And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it....we must ask: Does he really believe this nonsense, or does he simply expect us to believe it? (The quote, by the way, comes from his recent press conference.)
Aside from the words "And we did," every statement of fact here is false. Saddam Hussein did allow the inspectors in. He disclosed everything; we know that he had no secrets because we had one of his chief aides on the CIA payroll. The world is not safer than it was in 2002. I even doubt that Bush was the one who had to make that "difficult decision."
Yet one-third of the country will believe this codswallop. If W said that a statue of Bullwinkle stood atop the Capitol building, die-hard Bush-backers would squint until they saw antlers.
3 comments:
HA. "codswallop". For some reason, I think Beavis would be laughing hysterically.
Speaking of codswallop:
Another piece of the same passed yesterday without follow-up and almost without comment at Bush’s press conference in Cleveland. So much deceit, so little time!
When asked about the measure to censure him for his illegal activities in his implementation of the terrorist surveillance program, Bush responded:
“I did notice that nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for the getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say, the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program.”
Why did the reporter not correct the president in this completely inept attempt to dodge the question? Why is there not one “journalist” willing to remain standing until this liar gives him/her a straight answer? Yes he/she should remain standing until security drags him/her away. That would at least be a way (perhaps the only way) to salvage some dignity for what has become such a foul and ignoble profession.
Are all the matriculating students applying to the major schools of journalism required to first visit the University Department of Animal Husbandry for a proper and hygienic de-nutting? How do they deal with female journalists?
Why are so many in the press corps all so deathly afraid of losing their jobs? Whatever happened to voluntary poverty? Why doesn’t even one cry out from the back of the room:
“Of course no one from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for the getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program, Mr. President, you dumb twit! That is a colossal, deliberate missing of the point. How about, for once, an honest answer to our questions?”
The Democrats, at least those who still have a small amount of courage left to stand on their own wobbly feet, are objecting to those aspects of the implementation that are in clear violation of the Bill of Rights. These Americans are not questioning the need for surveillance of terrorists, although considering the totally incompetent implementations the administration has effected, there might well be made a convincing argument for abandoning it. What Feingold, et al are attempting to bring to the Lilliputian attention span of an apathetic nation is the fact that the president is using the fear of terrorism as a non-veiled excuse to spy on anyone he wants to – innocent Americans, his political foes, dissidents, etc. Everyone knows there is a perfectly effective FISA warrant system in place for the valid and prompt surveillance already in place. The president and his supporters have never satisfactorily explained why he continues to deliberately circumvent these legal pathways.
Obviously I don’t really have to put such a fine point on this argument for most readers of this blog. I’m sure those of you who were watching the press conference in Cleveland were probably hooting and throwing available small objects at the TV when Bush was laying out this transparent, third grade, grammar school BS for the sycophantic press corps.
The point I am trying to make is, why does anyone allow themselves to be so sorely abused by such a fool and in such a manner? By anyone, I mean the attending members of the press, the commentators who follow up and the somnolent media consumers sitting, beer in one hand and remote in other on their lumpy, three payments left couches in living rooms across America.
I no longer watch live TV. When I moved into my present digs, I passed on the cable special instillation and decided not to watch anymore live programming. It has changed my life so profoundly for the better that I cannot even begin to explain it to anyone who has not undergone a similar transformation. Sounds a little like AA doesn’t it? Occasionally I miss the Daley Show and certain special moments like the last piece on Boston Legal’s summation speech by James Spader. (I watched the excerpt on the Internet) When I think of all the hay I would have to sift through to find the occasional needle of brilliance, it just doesn’t seem worth the effort. I might be willing to subscribe to a NetFlix service entitled “Monthly Excerpts of Excellence from American Network Television Programming.” I’ll bet it would be a very, very short DVD containing mostly well-produced commercials. When attempting to engage in small talk with my fellow Americans about what they are watching on the tube these days, I sometimes have an eerie flash back to my last reading of Plato’s cave allegory from the Republic.
Is this uncritical TV consumption on the part of the public the only reason these gaffs and very public lies pass with barely a notice and never a refutation across the collective American retina? Write and erase, scan back, write and erase again, scan back and never remember. The opacity and persistence of this fog of unconsciousness that has descended across this land is sometimes beyond my comprehension.
Peace,
Bob Boldt
He probably believes it. I *know* he can't remember what really happened -- it was so long ago.
They tell him over and over what to say -- and he say it. Simple as that.
Post a Comment