Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 02, 2008
Frank Gaffney :: Townhall.com Columnist
Tale of Two Books
by Frank Gaffney
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


            I don’t generally make a habit of disagreeing with Peggy Noonan.  She is after all, one of the most thoughtful, accomplished and influential wordsmiths of our time.  She is also a much-admired friend and colleague.

            In an essay published last week in the Wall Street Journal last weekend, however, Peggy offered what amounted to a defense of Scott McClellan’s new memoir of his years in the George W. Bush administration, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception. To be fair, it wasn’t much of a defense; she took the former press secretary to task for writing a cliché-ridden, “lumpy, uneven and… embarrassing” tome.

            Still, Ms. Noonan welcomed McClellan’s book as a contribution to a needed “debate on the issues” he addressed – notably, the grounds for the United States going to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.  As everyone knows by now, the one-time Bush press flak came, in the course of writing this book (evidently with considerable help, read “spinning,” from the left-wing publisher of George Soros’ screeds, Public Affairs), to view the invasion of Iraq as “a serious strategic blunder” arising from a decision that was itself “a fateful misstep.”

            Peggy Noonan declared that she “believes” McClellan and urged that more people “who work or worked within the Bush White House will address the book’s themes and interpretations.” She adds: “What’s needed now? More memoirs, more data, more information, more testimony. More serious books, like Doug Feith’s.  More ‘this is what I saw’ and ‘this is what is true.’  Feed history.”

            I confess I have not read Scott McClellan’s book.  In fact, I could not even get a copy at my local Barnes and Nobles, as they were sold out and hopelessly back-ordered.  So this is not a book review, just an observation, based on the wall-to-wall reporting on the contents of What Happened and the post-publication public statements of its author:  With all due respect, I think Peggy Noonan is wrong.  The world does not need more such books.

            Neither history nor the public’s current need for accurate information about its leaders and their conduct are advanced by more self-aggrandizing, -justifying and -serving memoirs characterized by an almost total lack of discipline.

    A man who was not present at the wartime councils that led up to the invasion of Iraq is entitled to his views – irrespective of how they differ from those he held at the time.  It is, however, altogether another matter to regard McClellan’s current depiction of the subject of the Iraq war as somehow illuminating of what went on “inside the Bush White House,” let alone as dispositive concerning whether the President deliberately misled the American people on the timing and content of his decision to launch the invasion.

            The irony is that, even as she erred in this respect, Ms. Noonan recognized what really is needed: “more serious books, like Doug Feith’s.” Readers of this column will recall that Mr. Feith, the former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and another friend and colleague, has written War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism.  It is the definitive account of the considerations and deliberations that led to the liberation of Iraq and other actions taken in the wake of and in response to the September 11 attacks.  An objective reader will see the case for war was thoughtfully arrived at and persuasively made, not “a fatal misstep” or “strategic blunder.”

            The difference between the two ostensibly “insider” accounts could not be more stark.  Where McClellan was not a participant in the decision-making he finds so objectionable, Feith was.  Where McClellan fails to document any of his pronouncements, Feith documents all of his – including, notably, via a website devoted to making declassified papers and other decision-related materials readily accessible to historians and interested citizens.

            Of course, the most profound contrast between the two books is in how they have been received.  McClellan’s has dominated the airwaves and print outlets for days.  Feith’s has received considerable critical acclaim and pick-up in the alternative media – which recognizes the book’s value in countering the “Bush lied, people died” and other urban legends, but nowhere near the mainstream media coverage.  In fact, the New York Times and Washington Post have refused to review it.

            It is not as though Mr. Feith has been uncritical of the Bush administration.  War and Decision lets the chips fall where they may, including with respect to errors made by the author himself.  Interestingly, the day before the McClellan book-selling bandwagon got underway, Ms. Noonan’s Journal published an op.ed. article adapting part of the Feith book under the headline “How Bush Sold the War.” It took to task the President and his handlers – which, ironically, included at the time Scott McClellan – for failing in the aftermath of Saddam’s overthrow consistently to justify that act on vital national security grounds, rather than exclusively as a contribution to democracy-building.

            There is one other noteworthy contrast in this tale of two books.  Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace suggested during last weekend’s show that Scott McClellan might want to counter criticisms of his cashing in on his memoirs by donating the proceeds of the book sales to a charity for veterans of the war that has, evidently, caused him such anguish.  No such encouragement was needed by Doug Feith; he made that commitment from the get-go. 

