10 February 2004
Why Bush Will Never Admit He Lied
Already in the New York Times, that wily old snake William Safire is preparing the ground for a plant of weapons in Iraq just in time for the election. This goes well with David Brooks' second bizarrely provocative misstep in as many months, attempting to entirely rewrite what Bush said in his failed Russert interview(a good dissection of which can be found here)
Let's just be clear on something though. As far as can be possibly known there are no WMDs to be found, and none have been found. The death count of our troops just from holding Iraq is approaching 600. At least one a day. And why? Why are we there exactly? At least Vietnam supposedly had some theory, however stupid, behind it. We supposedly went to war because Saddam Hussein had--they said with certainty--weapons. Not that he was building them--that too, but mainly they knew he had them, or so Colin Powell said in his UN address, qualifying only one of his accusations. He showed maps and said what was on those maps with great certainty with that Cinemascope Powerpoint presentation of his. Bush stood behind this,as did Tony "45 Minutes" Blair.
If they were wrong they would simply admit it and stick solely to the getting-rid-of-Saddam excuse. If they thought that alone was worth it, they would not have continued to insist the WMDs existed. They would not have made such a big deal out of a couple of vans. Cheney would not still be spreading the accusation as background noise at every other event at which he speaks.
If they had concentrated on the deposing-Saddam part, the WMDs would not have become such a hot issue. They sustained it as an issue. There is nothing quite so pathetic yet scary as the liar gone schizoid, trying to force the world to conform with their delusion.
That Bush keeps trying to slip blame onto the Intel community--and Tenet lets him--is worth considering: how does a president know anything without them? What other intelligence, ha, is he using that he can insist theirs is faulty by comparison? And I mean previous to the war, when the CIA did in fact state there probably weren't any. BUt not strenuously nor for long. And it was reported at the time that the intelligence community and the armed forces were being bullied by the NSA and Cheney. Again, slipped out eventually in the media wash. These things are reported, it's just that if they're only stories for two minutes one night, they don't create much impact. If it were important, we often think, they'd be replaying it to me over and over. That's how we forget.
We are in a period known as an Interregnum, though some have called it a Restoration. But Bush's supporters look enough like Roundheads for my taste. We have a leader who was not put into power by a completed election, but by one cut short by the actions of the Supreme Court. (We can only hope that exhausted a lifetime's political favors for certain justices) We have a president who acts like our opinion doesn't matter, because he doesn't know what it's like to lose an election.
We can have a fairly elected leader this time. And I for one want to see what Bush turns into after one disgraceful term and the boot. So remember this:
If Bush lied about the WMDs, he is now possibly one of the greatest war criminals of all time, along with the NSA. Certainly not the bloodiest, but this is Bond-villain scale villainy. In the eyes of history Nixon will look like Polk by comparison. (Who's Polk? Exactly) He also thinks he can take your support for granted, and can tell you anything and you'll still vote for him. This is what your president made your country look like, and the blood of our troops and countless(literally) Iraqi civilians is on his hands. He has brought shame to this nation. And did we even, at a crass minimum, get cheap oil for this blood?
What is the point? Why has he hijacked our nation for this? What's to be gained?
Do we really need a president like this? ¶ February 10, 2004
Already in the New York Times, that wily old snake William Safire is preparing the ground for a plant of weapons in Iraq just in time for the election. This goes well with David Brooks' second bizarrely provocative misstep in as many months, attempting to entirely rewrite what Bush said in his failed Russert interview(a good dissection of which can be found here)
Let's just be clear on something though. As far as can be possibly known there are no WMDs to be found, and none have been found. The death count of our troops just from holding Iraq is approaching 600. At least one a day. And why? Why are we there exactly? At least Vietnam supposedly had some theory, however stupid, behind it. We supposedly went to war because Saddam Hussein had--they said with certainty--weapons. Not that he was building them--that too, but mainly they knew he had them, or so Colin Powell said in his UN address, qualifying only one of his accusations. He showed maps and said what was on those maps with great certainty with that Cinemascope Powerpoint presentation of his. Bush stood behind this,as did Tony "45 Minutes" Blair.
If they were wrong they would simply admit it and stick solely to the getting-rid-of-Saddam excuse. If they thought that alone was worth it, they would not have continued to insist the WMDs existed. They would not have made such a big deal out of a couple of vans. Cheney would not still be spreading the accusation as background noise at every other event at which he speaks.
If they had concentrated on the deposing-Saddam part, the WMDs would not have become such a hot issue. They sustained it as an issue. There is nothing quite so pathetic yet scary as the liar gone schizoid, trying to force the world to conform with their delusion.
That Bush keeps trying to slip blame onto the Intel community--and Tenet lets him--is worth considering: how does a president know anything without them? What other intelligence, ha, is he using that he can insist theirs is faulty by comparison? And I mean previous to the war, when the CIA did in fact state there probably weren't any. BUt not strenuously nor for long. And it was reported at the time that the intelligence community and the armed forces were being bullied by the NSA and Cheney. Again, slipped out eventually in the media wash. These things are reported, it's just that if they're only stories for two minutes one night, they don't create much impact. If it were important, we often think, they'd be replaying it to me over and over. That's how we forget.
We are in a period known as an Interregnum, though some have called it a Restoration. But Bush's supporters look enough like Roundheads for my taste. We have a leader who was not put into power by a completed election, but by one cut short by the actions of the Supreme Court. (We can only hope that exhausted a lifetime's political favors for certain justices) We have a president who acts like our opinion doesn't matter, because he doesn't know what it's like to lose an election.
We can have a fairly elected leader this time. And I for one want to see what Bush turns into after one disgraceful term and the boot. So remember this:
If Bush lied about the WMDs, he is now possibly one of the greatest war criminals of all time, along with the NSA. Certainly not the bloodiest, but this is Bond-villain scale villainy. In the eyes of history Nixon will look like Polk by comparison. (Who's Polk? Exactly) He also thinks he can take your support for granted, and can tell you anything and you'll still vote for him. This is what your president made your country look like, and the blood of our troops and countless(literally) Iraqi civilians is on his hands. He has brought shame to this nation. And did we even, at a crass minimum, get cheap oil for this blood?
What is the point? Why has he hijacked our nation for this? What's to be gained?
Do we really need a president like this? ¶ February 10, 2004
Post a Comment