "weapons of mass destruction," which, as you may recall, was the original — indeed, the only — justification given for invading Iraq?


• Did the Bush administration really plan to lose nearly 5,000 American lives, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi lives?
  
  And that doesn't include the thousands of lives that were permanently changed when bodies were maimed by roadside bombs.

If Dick Cheney made any sacrifice for the war effort, I am unaware of it.

Let's poll the families of the Americans who have died in Iraq — or the Americans who came back to this country without a limb or two — and see if they feel the mission was accomplished.

And then let's ask the Americans who continue to foot the bill for the war if they feel the investment was worth it.

Or could we have found better uses for more than $600 billion here at home?

What Can We Expect?

---

---

During the weekend, the New York Times posted responses from 11 economists to the Times' simple question: "When will the recession be over?"

I guess we'd all like an answer to that one. But you don't have to read many of the economists' replies before you reach the conclusion that prosperity is not just around the corner.

I suppose it is a hopeful sign that consumer spending was up more than expected in January. The increase followed six consecutive months of declines — and consumer spending is a vital part of the recovery equation.

But the increase was 0.6% — forecasts called for an increase of 0.4%. How much will the economy benefit?

Not much, apparently. Of course, any increase in consumer spending is good. But Ben Rooney of CNNMoney.com reports that "[d]espite last month's rebound, many economists expect consumer spending to remain weak given the outlook for continued economic deterioration."

And, before anyone gets carried away over a modest increase in consumer spending, that dreadful fourth quarter of 2008 resulted in a $62 billion loss for American International Group (AIG).

So, writes David Ellis for CNNMoney.com, "To keep the company from cratering and causing broader fallout across the financial system, the government said it would overhaul its bailout."

Which leads me to another — and not altogether unrelated — observation.

Back in 2002, when Dick Cheney was promoting another round of tax cuts to stimulate the economy, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill argued that the economy was already careening toward a crisis.

But O'Neill was silenced by Cheney's admonition that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Shortly thereafter, O'Neill lost his job.

This weekend, I watched part of Rush Limbaugh's speech to CPAC. He drew a standing ovation from the true believers when he spoke dreamily about how the United States got out of the recession of the early 1980s with tax cuts that were responsible, in large part, for those deficits.

Those same conservatives complain now about the deficits created by the stimulus plan — which wouldn't be necessary if the economy hadn't tanked under the weight of the deficit burden imposed by the Republicans.

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that the lesson we should have learned is that deficits have no short-term impact on the economy, but, left unattended, can and will have an enormous impact farther down the road. Reagan's presidency didn't have to pay the price for his deficits, but his successor, George H.W. Bush, did.

Then, after Bill Clinton restored some sanity and built a budget surplus for his successor, George W. Bush, Dubya proceeded to give away the surplus in the months before the September 11 attacks. So that money was gone when we needed it to go after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan — but that was a priority that didn't last too long. Attention was soon diverted to Iraq, which the United States invaded almost six years ago.

For those of you keeping score at home, the cost of the war now exceeds $600 billion.

Still think deficits don't matter, Dick?

War and Peace

It may be hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel as far as the economy is concerned.

But the light is becoming easier to see in Iraq — although it may seem every bit as far away.

Barack Obama said today that the nation has "begun the work of ending this war" and will all but end the combat mission by August 2010.

It is a gradual conclusion that is realistic and responsible, even if it is considered inadequate in many ways by Obama's fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi feels the residual force Obama plans to leave in Iraq (between 35,000 and 50,000) is too large.

Other Democrats also quibbled with the number. Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California said such a force would be viewed by Iraqis as an occupation force.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who ran against Obama in pursuit of the presidential nomination last year, said, "You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can't be in and out at the same time."

But Obama's foe in the 2008 general election, Sen. John McCain, said Obama's strategy was "reasonable" and said he was "cautiously optimistic."

And a majority of the visitors to CNN.com — 55%, in fact — say the plan is "just right." The CNN poll isn't scientific, but nearly 180,000 people have responded to the question as of 4:25 p.m. (Central) today.

