I was repulsed by Bill Clinton’s leering shenanigans, his bald-faced lying to his spouse (oh, and to the American public, if they matter), and to the legal system he was sworn to uphold.
That being said, at least he had the decency to leer. George Bush’s straight-faced sanctimonious hogwash offends me every bit as deeply, and more so when I recall that Clinton was trying to excuse what he had some basis for regarding as a fundamentally private matter (I disagree, but that’s not to the point at the moment). Bush, on the other hand, made a point of emphasizing lies dressed up as facts, claims that senior members of his administration knew were untrue, and he emphasized them as part of his futile effort to convince the world that Iraq represented an immediate threat to the safety and stability of the world. He lied not only to his family and his constituents, but to the whole world. And so far as we can tell, he is unabashed; his main line of defense has been to insist that the end justified the means. Oh, and to scapegoat the man who was trying to dissuade him from lying, for not trying hard enough — then to say he had full confidence in him.
Condaleeza Rice has argued that this tempest concerns only the teacup’s-worth of sixteen words. It seems like only yesterday that Bush’s partisan allies were making an even bigger fuss over the single word, “is.”
Posted by AKMA at July 13, 2003 10:14 PM | TrackBackThese liars are unflappable. Their slickness reminds me of the Nixon Watergate crowd. I hope that the parallel runs deeper. When questions about the Nixon crowd's veracity first began to surface, the Nixon boys were equally unflappable in their dismissal of the "tempest." But we all know what happened to them. Let's hope that there's a latter-day Deep Throat out there somewhere.
Posted by: Tom Shugart at July 13, 2003 10:31 PMThere will be no Deep Throat or any additional revelations on this matter, although there may be a breakdown on other lies they told. The only hope we have is that more people are beginning to pay attention to how this is done. Everyone is on-message and the spin has been spun. Don't like it? Get over it, the President has told us all that he has moved on, and we should not trouble ourselves about this any more. That was last week's news, move on, nothing to see here.
The Republicans learned their lessons well from Watergate, and they will never make that mistake again. They understand the the big problem is the cover-up, so as long as they admit what is obvious and known and continue to spin the rest, the corporate press will be happy to pass along the message. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice a scape-goat or two; political suicide for the sake of the cause is much less violent than similar acts by disenfranchised people, and maybe your friends can help you revive your career later (e.g. Poindexter of Iran Contra fame now heading TIA).
Posted by: Gerry at July 14, 2003 12:52 PMI am amazed that in the face of finding no weapons of mass destruction, the white continues with its "we were justifed" talk -- as more troops and more Iraqis are being killed. Almost daily now.
There was no need for a rush to Iraq. We went in with little planning or forethought for what we were going to do and we pay the price daily. And what does President Bush say, "Well, Saddam Husseign isn't creating weapons of mass destruction now, is he?"
But I'm not appalled by Bush -- we knew what to expect with him. I'm appalled at the voters of this country still supporting a man like him that creates war, helps to generate rising unemployment, the huge deficit, deflation, does nothing for the health care system (recent congressional acts are a drop in the bucket for the problem).
What are we thinking? What will it take to wake us up?
Ah, excuse all spelling and grammar errors.
Posted by: Shelley at July 14, 2003 02:03 PMWhat really riles me isn't the individual lie about uranium but the Administration's *complete pattern* (habitual manner of conduct)of shading the truth in virtually every public pronouncement.
I have to admit it is masterfully done--which is even more reason for concern. I think the Administration truly believes they are avoiding "lies" by making statements that are just "general" enough that they can't be nailed down, using catchy little simple sentences ("Bring 'em on") full of single syllable words and, when caught, having a loyalist fall on the grenade in full knowledge that there will be no personal consequence.
There's an infection in the White House spelled "Karl Rove."
Posted by: Dave Rogers (C&E) at July 14, 2003 03:42 PMIs it Vietnam yet? Lied to get in, declared war over (vs. never declared), now in occupation and the 'liberated' people are taking pot shots at us.
If 11 words were all it took to get Clinton impeached, the these 16 should be an impeachment-and-a-half.
Posted by: Kirk Hendryck at July 15, 2003 12:33 PMBush didn't lie. Britain believed then, as they believe now, that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa. People are losing sight of the fact that the only reason there's any controversy in the first place is that the CIA failed to add any evidence to that belief. It didn't make Britain's claim any less believeable; it merely failed to make it more so.
On top of this, the claim didn't add anything to the war effort. Do you know anyone who was opposed to war on Iraq but was suddenly convinced due to this announcement?
Plus, I believe it was Clinton himself who raised question over the definition of "is."
Posted by: Hunter at July 23, 2003 06:33 PMHi
I believe that Geo Bush lied about the wmd situation so that he could send our boys into Iraq and he thinks he was justified in his misinformation. I don't think so. we have poor representatives and poorer ambassadors that don't know how to get the correct information. Our plans for Iraq before the war were not at all correct and poorly thought out. We must have some smard intelligence people in our country. Where are they?
Sincerely
Joe Wagner
Posted by: Joe Wagner at December 31, 2003 07:26 AM