June 13, 2005
-
I was reading over on Eschaton about the problem of getting people interested in the fact that their president lied to them about the war in Iraq.
Now, at this point it's not an opinion; it's a fact. The administration lied repeatedly. Not only about the various items that make up their justification for war, but about their plans for waging war in the first place.
See, I have a hard time understanding why Bush isn't seriously facing impeachment right now. Even if it only means putting Cheney in charge, it's still important to go through the motions. Ideally, there'd be a dual impeachment, where both Prez and Veep would be defending their asses. Or maybe just impeach Cheney. That'd be amusing... Cut out the middle man.
Regardless. The issue before us is: How can the people and the political machines of this country be presented with a bumper sticker's-worth of wisdom about why this is important? What would that bumper sticker say?
'Bush lied - people died' is, it turns out, too vague. It doesn't convey the fact that the administration had a plan underway in early 2002 for the war they told you they didn't want to fight.
'Bush lied - soldiers died' pulls at the patriotic heartstrings of all red-white-and-blue-blooded Americans, but is also more than a little bit xenophobic and ignores, for instance, those contractors who were beheaded.
'Iraq is empire' ...just too tinfoil hat, despite being the most factually correct.
'Bush lied - currency was saved!' is also factually correct (from some points of view), but leaves out about a zillion points of context, and will only be understood by people who know that Iraq was going to abandon the petro-dollar for the petro-euro. And it's too optimistic, in and of itself.
'If you voted for Bush, you should be impeached, too.' Not bad, and gets to the real heart of the matter as to why the public, and the press especially, are slow to come around. No one likes to admit they were wrong, especially if they nodded sleepily when Ann Coulter said Bush's critics were traitors. I mean, I feel for all you poor fools out there who bought it, but you're just going to have to face facts. Burn your voter registration card and don't vote again for six years. After that, you might have learned your lesson. Think of it as giving up democracy for Lent. Except you're probably evangelical, not Catholic. Ah well.
'Do you feel safer after five years of lies and illegal invasions?' Certainly a good question to be asking yourself.
Please, folx... Add your own.
Comments (23)
But the problem with Bush and the bulk of his supporters is this: It supports their own lifestyle to have him get away with lying, get away with everything. After all, Bush is Bush because he had terrible parenting that was linked, as an adult, to a very strange religion. George W. Bush has never been held accountable in his entire life. He has never suffered one punishment or any personal cost for - being lazy in school, for using drugs, for driving drunk, for failing at business, for violating securities laws, for dodging the draft, for skipping out on the military, for lying during election campaigns, for refusing to even "work" as president while 9/11 was planned and put into action. Why would he think in terms of personal responsibility? And the one instance where there might have been consequences (his alcoholism and drug addiction) saw him latch onto the wonderland of personal irresponsibility, "American Protestant Christianity" with it's "I found Jesus in my heart"-Get out of Hell free card.
Of course that's him. But because the dominant religion in America today allows full immorality and total lack of responsibility as long as you put a fish on the back of your car and vote for anti-abortion candidates, Bush is a hero. I suspect Americans like him because, if he never has to admit guilt, admit that he was wrong, admit that he is a liar, thief, murderer, then, "Get out of Hell free!" They don't have to admit immorality either. With Bush in charge who cares if you violate everything Jesus said about the way society needs to operate? Who cares if the Old Testament prophets would be screaming directly at you? Who cares if you are violating far more Levitican rules than the wildest homosexual gang-bang? Our leader says "no rules apply" and so we can happily build our empire.
Until, perhaps, the mailboxes and trash cans start blowing up on every Anerican street corner as they did in London in the 70s and 80s. Then the majority might start to ask "what happened," but a hell of a lot of Americans will just go back into their churches at that point and pray that God kill everyone not just like them.
omg, ira. you are one of the few people who leave me witih nothing more to say. not even amen. lol.
I like the new yorkers' catch phrase personally:
Fuck Bush
I know it doesn't convey anything and will be misconstrued as pornographic to those it's trying to reach...but it's funny.
YEA! Micheal Moore in '08!! How about Bushitler lied, people died?
Enjoy political obscurity.
Bush Lied, told you so!!!
thatliberalmedia comes along and proves thenarrator correct. All that seems to matter is that liberals (and everyone else who isn't a Bush sycophant) are 'politically obscure.' That makes lying to Congress OK.
And not just any lies, but a series of lies which resulted in the invasion of a sovereign country that posed zero threat to the US.
