Saturday, May 31, 2008


The only criticism of Scott Mc Clellan that I hear coming from the White House or from Bush's attack dogs is that Scott has no "loyalty." It is not about how Mc Clellan messed up or failed to do his job. It's all, "the president gave you your job, then you turn around and stab him in the back."

Gail Collins writes about this loyalty today in her op-ed piece in The New York Times:

"“DISLOYAL, SICKENING AND DESPICABLE DISLOYAL, SICKENING AND DESPICABLE,” wrote Bernard Kerik in an e-mail that he was circulating around this week. Kerik, you may remember, was the former New York City police commissioner who George W. Bush once tried to make chief of Homeland Security. This was during Kerik’s happier, preindictment era.
Kerik’s outrage was directed at Scott McClellan, the former Bush press secretary whose much-discussed memoir, “What Happened,” reveals that the Bush White House put politics ahead of truth and openness with the American people."

And, from Jonathan Martin at Politico, how about this put-down by former senator Bob Dole in an e-mail addressed to Mc Clellan:

""There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique." "

This is the same ad hominem and worthless argument made by countless other people in authority who dislike the actions of subordinates which criticize the authorities. "You owe it to us out of loyalty to remain silent and not rock the boat." When no other grounds can be found to dismiss the tale teller, authorities love to fall back on the loyalty argument.

The only thing an argument based on loyalty shows is how weak the case for the authorities. Not willing to respond to the substantive criticisms, they try to diminish and demonize the subordinate by calling him/her "disloyal."

No comments:

Post a Comment