            On this Peggy Noonan and I agree.  We certainly need more serious books like Doug Feith’s War and Decision.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Frank Gaffney Jr. is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and author of War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Gaffney's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Peggy Noonan has turned into a looney-
she has a girly crush on Obama and bashes Bush at every turn. I can't take her seriously any more. Her review of Scotty's book was breathtakingly dopey. She is almost as treacherous as McClellan.

President Bush speechwriter weighs in

William McGurn, Wall Street Journal columnist, served as President Bush's speechwriter for several years. He had a chance to view the Bush Administration from two vantage points, inside and out.

McGurn weighs in with two articles, one after his exit from the Bush Administration, and one in response to McClellan's book.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB12033846968547 5857.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121244829703339537.html?mod =todays_columnists

Note: The 2nd article's link is not viable after today, 6/3/08. "Did Scott McClellan Miss the Surge?," WSJ, William McGurn, 6/3/08



GI Bill for former Republican Officials
Certainly we have learned that loyalty is a scarce commodity in the nation's highest political leadership. It is a simple reality to note that many former administration officials are only too willing to stick a shiv in the Republican president's back without any perceptible provocation. In McClelland's case, he did not even need any evidence to support his treachery.

I suggest that Republicans must create and maintain a substantial system of support operations for former administration officials. Democrats have all sorts of jobs in academia, unions, the media, think-tanks and foundations which assure loyalty to Leftist causes. McClelland was set out their adrift with no possibility of employment in the media. His previous position as a spokeperson for a demonized president was not a resume enhancement. The Left offered him a book contract and I'll bet he has a position lined up because they will now give him something. The fct that this is needed is disgusting, but it is practical. George Soros plans on spending $50 millions to make sure that GWBush has no positive legasy and will pusue demonizing him until he dies. Republicans have to wake up and understand that they need a "GI Bill" for former officials. Not all really will need it, but McClelland was a weakling who really should have been given substamtial support.

Peggy Noonan......
The gal leans left, whether you recognize that or not.
And btw, she describes Michele Obama as "beautiful."
What can I say.

Jerseyvet
Before you "Castigate" others, you should take stock of your own inadequacies.The cancer,which Tony Snow has,came from vaccines used in the 50's and 60's,more than likely.The "Toy Soldier Brigade" were not taught that.We know, that many people fought and died to protect America.However, there is no license on Stupidity,and one should not be attached to those who have served.Open your mind...

My Pet
"An even better book came out last week, but the so-called "liberal" media has ignored it."

Actually, I got the facts from that so-called "liberal media".

My Pet Goat
"Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" by General Ricardo Sanchez.


I posted three paragraphs about it yesterday - twice.

As usual, TH posters were only interested in bashing McClellan and Plame, a book they had never read and a woman they know nothing about.

You know, it was Mountain Rose, Anne, etc., all the usual dimwits.

Public Servant Doug Feith
Not only do we need more books like that written by Mr. Feith, we need more public servants who are willing to take on tough decisions with unflinching analytical rigor. They won't win popularity contests or praise from the NY Times or WA.Post!

Taft
While I don't think that Fox News or Limbaugh are dangerous per se, I do agree that it is dangerous to only get your news from one side. My grandfather always read a liberal and a conservative newspaper, cover-to-cover every day. I have tried to follow that example.

As can be seen in both the mistake of the Bush White House AND the Clinton campaign, it is dangerous to only listen to people who only tell you what you want to hear.

True History
is written years after the events.

Most books written as history in the here and now are impressions and emotions unless well documented with analyzed facts. All this is missing in his book which contains no footnotes.

So you on the left, your impressions seem to be McClellans ( or his editors) and you are pleased.

You Had Me Until
Frank, you had me until you mentioned you hadn't read the book.

Sorry, as much as I personally think McClellan's book is all about the money and not about the truth, your article is fatally flawed by not having read the book.

Go read it, then come back and write a column.

Scott and the Peter Principle
Scott McClellan probably was the most incompetent White House spokesperson that a president has had. He was not at a policy level where he was included in critical meetings especially about the invasion and war in Iraq. Why would anyone want to buy his book except Democrats and liberals who get an orgasm from reading Bush-bashing excresences?

McClellan's tenure is an exquisite example of the Peter Principle at work at the highest level of government.

