Why Not Shoot the Messenger?

As a now nearly 76 year old electrical engineer who started in the "entertainment industry" as a part time messenger and shipping clerk, I have seen a lot of "stuff" that warranted a whistle to be blown and I often failed to blow it. As "corny" as it sounds, I have even been threatened and told that "you will never work in this business again Norman if you do this." It is very easy in retrospect to be critical of the people who remain silent when bad things are going on.

I have often been in a corporate environment where the incumbent management would see to it that anyone who "interrupted" their improprieties was made to "pay," and "pay" sooner rather then later.

I am simplistic while being an outraged American and I wish that our print and electronic media could take a few minutes out from their "why did Scott McClellan write this stuff now" and get to the issues of our democracy being eviscerated by this horrid administration?

The question "why is he doing this now" is barely of secondary importance to me. What matters is what he says and changing the subject away from that should not be tolerated by our purported print and electronic journalists.

It makes me nuts to hear that Dana Perino has referred to Scott McClellan as a "disgruntled employee."

The following is taken from a New York Times editorial about the McClellan book:
"For all of its self serving, the book does serve one good purpose..."
WHY DOES IT MATTER IF SCOTT IT IS SELF SERVING?
"There are several kinds of Washington memoirs: "I Reveal the Honest Truth," a kiss-up-and-tell designed to settle scores (nod to honesty optional). "I was there at the Start," designed to make the author appear to be the linchpin of history. And, most tedious: "I Knew It Was a Terrible Mistake, but I Didn't Mention It Until I Got a Book Contract."

WHY DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE TRANSGRESSIONS MENTIONED IN SCOTT'S BOOK?

"Scott McClellan's memoir is the latest entry in the latter genre. Among his far-too-late admissions, President Bush's former spokesman reveals that he knew the war in Iraq was "a serious strategic blunder," but the White House decided the best course was "to turn away from candor and honesty."

WHY WOULD THIS MATTER NOW? WHY ARE HIS REVALATIONS FAR TOO LATE? IT IS NOT ABOUT MCCLELLEN, IT IS ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION.

What matters to me is what he wrote, and its truthfulness.

Just watch while the "media" in America allow the representatives of the administration to carefully position McClellan as the villain in the matter while avoiding dealing with the transgressions perpetrated by the administration.

Why did he write it? That is not a "now" issue."
Why did he do nothing about it at the time? That is not a "now" issue.
Why did he wait to divulge this stuff? That is not a "now" issue.
Why do we tolerate it when many in the administration set out to "shoot" the messenger by questioning his motives for delivering the f.....g message?

In retrospect McClellan had three choices:

He could have gone into the White House, delivered the message to the President and been "executed" on the spot.

He could deliver the message in his memoirs as he has done now and be "executed" by the President's policy wonks.

He could've kept his mouth shut and never delivered the message.

Telling the President would've been brave, but suicidal.

Publishing the book is valuable, courageous, and demonstrates that he is willing to take a lot of heat on behalf us all of us.

Keeping his mouth shut would have been an example of
the way most White House sycophants behave.

Notwithstanding all of this I say thank you very much Scott McClellan for telling the truth as you know it!

Norman Horowitz
Perpetrator

Comments

[Entitled401er]

Any way you spin it, McClellan is a crappy human being who betrayed his leader.

No one has ever been able to remove the stigma Judas brought upon himself by his own actions.

[Necron99]

Look...I know this isn't what you're talking about exactly, but there are millions, tens of millions of christians & students of the bible (i am the latter, not the former) who will tell you that being judas, he could act no differently, and without his actions, there could have been no 'new covenant.'

He did what needed to be done, as did S.M. I just wish he'd done it with a bit more dispatch.

[dexxjones]

the times article is very much like internet trolls who focus on spelling and grammar rather than the content of the post itself. its the last refuge of the coward who would rather not deal with the content at alll. this is why everybody is so "puzzled" about scott and declaring that "this isnt the scott we knew" a prelude to the limbaugh "it must have been ghostwritten" talking point.

the bottom line? scott's book is only shocking to the perps who cannot believe he would be so reckless with his own safety. nobody believed the crap he was peddling and nobody has believed a word from this administration since around 2004 or so (many were aware all along)

the mainstream media is one of the biggest villians here. they know it. we know it. they just cannot bring themselves to say it.

as for the current administration, i am pretty convinced that they will do anything to avoid the legal consequences of their actions. presidential directive 51 makes it pretty clear what comes next. google it.

[Dap]

Dear Brother Norman,

Personally, I'm holding ol'Scotty's revelations aside, until, that future time when He is questioned under Oath and at that time I should to able to make out what His intent is exactly. And let's face facts, ol'Scotty, is not the poster-child for trusting one at their word, if ya catch my drift.

That said, to all those which keep referring to ol'Scotty as a whistle blower, He is *NO* such thing; He at one time could have been a whistle blower, but He a choice, *NOT* to do so, at present He is just another rat that got caught up in their own trap of lies and deceit, as I said. the intent of His remorseful pleading from inside the trap are yet to be determined. Stop calling Him a whistle blower!

I am encouraged that He is willing to testify before Congress, but He is also very intelligent and has the skills to try and pull off a disinformation coup, remember that was his job at one time, he's quite intelligent... and one of the reasons I cannot see him as a self described dupe.

That's my two cents. Agape.

[wordvarc]

I disagree with Move-On and Dole. Both are perpetrators of the expensive and abusive partisan politics that have violated our political process into never ending war campaigns.