I suspect the president introduces lots of goofy issues, such as private Social Security accounts and banning stem cell research, to detract from the war. It seems to have succeeded
I'm afraid you missed the point. Were your conspiracy theories true, "Bushitler invaded for oil!!" you wouldn't be doomed to oblivion. I think you underestimate how many people you put off when you make some of these ludicrous statements. I realize I'm known in these circles as some kind of pro-choice anti-death penalty right wing zealot, but the fact of the matter is that I campaigned for Gore in 2000, opposed Clinton's impeachment, and looking back, generally liked the Clinton Presidency. Of all the candidates for the White House in 2004, including Bush, I liked Joe Lieberman the best.
Now, with Dean and Pelosi in charge of the party, I wouldn't dream of voting for a Democrat. The Democrats are fighting a losing battle not with Republicans (that ship sailed), but with the fringes of their own party. So go on. Parrot the latest from Democratic Underground, or Atrios or wherever. See where it takes you. The result, clear to those of us with even a modicum of foresight, will that not only will you not be able to impeach Bush (good thing), you also make it impossible to win on issues such as stem cell research, or the new Real ID Act (bad things). And we are all worse off for having one disfunctional, incompetent party, and a second party of raving lunatics.
Regarding the DSM, why is this such big news suddenly? I thought everyone already knew Bush had planned this war from the start. The July 22, 2002 issue of Time, the cover story reported "Sometime last spring the President ordered the Pentagon and the CIA to come up with a new plan to invade Iraq and topple its leader." Originally planned for the fall, the war was put off until "at least early next year" (which is when, in fact, it occurred). You'd think you would have worked this into your conspiracies long ago.
It's a big deal because it's in black and white. Written up. By a foreign government allied with us in the matter. By the *only* government *really* allied with us in the matter. And there's further corroboration in the second memo leaked yesterday.
And again, I didn't miss the point at all, libby: You're content to avoid the issue of the fact that Bush lied by blaming his critics for being critical. Which makes you a sycophant. I don't give a shit if you voted for Gore in 2000 or whatever. All of that is completely, 100% irrelevant. None of your drama queen antics matter here, libby.
Actually, I'm blaming his critics not for criticizing but for the criticism, simply put, for refusing to distinguish degrees. Political discourse on the Far Left has essentially been reduced to:
"I am a mainstream liberal who thinks Bush is a liar, and therefore as bad a massmurderer. If you dare disagree even in the minutia with (henceforth referred to as "The Enlightened One") you are a sycophant and a fascist willing to ignore any and all criticism in your fanatical support of Bushitler." As I was trying to demonstrate, there is a middle ground. It's possible to think that Bush is a bad president, while thinking his delusional critics should be kept far, far away from any sort of power whatsoever.
The biggest irony of it all now is that even when you are right, you will be seen as wrong, because you have completely obliterated your credibility. If you truly cared about ever making a difference again, you would see that my experience is really quite relavant. But the motive instead seems to be, let's cause as much damage as possible.
No, Libby. There is no middle ground. The Bush administration lied to us, lied to congress, and lied to our allies in order to take us into a war we didn't need to fight.
You can equivocate all you want, but you're simply wrong. Your experience as a Gore supporter is irrelevant to the fact that Bush lied in an impeachable offense. Whether you thought Clinton was a good guy has nothing to do with whether BushCo are a bunch of lying motherfuckers. And they are.
thatliberalmedia stays funny. This is the guy who opposes interstate highways and calls Social Security "money stolen from him." (Of course federal cash that finances his education at the most federally financed university in America is his "right") And he thinks those things and voted for Gore? Now he's either lying, or he's stunningly stupid. And here he takes your very simple argument: "lying to congress to push the nation into an unprovoked war is clearly criminal," and wants to talk about "degrees." As in, yes, proving your point, "We all know he lied but lying is ok because we are on Jesus's side."
The fact is that Tom DeLay and Bill Frist declared that any President who lied to Congress "about anything" deserved to be impeached. Well, Bill, if you can diagnose Terry Schiavo without seeing her, surely you can figure out that Bush lied. But, as I said, if Bush is guilty, than so is every Republican in Washington, and everyone who voted for them. And Americans no longer believe in guilt for White People, just the pure love of the "Killer Jesus" and his infinite capacity to forgive every sin except raising taxes to provide medical care for children.
I campaigned, not voted for Gore, as I said, and I did so because I liked Clinton's economic policies (NAFTA, welfare reform) I'll bet your heart broke when welfare reform passed, narrator. In any case, that's just one of many mixups of my positions that I've by now clarified so many times for this bumbling uncomprehending idiot that I won't bother any more.