Tony Snow was probably the best WH spokesman in my lifetime and I wish him well in his fight against cancer.

The Real Point
Most of what has been written regarding Mr.McClellan and his book, is insignificant.Why?Because it has been prejudiced by the point of view, of it's writer.The real point here is,that Mr.McClellan left the White House in a state of "Disenchantment".If there were minor personal differences, I would hope, that they could have been handled more appropriately.To me this indicates a "Breakdown", that reaches all the way to the office of the President.Mr.Bush and Mr.McClellan had a relationship, that preceded this Presidency.What happened to that friendship?There is no loyalty in any large operation,just look at some of "US" families.

Al Qada
Why does everyone forget that Al Qada was in Iraq at the time we invaded? Remember, they were operating in the North along the Iranian border.
I originally was going to offer (just my opinion) regarding Mr. Gaffney's introduction to his piece that, "Ms. Noonan is one of the most thoughtful, accomplished and influential word smiths of our time." I disagree. She was a "wordsmith" during President Reagans' terms in office, but it was President Reagan who was the wordsmith. I have read so much of his work at the Reagan library and I find his work not Peggy Noonan's the better of the two.

Scott McClellan
Frank,

I really admire your work. But in this piece you allude to the "liberation" of Iraq. Yes, Hussein had to go. He was a very bad man. And I will accept President Bush's explanation of the world-wide pre-invasion intel gaffes.

And as much as we telegraphed our intentions to invade, it is entirely possible, if not probable, that Saddam moved his WMDs out of country.

But what did we get place of Hussein's Iraq? We have a Shiite Muslim state that operates under Sharia. (And we are still the invading Infidels.)

Now, explain to me how in the world is Muslim law to be considered freedom? That's Orwellian double-think.

All about perspective
When Scott was WHPS he was the most dishonest shill on the planet. Now that he has begun bashing Bush he is the most honest, trustworthy and principled person to ever grace Washington.
Fox news had the news sense to put both conservatives and liberals side by side debating opposing point of views and they are dangerous.

400 pages...
... between two hardcovers does not make a 'book.' There are books... and non-books.
So, who above has bothered to read the tripe, at thirty-bucks a pop? I see no evidence of it. At least Gaffney admits it.
These 'authors' are cashing in while Bush is still in office. It's called marketing. McClellen was intervieweded by O'Reilly tonight. He's about as 'profound' as last week's sports pages. The guy was a mouth-piece, nothing more... and he's not even slick!
Now, Tony Snow? That's a book I'll buy.

The best 'book' on the Bush White House will be written in fifty years. One of these two might warrant a footnote in it. Guess which.

September12
Today's newspapers are in dire need of readers.Most times a review is held as a "Tool" to be used to support a pre-existing position.Both of the papers you referenced are liberal periodicals.The short version;They don't have a dog in this fight.Both papers win,because the book,even if the particulars aren't damming help resonate their positions.In polite conversation we call it taking the high road.Why inject yourselve into a family's disagreement?What is the purpose of a "Tool"?To provide an efficient use of time and energy, in one's attempt in achieving a goal.

September12Republican
I said "my brother, a September12Republican," had those views. I call him that because before sept12, he was a democrat. Dang, if I wasn't trying to be agreeable. I don't think I'm an elitist either, I just think Fox News is dangerous.

News Sources

Taft. I see that reading comprehension is a bit of a challenge for you.

Where in any of my posts do you find anything that suggests that my personal news sources are limited to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News?

Not that it matters, but I can honestly state that I have never once listened to Rush Limbaugh. Talk radio ain't my thing.

I read just as many liberal-leaning publications as I do the conservative variety. When the discussion on the TH threads get boring, I'll even take an occasional tour of the blather over on Huffington Post.

You? I guess you get credit for your regular visits to Town Hall. But it's interesting that you actually sneer at Fox News. Are they perfect? Far from it. But the Fox News audience will learn just as much about Scott McClellan's latest book as he or she would the book by Doug Feith. New York Times? CBS News? MSNBC? Not likely.

But you go ahead, Taft, and continue to look down your elitist nose at anyone who disagrees with you. You're in real good company.

September12Republican
I see your point. My brother, a September12Republican, is convinced the local paper is all liberal biased and won't read it and I'm afraid garners most of his news information from Rush Limbough and Fox News. It's, IMHO, a dangerous development. Those news sources leave one with a certain world outlook, and its not reality based.