Obama, undoubtedly, needs to cultivate the support of Democrats in Congress. But his approach makes sense to me. Steve Benen writes in Washington Monthly that it's about time the war in Iraq came to an end, and he is right. But the conflict must be brought to a responsible conclusion.

And it will allow the United States to shift its attention back to where it should have been all along — Afghanistan.

Déjà Vu All Over Again

---

Dick Smothers: "Our government is asking us, as citizens, to refrain from traveling to foreign lands."

Tommy Smothers: (turning to face the camera) "OK, all you guys in Vietnam, come on home!"

The Smothers Brothers, circa 1968

---

A few years ago, I was talking with a co-worker about the Iraq War, and I compared it to the Vietnam War.

I grew up during the Vietnam War, and, while I didn't understand everything that was happening at the time, I understood enough. I saw the nightly news reports from Vietnam and the weekly casualty reports, and I saw the accounts of the protests that took place all across America. My father was a college professor, and there were certainly many demonstrations against the war on the campus where he taught.

My co-worker was a supporter of the Bush administration, and I'm not really sure what he thought of my comments about the similarities I saw between those two conflicts. But another co-worker was sitting a few feet away, and I saw her nodding in agreement when I said that I felt America had been drawn into something that was likely to get worse.

I was reminded of this conversation yesterday. I happened to be listening to my radio, and someone called in to a conservative talk show host. The caller was complaining about how billions of dollars were being spent on Iraq yet so many lawmakers were digging in their heels when it came to helping people here at home. And, for that matter, the caller said, the government wasn't providing enough help for Iraq War veterans when they finally came home — many of whom have been maimed in service to their country.

Perhaps a large part of the public's skepticism stems from the fact that the reasons for the war keep changing. The Associated Press reports that 4,245 Americans have been killed in Iraq — but the first casualty of a war is always the truth.

When American troops invaded Iraq, the justification was the presumed existence of weapons of mass destruction in that country. It didn't take long for Saddam Hussein to be overthrown, but, during the lengthy occupation of Iraq, no evidence of these weapons has been found.

Since the original reason for the war was discredited, the Bush administration had to provide other reasons so the public would not believe it had been misled. At various times in the last six years, Americans have been told that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks (which has never been proven), that the war was intended to end human rights abuses (which never explained why torture was used at places like Abu Ghraib prison) and, ultimately, that the war was intended to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq (whether it has done so is a matter of debate).

The Center for Public Integrity reported last month that "President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials ... made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Many people believe the war was started primarily to secure Iraq's rich oil reserves for the West.

If the true purpose for the war is unclear, the high cost is not, although there is some misunderstanding of the amount.

The caller I heard on the radio yesterday claimed that the cost was $900 billion — which would exceed the amount of the economic stimulus package that was recently signed into law. But that figure is incorrect, according to the tabulation by the National Priorities Project. According to the running total at the NPP website, the cost of the Iraq War — as of today — is not quite $600 billion, although it is close.

But one of the interesting things one can do at the website is break the figure down. What else could be done with the money that has been spent?

I did a quick check to see what the financial trade-off is for taxpayers in the town where I went to college — Fayetteville, Ark. Fayetteville has a population of 72,208, which is probably double what it was when I went to school there 30 years ago.

"Taxpayers in Fayetteville, Arkansas will pay $130 million for total Iraq war spending approved to date," the site reported.

For that money, a full year of health care could be provided for 85,938 people or renewable electricity could be provided for 108,591 homes. The latter would be especially important these days, since a severe ice storm this winter disrupted electricity in many north Arkansas communities.

Fayetteville is the home of the University of Arkansas, so education was an important part of the community when I was in school there (and I presume it still is). That $130 million could have paid the salaries of 2,545 music and arts teachers or funded college scholarships for 22,376 students (which exceeds the university's total enrollment).

Nearly 22,000 spots in Head Start could have been paid for, or the annual salaries of 2,720 elementary school teachers could have been paid.

