was an interesting little news item in Wednesday's
paper, tucked among the stories about the Pistons'
championship, the impending sale of Motor City
Casino, and the assassination of yet another luckless
item said the bipartisan commission investigating
the 9/11 attacks on America had concluded -- and
I'm paraphrasing here -- that there's every reason
to believe the president of the United States
was lying through his teeth when he suggested
the existence of a collaborative relationship
between Al Qaeda and the government of deposed
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
it wasn't so long ago that such an embarrassing
exposure of presidential perfidy would have piqued
the public's interest for a couple of news cycles
-- or at least until the next quarter-turn in
the Laci Peterson saga.
a reasonable person has to wonder: Why aren't
responsible leaders in both parties -- those who
care about their country and its credibility in
the world -- calling for George Bush's resignation?
little sex, too much smoke
are a number of reasons why the latest example
of presidential prevarication hasn't elicited
Nobody expects the president of the United States
to tell the truth about something as personal
as his reasons for going to war.
Nobody with the brains God gave tapioca pudding
ever believed there was a Saddam-Osama connection
in the first place.
It's not as though the precise details of any
strategic relationship that may or may not have
existed between two of America's most implacable
enemies are important -- or at least not as important
as the precise details of a sexual relationship
between the president and one of his employees
How 'bout them Pistons?
also the fact that the Bush White House has been
sophisticated in putting up its Saddam-Osama smoke
screen. There's been nothing as egregiously impeachable
as "I am not a crook" or "I did not have sexual
relations with that woman" -- just a steady stream
of innuendo about "close ties" and "high-level
contacts" between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam
when you talk about the war on terror," Bush asserted
in a press conference six months before the invasion
of Iraq. And if fully half the American public
leaped to the erroneous conclusion that Iraq bore
some responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, well,
that wasn't the president's fault, was it?
is reminded of Samuel Butler's observation that
"the best liar is he who makes the smallest amount
of lying go the longest way."
sickens me to write these words, because I am
one of those who gave Bush the benefit of the
doubt -- one of the many Americans who, however
much we may have disagreed with him on a dozen
other issues, simply could not bring ourselves
to believe that any president would mislead his
constituents about so important a matter, or be
so cynical about exploiting the emotional dynamite
for Bush's insistence that there is no direct
contradiction between his vague assertions of
a Saddam-Osama connection and the 9/11 commission's
conclusion that there was never any cooperation
between the two, well, that depends on what your
definition of "is" is, doesn't it?
bottom line is that this president's pants are
on fire -- again.
that's an outrage worth our attention, even if
it is becoming old news.
Posted: June 21, 2004