Excellent - again!
Another excellent post by Gaffney, who is one of the most thoughtful and intelligent commentators on TH. It’s unfortunate that his columns don’t garner the kind of attention that others do (such as Ann Coulter and Mike Adams, for example). What he lacks in witty or offensive satire he more than makes up for by always being right on the money.

The NYT and WP are left-wing organizations that practice propaganda by omission. It is their intent that people not be exposed to news or viewpoints that don’t fit in with the way they want people to see this country. This would be okay if the NYT and WP sold themselves as opinion magazines, rather than purporting to be news agencies. A real news agency reports the news – all of it – without bias and without regard to its editors’ personal agendas. Those on the Left don’t understand this.

Taft, I'll Also Concede a Point.

Scott McClellan, although not a policy maker, is a far more familiar name and face than is Doug Fieth. Thus his "coming clean" (your term) or "betrayal" (mine) is much more dramatic.

But that still doesn't excuse the NYT or the Washington Post for the total black-out treatment of Fieth's book. In order for there to be intelligent debate on any subject, pertinent information from all sides must be made available. Ohterwise, we are left with only one-sided, disconnected arguments (such as virtually all of the posts offered by Boutte, for example).

Most of my family members are intelligent and politically interested folks. Yet they are quite literally unaware that anything other than the most caricatured arguments exist on the conservative, or even slightly right-of-center, side. For them, if a subject is not reported in the NYT, then it must not be real news.

It's disturbing.







September12Republican
Good point and I respect your view completely. Isn't McClellan's book is startling because he was one of Bush's longest political companions, and his coming clean is very profound? Fieth was never a public figure to the public that Fieth was either.

Taft

I guess I wasn't clear in my first post. You don't need to convince me that you don't like or respect Doug Fieth. Just as Docwaters doesn't need to convince me that he neither likes nor respects Scott McClellan. You are entitled to your opinion on that very unimportant point.

But, deserved or not, Mr. Fieth served as Undersecretary for Defense. Wise or not, he played a key role in the lead up to the Iraq War. Agree with him or not, his book offers detailed source citations.

Yet the mainstream media decides that it is Scott McClellan's book that merits the gushing exposure. Can you explain or justify that? I bet not.

Embarrassingly Stupid Posts

It is interesting how some discussion threads invite insightful comments and others go directly into the asinine. This one is off to a horrendous start.

Mr. Gaffney makes essentially two points.

First -- the superficial one -- is that Scott McClellan's book is not up to the caliber of Doug Feith's book. Not by way of author's standing, by way of sourced materials or by way of writing style.

One can hold a differing opinion on this first point, as Taft, Goat and killer obviously do. But it ought not be too burdensome to at least offer some facts or quotes in support of that differing opinion, which none of them do.

Second is Mr. Gaffney's more important point: that whatever your personal view of the two books, there's simply no way to reconcile the stunning fact that "the New York Times and Washington Post have refused to review it." Huh?/!

Any of you deep-thinking posters care to offer a justification for that journalistic oversight?

Frank
If I had you on the witness stand,in a courtroom,I would ask you three questions:Mr.Gaffney,what is your profession;Are you presently practicing said profession;and You would have this jury believe,that you support the withholding of information from the American public?The issues of Trust and Credibility have just been put into PLAY!You LOSE...

Frank
If I had you on the witness stand,in a courtroom,I would ask you three questions:Mr.Gaffney,what is your profession;Are you presently practicing said profession;and You would have this jury believe,that you support the withholding of information from the American public?The issues of Trust and Credibility have just been put into PLAY!You LOSE...

In a "tell all" book like Scott's.
the editor wanted dirt, dirt ,dirt. Just like in novels what sells is sex, sex, sex. No dirt? No sales! Scott is a weasel (actually weasels are just doing what comes naturally), Scott is a money hungry A.H.

Even better.
An even better book came out last week, but the so-called "liberal" media has ignored it.

It is FAR more critical of Bush and his flying monkeys.

"Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" by General Ricardo Sanchez.

He describes our Looser-in-Chief in a way that reminds me of his illustrious cheerleading career at Yale.

Why is no one talking about THAT book?

-
" The irony is that, even as she erred in this respect, Ms. Noonan recognized what really is needed: “more serious books, like Doug Feith’s.”

Douglas Feith's book? Oh boy, the guys either nuts or a slime ball.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.