May 20, 2005

W hich false report did more damage?

Scott McClellan may be White House press secretary, but he apparently hasn't been around the block enough times to hone his sense of irony. His response to the infamous "Newsweek episode" left him with enough egg on his face to bake up a respectable souffle.

Newsweek's blunder was embarrassing as well as deadly. But the reaction of the White House - as represented by McClellan - is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.

"The report had real consequences," McClellan was quoted as saying. "People have lost their lives. Our image abroad has been damaged. There are some who are opposed to the United States and what we stand for who have sought to exploit this allegation. It will take work to undo what can be undone."

If there were a Nobel Prize for unmigitaged gall, about the only competition McClellan would have would be his boss. The "consequences" of Newsweek's misinformation - about 15 dead people - are indeed tragic. But they pale in comparison to the "consequences" of the White House's misinformation. The fabricated weapons of mass destruction claims, which led to the invasion of Iraq, have killed more than 1,600 Americans and 200 or so allies, not to mention more than 100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens.

... McClellan and Rice apparently haven't been keeping up with current events. Thanks to the administration's pre-emptive war, with its accompanying abuse of prisoners and perceived tactics against citizens from ally countries like Italy, our reputation abroad is already in tatters. It's hard to fathom how a handful of careless journalists could damage it further. Polls have repeatedly shown the Bush administration is directly responsible for the erosion of America's status in the court of world opinion.

... Just because the source is wrong doesn't mean the substance is. There's always the possibility that some administrative mastermind is trying to cast doubt on the entire Guantanamo abuse story by exploiting a profit-driven media's tendency to jump the gun.

- from an editorial here.

***

No comments: