The End of the Search

  • Thread starter Thread starter ry56
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ry56

Guest
Joe Sobran

What can we say? The search for Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” has finally ended. None were found, of course. Even the hawks who insisted that Saddam Hussein had them aren’t demanding that we keep looking.

President Bush, not missing a beat, says the war on Iraq was still justified – even though the very justification he insistently gave for it has been exploded. He now talks as if he’d never believed it himself. He probably didn’t.

Bush and his people – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Tenet, et cetera – repeatedly said there was “no doubt” that the weapons existed, threatening us. Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Britain that an Iraqi attack might be just 45 minutes away. The war propaganda continued, monotonously, for months upon months.

It was all nonsense. But skeptics were scolded for not believing a president who “knows so much more than we do.” What he “knew” was that his CIA director called the evidence of those weapons a “slam dunk, Mr. President.” When people call you “Mr. President,” they’re going to tell you what you want to be told.

As the columnist Richard Cohen points out, CBS News just fired four of its top executives for getting one story wrong. Bush hasn’t fired any of the yes-men who were wrong about a far graver matter. But that’s what yes-men are supposed to do: go with the boss, right or wrong. Maybe especially when he’s wrong.

Back when Bill Clinton was still swearing on his Bibles that he’d done nothing untoward with Miss Lewinsky, he hauled out his whole cabinet to vouch for him. They dutifully did so. You might wonder how, say, his secretaries of state and agriculture could be so sure of his innocence in this matter, but again there was “no doubt.” And having staked their honor on Clinton’s honor, none of them resigned when he finally admitted his lie.

“I’m with you when you’re right, governor, but not when you’re wrong,” an aide is said to have told Louisiana’s legendary rascal Earl Long. Long quickly set him straight: “You stupid son of a bitch, I don’t need you when I’m right!”

Bush doesn’t need his underlings when he’s right, as long as they serve him well when he’s wrong. And they’ve certainly done that. Colin Powell especially sacrificed much of the esteem he’d built over a long career when he parroted Bush’s baseless assertions. The phrase “weapons of mass destruction” was Bush’s Monica Lewinsky. For months you couldn’t turn the radio on without hearing it.

And once more, nobody is resigning because it turned out to be a deception. Nor is indignation sweeping the country. People who voted for Bush aren’t acting disillusioned. Hawkish pundits aren’t blushing. Even opponents of the war aren’t excited. A cynical resignation seems to be universal.

The only conclusion I can draw is that we all take presidential prevarication for granted now. It’s as if lying were part of the job description for the nation’s highest office.

So here’s the story: Republicans were indignant when Clinton lied about his Oval Office antics. It was matter for impeachment. The Starr Report supplied the details, right down to the cigar. Then Bush restored morality to the White House and lied us into a war, and we lived happily ever after.

Clinton lied so glibly, even when he didn’t have to, that everything he said was taken with a grain of salt. He was already “Slick Willie” before he was president. Eventually his own party had to deal with his notorious character: Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut gave a resounding speech on the Senate floor rebuking him, and Vice President Al Gore, running for president, played down his connection with his own boss.

Nothing like that is happening among Republicans today. The party is united behind a president who started a war under false pretenses, which then veered off into something else. Nobody feels impelled to express even mild reservations. So far there has been no Republican Joe Lieberman, trying to show that the party still has a conscience. Or at least a capacity for embarrassment.

Clinton told lots of little lies, and the habit caught up with him. Bush has told one deadly whopper, and he’s still getting away with it.
 
40.png
ry56:
The only conclusion I can draw is that we all take presidential prevarication for granted now. It’s as if lying were part of the job description for the nation’s highest office.
True enough. What Republican challenged Bush when he said that he couldn’t think of anything he’d done in his first term that he regretted or thought was wrong? They knew better, but they wanted to win an election, not point out the Emperor’s New Clothes.
 
Clinton was convinced there were WMD. Clinton made immorality and lying fashionable - the same immorality and lying that has/is corrupting the nation. Your conclusion is null and void.
 
40.png
Brad:
Clinton was convinced there were WMD. Clinton made immorality and lying fashionable - the same immorality and lying that has/is corrupting the nation. Your conclusion is null and void.
Brad, this whole thread is a waste of copper wire and electrons. Look at the profile of the originator.
 
40.png
Brad:
Clinton was convinced there were WMD.
Clinton was Bush’s authority for WMDs? I’m sure he was not!
Clinton made immorality and lying fashionable - the same immorality and lying that has/is corrupting the nation.
So it all started with Clinton, huh. Indeed? I though lying politicians were, if not the norm, then part of politics from the days of the Continental Congress.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
Brad, this whole thread is a waste of copper wire and electrons. Look at the profile of the originator.
Does anyone have a receipe for chicken fried troll or troll stew?
 
40.png
Richardols:
So it all started with Clinton, huh. Indeed? I though lying politicians were, if not the norm, then part of politics from the days of the Continental Congress.
You have to admit though, the Clintons as a couple brought it to an art form
 
40.png
geezerbob:
I’m sure RoyMc could cook us up something.
I’m pretty sure I’ve got a couple of recipes for southern fried troll in my grannies recipe file, please let me know if you need them.
Linda H.
 
40.png
Brad:
Clinton was convinced there were WMD. Clinton made immorality and lying fashionable - the same immorality and lying that has/is corrupting the nation. Your conclusion is null and void.
So because Clinton was a liar and was immoral, that means Bush can be as well. Does that also mean that as Nixon was a liar, crook and cheat clinton can (oops apparently he already is), Bush can be, (oops you said he can be the same as Clinton) Gets complicated dosen’t it?
 
40.png
Norwich:
So because Clinton was a liar and was immoral, that means Bush can be as well. Does that also mean that as Nixon was a liar, crook and cheat clinton can (oops apparently he already is), Bush can be, (oops you said he can be the same as Clinton) Gets complicated dosen’t it?
Not really, because President Bush wasn’t lying. He was mistaken. There is a difference.

That point aside, WMDs were not the sole justification for invading Iraq.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
Disregard. Troll.
Do I have to remind you that calling people TROLLS was “outlawed” by the moderators?

I am amazed at how immature many of you are- when you disagree with someone you just call them names, this is inexcusable. Honestly!
 
The WMD’s are in Syria. We gave Sadam 10 years to hide them there.
 
40.png
Steph700:
Do I have to remind you that calling people TROLLS was “outlawed” by the moderators?

I am amazed at how immature many of you are- when you disagree with someone you just call them names, this is inexcusable. Honestly!
I didn’t call anyone a troll. The posting is a troll. Look it up in at dictionary.com. To save you the trouble, I’ll post it here. Please don’t play the indignant holy roller around me, I’ve been around here too long and seen to much to take it seriously.

**troll **v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting designed to attract predictable responses; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll.
 
40.png
Lance:
The WMD’s are in Syria. We gave Sadam 10 years to hide them there.
or, they could be buried under the millions of acres of sand that makes up a significant portion of Iraqs picturesque countryside.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
or, they could be buried under the millions of acres of sand that makes up a significant portion of Iraqs picturesque countryside.
You know we could be wrong, maybe it was laughing gas he used on the Kurds and Iran and they laughed themselves to death by the thousands. I really thought it was mustard gas and they died horrible deaths but I could have been wrong. In any case I am glad he is no longer in power, and I would bet that 90% of the Iraqi’s are too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top