In any case, as I said originally, enjoy political hell, and I'll be hoping some reasonable opposition evertually rises from the rubble that is the Democrat Party.
(Psst. This just in from my secret tap of VRWC: Bush paid Bin Laden to execute 9/11 . . . pass it on . . .) Hahaha
By the way, I didn't mean to imply I thought Bush lied. I don't think he did, but even he did, the result was not, as you would like to claim, tens of thousand dead. FDR misrepresented/lied dozens of times to get us into WWII, as did Wilson before him, but no one could reasonably refer to the results in terms of "millions dead"
More equivocation and irrelevance from Libby.
It doesn't matter if you decided you didn't like Gore, it doesn't matter if you think Wilson or FDR lied, what matters is that, right now, there's a president who fucked up. And what needs to happen is that this president who fucked up needs to be impeached.
By the way, if you really think America has become fascist, isn't the proper response to revolt, violently? Why do you consent to live under fascism? That's what I would be doing if I felt I was living under such oppression, or at the very least, I would be leaving (you know, quickly, while we're still alowed to). But better yet, why not organize the creatures of the Democratic Underground and lead an attack on Washington? At the very least it'll provide amusement for the rest of us (the sane ones).
Truth in Government Now?
eh. I voted for Bush in 2000-- in FL, even. Lesser of two evils and all that crap. I have not voted since-- deliberately let my registration expire. Obviously, I'm not a good judge of lesser evils. The problem of interest? Perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way. We all know Bush lied. So what? You can harp on it forever and I won't be any more interested, because nobody is offering anything better-- just various shades of nauseating. We're talking American politics here: the shit rises to the top. If Gore and Kerry are the best the Democratic Party can produce... eww. Just do us all a favor and retire the party, so something better can take its place. Really.
Cordelia, I don't believe that a (supposed) lack of better options makes it OK for the president of the United States to lie to congress.
Your mileage, as they say, may vary.
You're right. It doesn't. But it is an accepted tradition-- lying to get the US into wars, that is. The first Iraq war was the result of the US lying to/through one of its diplomats. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was at best an exaggeration. The Maine was an accident. It's arguable that intelligence knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time and let it happen anyway. imo most of the history of US wars has been laying plans, building armies, and then waiting for (or manufacturing) a plausible excuse. When has exposing the lie ever worked as a strategy for getting out of a war that's already in full swing?
Exposing the lie isn't a strategy for getting out of a war that's already happening.
What it *is* a strategy for is getting out from under leadership that is using the war for personal gain, over the security of the nation and the safety of its people.
The history of the Republican party in the US (since the 60s, at least) is a history of secrecy, deceit, and prolonged wars fought solely for political gain. Nixon kept Vietnam going so he could win an election. He broke the law and might very well have tried to assassinate his political opposition. Reagan: Same deal. Bush I, as you point out: Same deal. In fact, it's all the same people.
Cordelia, you seem to be arguing that since our leaders are assholes, it's OK for them to be assholes. Again, I don't buy it. I have higher hopes.
You know it's easy to confuse someone actually lying with someone who is simply repeating what they were told in good faith.
I listened to the entirety of Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations three February's ago. I was living on an island, and had the radio tuned in all day. Powell has subsequently admitted that many of the justifications for the war were false, but also that he was basing his report on information he was given that he believed to be true at the time.
Perhaps he was gullible. Perhaps he's not as smart as you. Perhaps he was simply overwhelmed by information and unable to process it quickly enough. Perhaps the research was flawed. Perhaps the fault lay with the intelligence community, and not the senior administration.
Glass houses is all I'm saying.
The slippery slope the United States is sliding down has little to do with the Iraq war - the first or second. These are mere blips on the radar screen.
Try electing a president who actually cares about domestic policy for a change.
Whoa.
Enjoying all of the comments here.
I agree with you on the impeachment factor. Even if Bush was merely a 'puppet', he is the one in charge and therefore the one ultimately responsible. He gets the axe when his governmental subordinates make wrong decisions and he follows them. Why is that not simple to understand?
quietpenguin sez: "You know it's easy to confuse someone actually lying with someone who is simply repeating what they were told in good faith."
No, actually, it's not. It's easy to tell when that has happened. Especially when they're on record as objecting to the deceit, as in the case of Colin Powell, who described the intel he was about to present as 'bullshit.' His word. Or when they're on record as wanting to invade Iraq since the mid-90s, and in the meantime talked about looking for a justification for that invasion.
Comments are closed.