THE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH by Ron Reagan
Esquire
How The Media Let Bush Get Away With Lie After Lie
…There
is a surreal quality to all this: Occupation is liberation; Iraq is
sovereign, but we're in control; Saddam is in Iraqi custody, but we've
got him; we'll get out as soon as an elected Iraqi government asks us,
but we'll be there for years to come. Which is what we counted on in
the first place, only with rose petals and easy coochie.
…All
Administrations will dissemble, distort, or outright lie when their
backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political
suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it
were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their
minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater
import to the nation, it is the small, unnecessary prevarications that
may be diagnostic. Who lies when they don't have to? When the simple
truth, though perhaps embarrassing in the short run, is nevertheless in
one's long-term self-interest? Why would a pResident whose calling card
is his alleged rock-solid integrity waste his chief asset for
penny-ante stakes? Habit, perhaps. Or an inability to admit even small
mistakes.
Mr.
Bush's tendency to meander beyond the bounds of truth was evident
during the 2000 campaign but was largely ignored by the mainstream
media. His untruths simply didn't fit the agreed-upon narrative. While
generally acknowledged to be lacking in experience, depth, and other
qualifications typically considered useful in a leader of the free
world, Bush was portrayed as a decent fellow nonetheless, one whose
straightforwardness was a given. None of that “what the meaning of is
is” business for him….Al Gore, on the other hand, was depicted as a
dubious self-reinventor, stained like a certain blue dress by Bill
Clinton's prurient transgressions. He would spend valuable weeks
explaining away statements—”I invented the Internet”—that he never made
in the first place. All this left the coast pretty clear for Bush.
Scenario
typical of the 2000 campaign: While debating Al Gore, Bush tells two
obvious — if not exactly earth-shattering — lies and is not challenged.
First, he claims to have supported a patient's bill of rights while
governor of Texas. This is untrue. He, in fact, vigorously resisted
such a measure, only reluctantly bowing to political reality and
allowing it to become law without his signature. Second, he announces
that Gore has outspent him during the campaign. The opposite is true:
Bush has outspent Gore. These misstatements are briefly acknowledged in
major press outlets, which then quickly return to the more germane
issues of Gore's pancake makeup and whether a certain feminist author
has counseled him to be more of an “alpha male.”
Having
gotten away with such witless falsities, perhaps Mr. Bush and his team
felt somehow above day-to-day truth. In any case, once ensconced in the
White House, they picked up where they left off.”
To read the complete article, click here.
Esquire, September 2004, Volume 142, Issue 3
Thanks to Darrell Lewis for turning this in.
Blog For Iowa 
This was just on “CNN Headline News”. Our favorite pResident just said, “The war in Iraq is a catastrophic success!” John Edwards said something to the effect of “He (Bush) doesn't know what he's saying!”
My response is: “Does he EVER know what he's saying?!!”
LikeLike
Oh, crikey! It must be “junta speak.” Nothing means anything anymore. I'm glad Edwards called him on it. I would have loved to have heard Edwards' tone of voice!
LikeLike
check out this link from Democracy for Wisconsin…..it's worth passing on…
LikeLike