It's a matter of speculation, I suppose, how much of a role the spending on the war has played in the current economic calamity. But, without the war gobbling up $600 billion and counting, how bad do you suppose things would be today?

Laughing All The Way to the Bank?

---

"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided -- that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. ... What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

Scott McClellan, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong with Washington

---

I don't think it's hit the store shelves yet. I think you can pre-order it, but I don't think it arrives in stores until next week.

I don't sell books for a living so I don't know what the schedule is. If you're in a hurry to read it, you might be able to find it in a book store. Or your best bet may be to order it online.

Anyway.

Scott McClellan's book about his experiences in the George W. Bush White House is not drawing very good reviews from his former employer.

Guess the former White House press secretary doesn't mind, since Barnes & Noble has McClellan's book at the top of its speculative best-seller list.

In the book, McClellan says Bush is guilty of "self-deception" in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Dana Perino, the current occupant of McClellan's old office, calls McClellan "disgruntled" over his White House experiences.

And Karl Rove, who is apparently one of McClellan's primary targets in the book, says the writing style "sounds like a left-wing blogger."

Newsweek’s White House correspondent Richard Wolffe wasn't surprised by the tone of the book excerpts to which he has had access.

"He promised when he first started writing this book that he’d engage in some truth-telling,” Michael Calderone quotes Wolffe in Politico. “And that’s what he’s done.”

McClellan may not be an authority on the Middle East ... or Iraq ... or much of anything.

But he had a front-row seat. He's hardly a "left-wing blogger."

No "left-wing" anything could get into Bush's Oval Office for five minutes. McClellan was Bush's spokesman for nearly three years.

And, like it or not, the Republicans are going to have to contend with this book during the election campaign.

Because, if anything, Fred Kaplan writes in Slate, John McCain is more of a neocon than Bush is.

So this book is going to be a topic of discussion in the 2008 campaign. Many discussions.

Unless the totally unexpected happens -- and America pulls its troops out of Iraq.

Don't think that's gonna happen, huh?

Me, neither.

Not So Fast, My Friend

Is the race for the Democratic presidential nomination over -- as many writers and political observers have been suggesting, in the aftermath of Barack Obama's big win in North Carolina and his narrow loss in Indiana?

Only half a dozen states remain on the primary calendar.

One of those states is West Virginia, which holds its primaries next Tuesday.

West Virginia has the political stage all to itself, and, to a certain extent, it is resisting the notion that Obama has wrapped up the nomination.

West Virginia has a long history of being contrary. It once was part of Virginia, but after Virginia seceded from the Union at the start of the Civil War, the northwestern portion of the state itself seceded from Virginia and was admitted to the Union as a separate state on June 20, 1863.

In fact, to this day, June 20 is celebrated in West Virginia as "West Virginia Day."

In 2000, George W. Bush became the first non-incumbent Republican to win West Virginia since Herbert Hoover in 1928. The next four Republicans who were elected president won without the support of West Virginia.

Dwight Eisenhower didn't win West Virginia when he was first elected in 1952. Richard Nixon didn't win the state when he was first elected in 1968. Ronald Reagan didn't win West Virginia when he was first elected in 1980. And George H.W. Bush didn't win it when he was elected in 1988.

If the pattern had continued and Al Gore had won West Virginia in 2000, Florida's electoral votes would not have been enough to give the election to Bush.

I get the feeling that there are some editorial writers in West Virginia who feel that it isn't fair for the race to be considered over before West Virginians get the chance to participate.

I also get the feeling that participation in Tuesday's primaries will be good, even if the voters believe that both nominations have now been decided. There seem to be several competitive races on both ballots -- as one would expect in a state that has become increasingly competitive politically in recent years.

"Either Democrat will have a tough time this fall against Republican John McCain, whose service, policy experience and bipartisan accomplishments trump Hillary's," writes the Charleston Daily Mail in its endorsement of Hillary Clinton. "Of the Democrats, though, Hillary would be the stronger candidate."

The polls I've seen suggest that West Virginians agree.

