Wampum

The Art Of Blame Avoidance

I have also been interested in watching the masters of the Art of Blame Avoidance. For the true masters of the art, blame always settles somewhere else. The requisite skills of a master Blame Avoider are good press relations, a very sensitive political antennae, and an evolved survival instinct that results in putting Blame Avoidance at the top of the to-do list.

The reigning champion of the art of deflecting blame is Colin Powell. As the President’s Iraq adventure began to go sour, stories began to appear that put distance between Powell and the policy. A number of stories made clear that Powell’s State Department was not responsible for including the yellow cake fiction in the State of the Union speech. News reports have made clear that Powell pushed back hard to make sure that the claim was not included in his U.N. presentation.

When the issue of the administration’s pre-9/11 anti terrorism policies arose, one of Richard Clarke’s allegations was that he could not get meetings with top administration officials. Colin Powell made sure it was known that he had met with Clarke.

Bob Woodward reports that Powell was the least gung ho of the inner circle when it came to the invasion of Iraq. "If you break it, you buy it" he warned the President. The Woodward book also notes that the President did not directly ask Powell for a recommendation on whther or not to launch the invasion. If Powell wasn’t asked for his opinion, the decision to invade can’t be his fault.

The policy may go south but, putting first things first, Powell makes sure that as little blame as possible falls his way.

The most recent example of Powell’s expertise in the art of Blame Avoidance comes from the scandal surrounding the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Not even a week after the disclosure of the abuse, we find out that Colin Powell had tried to raise the issue but was ridiculed for his efforts. Josh Marshall quotes the Nelson Report:

We can contribute a second hand anecdote to newspaper stories on rising concern, last year, from Secretary of State Powell and Deputy Secretary Armitage about Administration attitudes and the risks they might entail: according to eye witnesses to debate at the highest levels of the Administration...the highest levels...whenever Powell or Armitage sought to question prisoner treatment issues, they were forced to endure what our source characterizes as "around the table, coarse, vulgar, frat-boy bully remarks about what these tough guys would do if THEY ever got their hands on prisoners...."

-- let's be clear: our source is not alleging "orders" from the White House. Our source is pointing out that, as we said in the Summary, a fish rots from its head. The atmosphere created by Rumsfeld's controversial decisions was apparently aided and abetted by his colleagues in their callous disregard for the implications of the then-developing situation, and by their ridicule of the only combat veterans at the top of this Administration.

No matter where the blame for the scandal ultimately settles, the finger will not be pointing Powell’s way. That is a particularly good example of the art because no one was even suggesting that Powell was to blame. All eyes were focused on Rumsfeld, the military and the White House. It was a form of preemptive Blame Avoidance. Being ahead of the curve is the hallmark of a master of the art.

None of the above is meant to suggest that Powell deserves any of the blame in any of the examples. I am simply admiring the skill by which Powell makes sure that none of the blame, deserved or otherwise, comes his way.

Karl Rove recently showed some skill at the art of Blame Avoidance. The New York Times carried the following:

Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, has told one Bush adviser that he believes that it will take a generation for the United States to live this scandal down in the Arab world, and that one of the dangers of basing a campaign on national security and foreign policy is that events can be beyond the president's control.

What Rove means, of course, is that one of the dangers of basing a campaign on national security and foreign policy is that events beyond Rove’s control may cause the President’s reelection effort to fail. In other words, should the President lose in November, it will not be Rove’s fault.

That is a pretty good effort at preemptive Blame Avoidance. It is ahead of the curve. It does not depend on unknowable future outcomes to put Rove in a good light. If Bush wins reelection, it will be because Rove was able to overcome external events. If Bush loses, it will be because of events outside of Rove’s control. Very pretty.

Powell may have competition in the race for the administration’s Best Blame Avoider.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at May 7, 2004 06:49 PM | TrackBack