Let every staffer debrief honestly and openly to the public. Let them write their heartfelt reflections on political and government service. Otherwise we diminish into the 'silence of the lambs' or the low level morality codes of criminals, gangs, and perpetrators of incestous violence on the American people and the World..

[anon004]

Mr. Horowitz - ITA (as the kids say). I left my last corporate job primarily because I was retaliated against for being a whistleblower. I won't go into the details, but they have so many tools at their disposal to make your work life a living hell (which, of course, tends to spill over into your family life, as well). And I was just a faceless peon in a large corporation. Imagine the tools that can be used against a person in McClellan's position. Another excellent point your post makes is that this whole discussion about either disloyalty or why didn't he do it sooner is just a way to discredit him. That's what always happens to whistleblowers when their charges can't be refuted; they attack (shoot) the messenger. And, of course, the MSN have no interest in reporting the actual charges he makes because it makes them look bad, so they're just as happy to report all the attacks. I could have pursued a lawsuit or other complaint against my former employer, but I decided not to just because I didn't want any future employer(s) thinkng I was a troublemaker. So, I also give McClellan credit for doing this. Sure, he had a good book deal, but he has also effectively cut himself off from any goodies his old bosses could toss his way, and given their corporate and lobbyist connections, that's not anything to sneeze at.

[SamThornton]

Even though no good deed goes unpunished, it's still worth the effort. Hats off to McClellan for at least making an attempt to expose some of the rot at the core of the Bush Administration. Although it may now be too late to correct most of the misdeeds, it puts some of them on the record and puts future Administrations on notice that the truth, eventually, will out.

[peterg76]

It seemed at first that he was not revealing anything new, but since then (1) *very significantly*, he has suggested he would testify; and (2a) his high profile within and (2b) the hysterical reaction of the Bush cabal has added substantial credibility and publicity to his statements, even if people have already been saying the same things.

[burnt]

"Perpetrator"

Thank you very much Norman. Yes. ... and the sooner we admit that most all of us played a willing or passive or cowardly part in allowing these past 7+ years of ruin... the sooner we can get past this fixation on "motivation" and get to the core issues.

Does Scott's insider account offer any substance that can be used for prosecuting criminality? By showing some degree of support for Scott, can we encourage others to also come forward? Do we have the capability to ignore the current administration's attempt to spin this testimony, and instead view this as a chance to move forward... that is, press Congress for Governmental and MSM reforms and punishments.

Let's seize this rare opportunity. It may not come again without our recognition of the "gift" that it represents. Press your Congressional leaders to hold committee meetings that focus on Scott's testimony. War criminals must be brought to trial.

[DavidJames]

I watched McClellen's 1 hr interview by Keith Olbermann. McClellen was quite impressive. Obvious Truth.

That he indicts the MSM as well as the Bush administration for leading us into a immoral war based on lies provides us with a valuable focus for our rage. It is time to break up the MSM and restore the fairness doctrine.

[redstateblue]

DavidJames,

I believe you answered some of Norman's questions: The MSM is joining the Bush administration in attacking McClellan because McClellan included the MSM in his indictment of the Bush administration.

[BADEN]

It's a Rosetta Stone into the thinking processes of George W Bush from an insider who watched him put on those pants, one leg at a time....

BUSH & Co are in MadHatter mode...

"CLEAN CUP! CLEAN CUP! MOVE DOWN..MOVE DOWN!"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=InSn2BLDwfQ

[Barbwire]

Thank you. I've watched Bush's press secretaries, and McClellan seemed to be suffering more with each conference. He was criticized then by the media for bumbling, but I suspect he was having a hard time representing the criminals in the White House. Had he taken the "suicidal" choice, the truth of his tenure might never have been made public. One thing I don't understand: why, with Bush's approval rating so very low, do so many in the media jump to defend him and his cronies and attack those who expose their crimes?

[RobertArend]

Answer: because their bosses will fire them if they do. What, give up the great pay, perks and all the good things that comes from being a network or cable news star? For what? The sake of their profession? The sake of their country?

Remember what happened to Dan Rather and Phil Donahue. Yellin at CNN has backed off from her confessional. Why? Katie Couric agreed that the MSM failed to to it's job, but Moonves is easing her out the door, too. Yet tools like Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams are safer in their anchor chairs for their denials. Dandy David Gregory is so offended, but that grand old lady reporter Helen Thomas honored journalism at great sacrifice in the press room, while David just was fratboy flippy.

So, what do we do about this? Check out the ads that sponser these media whores. Centralize the information on a website that allows easy streams of boycott e-mails to those sponsers. If Michell Malkin can shut ads of Dunkin' Doenuts because of a scarf, we can drain the revenue from MSM cable and network by making those who pay for these programs stop financing them or have their products boycotted.

I no longer buy my doenuts at Dunkin.

[jhamm1]

I agree. Quite frankly, I'm a bit astonished by how so many of us have been behaving like ingrates on this issue, particularly since an outright defection from a member of the Bush administration itself reduces the extremities to which the president's defenders can continue to delude even themselves into portraying the administration in as positive a light as possible. Granted Huffington and other posters on this newsletter seem to have undermined the significance of this claim by asserting it as merely nothing more than preaching to the choir, allthewhile deriding him for remaining silent until now. Nevertheless, McClellan's publicity ultimately lends far more weight in terms of persuading skeptics than many of us seem to appreciate. And, for me, that makes all the difference.