Rasmussen Reports sees Clinton leading Obama, 56% to 27%. The remaining 17% either persist in supporting a candidate who is no longer in the race or continue to be undecided at this stage of the contest.

The numbers are virtually unchanged from a Rasmussen survey in mid-March.

American Research Group's most recent survey (conducted May 7-8) has Clinton in front, 66% to 23%.

How does one explain such a large Clinton lead in West Virginia?

In part, I would say the negative publicity surrounding Obama's remark about "bitter" voters "clinging" to guns and religion hasn't helped among West Virginia's more conservative electorate. West Virginia is, arguably, one of the most religious states in the nation. It is also a state where 7 out of 10 residents own guns.

Also, the demographics of West Virginia seem to lean more in Clinton's favor. Only about 3% of the West Virginia population is black, and about three-quarters of the residents went no farther in their education than high school. The so-called "Lunch Bucket Democrats" appear to outnumber the "Starbucks Democrats" in West Virginia.

And, in spite of the fact that West Virginia's economy hasn't struggled as much as the rest of the country, due to relatively good times for the coal mining industry, more than half of the state's households have incomes of less than $35,000/year.

The next administration will need to have a strategy ready to deal with the problems of energy prices, food prices, the economy in general.

But it's also important for Americans to decide in this election how they feel about the war in Iraq -- which will be 6 years old shortly after the next president takes the oath of office.

In this country, we celebrate those who are remembered as great warriors. But, as Yoda said in the Star Wars trilogy, "Wars not make one great." The ones who are remembered by history are the ones who show creativity and bold innovation on the battlefield in an attempt to shorten the conflict.

In fact, such a warrior died on this date 145 years ago. He was a Confederate general, and his name was Thomas Jackson -- better known by his nickname of "Stonewall." He considered himself a Virginian, although he was born in what is now West Virginia.

He died less than two months before the legendary Battle of Gettysburg. Many war historians believe the South might have won that battle -- and perhaps gone on to win the war -- if Jackson had been alive.

It seems clear that General Robert E. Lee knew what he had lost. Jackson actually died of pneumonia a week after the amputation of his left arm due to wounds he suffered in the Battle of Chancellorsville. As Jackson lay dying in the field hospital, Lee sent a letter and lamented to the chaplain, "[H]e has lost his left arm but I my right."

By the way, history also records that the battlefield wounds Jackson suffered were inflicted by mistake -- by Confederate troops.

Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies -- be it by design or by chance.

The management of a war that has dragged on for 5 years can hardly be said to be creative or innovative. The damage from the war -- like Stonewall Jackson's battlefield wounds -- is the result of "friendly fire."

In 2008, Americans must discuss the situation in Iraq and decide what the plan is going to be. We can't afford to sidestep the question the way we did in 2004.

It makes no sense to elect another president who will, in the words of Rick Martinez of the Raleigh News & Observer, "refuse to win a war."

And, since it may no longer be possible to win this war, we need a plan to simply end it.

It is neither creative nor innovative to continue to throw away blood and treasure to justify the blood and treasure that has already been lost.

There must be a clearly defined objective that will preserve what we still have and give us the opportunity to repair what damage it is possible to repair.

Words of Wisdom?

Grant Wahl, in Sports Illustrated, shares a thought on how long the war in Iraq has dragged on while writing about his first impressions from Day One of this year's NCAA basketball tournament.

"I've always connected the start of the Iraq War with the 2003 NCAA tournament, and it gives you some perspective on how long the war has lasted that I can't imagine a single player from that 2003 tournament is still in college basketball."

Well, Grant, it has been five years since the invasion of Iraq began.

These days, most athletes don't seem to stay in college more than three years, even if they get hurt and have to miss most or all of a season.

Trying Times

Today is the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

Usually, anniversaries are occasions for celebration. And the fifth is a milestone.

For those who are responsible for getting America ensnared in the mess in Iraq, it's more of a millstone than a milestone.

Some of the people who are responsible are no longer in power (i.e., Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell). Others -- George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice -- are still in office.

