Information and the Administration

Scott McClellan's book raises the issue of what information the Bush administration should have communicated in the run up to the Iraq war. One would hope that there would have been a very complete communication of information up to and within the White House contributing to such a decision.

We all understand that the rules of rhetoric imply that the information that the administration communicates to the public to bring the public along with its policy will be different that that used internally in the administration in making its decision. Obviously, the decision makers should use more information than the public will absorb. Moreover, any administration must consider the domestic political implications of foreign policy decisions in ways that it need not communicate to the public. While there must be a selection of information to communicate, there should be limits on that selection. False information should be used seldom if ever, and only if there is an overriding national need. (Remember that false information was used to confuse the enemy in the run up to the invasion of Europe during World War II.) Similarly, we feel that there is a requirement for fairness in the selection of information, not withholding information that the public "should" have access to.

There is also a question of what information should be shared with different groups. In our system with checks and balances between the branches of government, full and accurate information should normally be shared between Congress and the Executive branches. In areas in which the judiciary serves as a check on executive power, complete information relative to the judiciary responsibilities should be made available to the courts. Indeed, there is a need for information to be shared between the elected and appointed officials of the executive branch and those in the civilian bureaucracy and military who are charged with implementing policy.

There are different requirements for communication with allies, neutral countries, and enemies.

I would criticize the Bush administration's handling of communications issues prior (and during) the war, but it does not help to do so unfairly or badly. Of course the White House public relations staff should have sought to build public support for the war, once it had made the decision to go to war. The president is expected to lead in that way. Of course it should select information to communicate to the public in that effort to build support. The issue is whether it abides by standards that the public would deem to be fair and honest in making those selections.