MORE
Steve Young columns
|
|
|
The
White House decided that this country's Veterans Day was the perfect
day to attack...our veteran's country. In doing so, President Bush
honored those who sacrificed so deeply to give us, among other things,
freedom of speech -- which, so it seems, is only to be used to
condemn those who exercise that freedom. Not only condemn dissenters, but
to once again hoist the old right- wing chestnut that questioning
this President is a slam of the troops.
In his most recent I- am- a- uniter speech, the president said, among other
things, "The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the
national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false
charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and
to an enemy that is questioning America's will."
| |
|
Omigawd. I was kidding. Not a political speech on a day for all
Americans? Still, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the AM Lords of Loud
said that Veteran's Day was the perfect day for that kind of rhetoric.
"What better time than Veteran's Day to say that the troops need our
support?"
Hello? Hypocrisy? Are you there?! Wasn't it the same "Lords of Loud" who
when Paul Wellstone's son, David, stood up at his father's funeral and
asked that we not forget the Wellstone legacy nor stop fighting for it,
asked how the Democrats could be so obscene as to turn a funeral into a
political pep rally?
As for the president turning a country's remembrance of the our past and
present soldiers into his own political rally, not a peep of concern
about ill-placed party bashing from the Republican large mouths.
But let's forget the day. Instead let's consider the content.
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct
of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that
war began."
In other words, it's your right to question me, but irresponsible to do
so. So very constitutional.
"Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the
war, and that independent commissions have determined that the
administration did not misrepresent the intelligence."
Well, how do you like that. The only part of that statement that's false
is every part of that statement.
Number 1 -- The administration had access to much more intelligence than
did Congress. They only received what the President wanted them to see.
Number 2 -- The independent commissions were not authorized to determine
whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the only committee actually
investigating the potential distortions AND omissions, has not done its
inquiry yet. In fact, Judge Laurence Silberman, chairman of Bush's
commission on weapons of mass destruction, said when he released his
report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal
with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed
that was not part of our inquiry."
It's Ostrich science, plain and clear: Proving something does not exist
by not looking for it.
Intelligent design follows a similar but more creative discipline adding
a Jabberwockian twist: The proof of something's existence that we cannot
explain is explained by fabricating an explanation.
You might say, if you wanted to dally at all in the truth, that the
President is trying to mislead the American public. How much of a stretch
is it to believe he's done it before...AND with the same issue?
The President claims that those who question him are rewriting history.
Anyone who has ever written professionally knows that you always have to
rewrite fiction. To create something that rings true you have to rewrite
and rewrite until you get it right.
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION FED US WAS FICTION. Just
because they pepper it with some facts doesn't make it true anymore than
Monty Python and The Holy Grail was true. It wasn't, was it?
National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley also participated in the
coordinated Veterans Day attack repeating that "lawmakers all looked at
the same intelligence."
That's so full of bull I'm surprised the White House ever has to buy
fertilizer. Bush doesn't share his most sensitive intelligence with
congress. In addition, there were doubts about WMD and the Iraqi threat
that were not included in the info congress got.
For example, the National Intelligence Estimate asserted that Hussein
would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States OR
turn them over to terrorists -- unless he was backed into a corner. That report was cleared for
public use only a day before the Senate vote, and not seen by most
Senators.
Even within the Bush administration, not everybody consistently viewed
Iraq as what Hadley called "an enormous threat." In a news conference in
February 2001 in Egypt, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that
economic sanctions against Iraq had worked and that Hussein had not
developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass
destruction."
In his speech Friday, Bush said that, "When I made the decision to remove
Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan
support."
The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq,
but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.
Hadley, in his remarks, went further. "Congress, in 1998, authorized, in
fact, the use of force based on that intelligence," he said. "And, as you
know, the Clinton administration took some action."
But the 1998 legislation gave the president authority "to support efforts
to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein" by providing assistance to Iraqi
opposition groups, including arms, humanitarian aid and broadcasting
facilities.
Neither offering the truth nor looking for it. Like I said -- ostrich
science. Sticking their heads in the ground so they don't have to look at
the truth. Only with these ostriches, to discover where they're sticking
their heads, you have to look a bit higher.
Steve Young, author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" takes the KTLK 1150AM mike every Saturday, 1-4 PM and read every Sunday in the LA Daily News Op-Ed page (right next to Bill O'Reilly)
Comments? Send a letter to the editor.Albion Monitor
November 11, 2005 (http://www.albionmonitor.com)All Rights Reserved. Contact rights@monitor.net for permission to use in any format. |
|