Bush gets regular reminders of what the public thinks of the Iraq War. They're called approval ratings. And Bush's approval ratings have tumbled about 40 points since the war began. That's roughly equivalent to the drop that Lyndon Johnson faced at a comparable point in the Vietnam conflict.

Oddly, it appears Bush was the only one who seems to have been saying much about the war today. Attention seemed to be focusing on Barack Obama's speech about race and Hillary Clinton's insistence that Michigan and Florida should be represented at the Democratic convention.

And people who weren't paying attention to Obama and Clinton were obsessing over Eliot Spitzer's call girl and the recently discovered video tape of her "Girls Gone Wild" auditions from 2003, when she was 18.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, who, as the Republican nominee, will have to run with Bush's record and persuade Americans to support four more years of a Republican-controlled White House, had this to say: "America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism. ... Important political gains have also been made, but far more must be done in coming months to cement the gains made in huge cost in American blood and treasure."

Approval ratings for Bush and Congress are quite low. Gallup says Bush is at 32% , while Congress' approval rating is 21%.

But neither figure should be surprising, and the Iraq War isn't solely to blame for it.

Also according to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who now believe the U.S. economy is in a recession is 76%. That's more than twice the number who felt that way in October.

It's hard to argue the point. In October, the consumer wasn't being told that each day brought a new record high in the price of gasoline. And record gas prices mean higher costs for transporting everything. That means everything you buy costs more.

You don't have to be an economics major to figure that out.

This belief about the economy was already prevalent when Bush paid a visit to the Economic Club of New York last week. If you watched his speech -- or clips of it on the evening news -- and kept one eye on the front page of the daily newspaper, you had to wonder something.

Why was that man smiling?

"That idiotic 'what me worry?' look just never leaves the man's visage," writes Robert Scheer for Creators Syndicate. "Once again, there was our president, presiding over disasters, in part of his making and totally on his watch, grinning with an aplomb that suggested a serious disconnect between his worldview and reality."

Gail Collins wrote, in the New York Times, that listening to Bush's speech to the Economic Club "brought back many memories. Unfortunately, they were about his speech right after Hurricane Katrina, the one when he said: 'America will be a stronger place for it.'"

It's not encouraging when a presidential speech to the Economic Club of New York brings back memories of the greatest natural disaster in American history and the nation's mostly anemic emergency response to it.

So why was Bush smiling? Maybe because he realizes these won't be his problems anymore in about 10 months.

Or maybe there's a little more to it than that.

"Failure suits him," says Scheer. "It is a stance he learned to wear well while presiding over one failed Texas business deal after another, and it served him splendidly as he claimed the title of president of the United States after losing the popular, and maybe even the electoral, vote. It carried him through the most ignominious chapter of U.S. foreign policy, from the lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to his unprecedented defense of torture by a U.S. president."

Collins puts it this way.

"The country that elected George Bush -- sort of -- because he seemed like he’d be more fun to have a beer with than Al Gore or John Kerry is really getting its comeuppance. Our credit markets are foundering, and all we’ve got is a guy who looks like he’s ready to kick back and start the weekend."

Actually, he's probably ready to kick back and start his retirement.

"Everyone here is flummoxed about why the president is in such a fine mood," says Maureen Dowd, also in the New York Times.

"The dollar’s crumpling, the recession’s thundering, the Dow’s bungee-jumping and the world’s disapproving, yet George Bush has turned into Gene Kelly, tap dancing and singing in a one-man review called 'The Most Happy Fella.'"

The ghosts of Herbert Hoover and the Depression are hovering over the campaign of 2008, writes Amity Shlaes in Bloomberg.

"[T]he 1930s have plenty to tell us, yes," says Shlaes. "But the real challenge isn't deciding who resembles Hoover. The challenge is for both parties to figure out how to avoid a whole era of mistakes."

And the challenge for voters is to find who has the answers we need before today's problems become a decade's worth of financial handicaps.

Or maybe we'd be better off with Alfred E. Neuman at the controls.