?

Log in

Wrap up - Novak and Wilson - John [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
John

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Wrap up - Novak and Wilson [Jul. 13th, 2005|08:22 am]
John
So, what do we know about this situation?

Well, first off, Wilson made some truthful accusations against the Bush administration's case for war.


Lots of people turn this into his attacking the Bush administration, period... not merely the case for war. Long and short of it is, though, he knew they were giving people a false impression; it was much more accurate to say that Iraq was asking around about buying uranium than it was to say they were "trying to buy" uranium. The first gives people a truthful view of the situation; the second does not.

Truth or lie, people who attack the Bush administration's case for war must be punished, at least according to the administration's views. If that means sacrificing the identity of a CIA operative who the CIA will ask that you not name, because it could cause "trouble", well, that's okay.

You know, it's an interesting thing. Bush is facing a tough race for Texas governor... and rumors about the incumbent being a lesbian start surfacing.

Bush is facing a challenge from McCain... and dirty talk about McCain's Vietnam service start bubbling up.

Bush is facing a challenge from Kerry... and wow, the Swift Boat folks surface all over again.

And Bush was facing a challenge from Wilson, and something bad happens there, too. Karl Rove is Bush's main "political strategist", and he's suspected of being the leaker.

I suppose it's only us liberals who find a pattern of behavior here, and only because we hate Bush, personally... not his policies, not his actions, not the dirty tricks that seem to surface when he's around... no, we hate *BUSH*. He kicks dogs, cheats at poker, smacks his wife around, that kind of stuff. I mean, what's a fucking *war*? What's the revelation of one of our WMD operatives? We've had such stunning success with WMD intelligence work recently, hey, what's the big deal of damaging our intelligence network?

No... it's not about liberals *caring* about anything. It's all about power. That's all it is.

Guantanemo? It's only 700 some people kidnapped - sorry, folks, until they're registered with the ICRC, they've been kidnapped - why would liberals demand that the government show some kind of cause to hold them - *something*, *anything*, that constitutes actual *evidence* that they're a danger? Why demand some visibility, why demand more than the say-so of a single branch of government, who goes to a lot of work to try to put them beyond the reach of the courts? No, no one *cares* about that. It's just an *excuse*.

Abu Ghraib, where even registered POWs were kept in abominable, inhuman conditions, where we know that there's more to the story than we've been told (since the CIA engaged in actions that the military would have had to stop, unless the military had been given specific types of orders - at the very least "What the CIA does here is purely under CIA control. Ignore it." Who wrote those orders? Were they executive orders, by chance? Who has the power to write orders for both the military and the CIA? Proof? Probably not. But damn good reason to be sure there's more to the story.)? Hey, what's a little torture? Liberals don't care about rape, torture, and inhuman imprisonment conditions. No one *cares* about that; it's just an *excuse*.

And the revelation of a CIA agent, in retaliation for uncomfortable truths told? No one cares about that. It's just an *excuse*.

Hey, here's another pattern I've noticed.

Guantanemo? It's no big deal, these people are dangerous, the most dangerous of the dangerous, and what we're doing, *it's not that bad*. If anyone makes a big deal about it, it's just to embarrass the President.

Abu Ghraib? It's no big deal, these people are dangerous, the most dangerous of the dangerous, and what we're doing to them, *it's not that bad*. If anyone makes a big deal about it, it's just to embarrass the President.

Retaliation against Wilson? It's no big deal, lots of people knew that she worked for the CIA, so what we did to his wife, *it's not that bad*.

Try to rally the troops. Try to make it sound like any action is not based in caring about an issue... make it sound like it's purely about partisan combat. That way, there's less likelihood that another politician will put his or her career on the line to keep pushing to make something happen, and the Bush administration gets away with its crimes.

As I've said before, what annoys me most about the Democrats is that they act like a bunch of whipped dogs, sometimes. And if they hadn't been whipped so many times, it'd seem even worse.

But a lack of political will is one thing. It's a weakness. Actually *doing* the things the Democrats should be willing to fight against, that's another... and something much worse.

Yeah, the Democrats, sometimes they act like a bunch of whipped dogs. But there are some Republican strategists out there, and they're holding the whip. And they don't just whip dogs.

If Rove was the source of the leak, he should go down, hard. Not because it will be a blow to the President who doesn't have any more elections to win in his future... because what Karl Rove did was fucking *evil*. It was nasty, and petty, and the epitome of what a worker for the President should never consider doing.

Because not only was Wilson telling the truth, his warnings were prophetic. The President *was* overhyping the intelligence, and *was* acting as if he had more certainty than he had.

And don't give me any crap about his intelligence reports being wrong. He's got an MBA from Harvard. He could read the reports, and understand the uncertainties and caveats clearly expressed therein. He knew there was uncertainty, and didn't say so. That's called lying by ommission, and that ommission helped cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, close to 2000 troops so far, and the guilt for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: pagawne
2005-07-13 05:52 pm (UTC)
John, I agree with you, but no one is listening. What I want to know is when they changed all the definitions. I always considered myself something if a
conservative Republican, now I end up sounding like a flaming liberal, and I find that scary.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: johnpalmer
2005-07-13 06:32 pm (UTC)

You know...

It's kind of funny.

I've just been thinking about this. I'm not a Christian anymore, though I still believe in the message Jesus brought, and the mission he gave. I'm a Wiccan... and you know, that makes me just a little bit angrier at how people distort Christianity. When it was about *me*, well, I'm a big guy, I can take it. But now it's about other folks, it's not about me. And it's really easy to get angry on other folks behalf, even if I would have sucked it up, had it been me.

The day I heard Colonel Pappas (the big MI guy at Abu Ghraib) was being whitewashed, I was furious... not for me, but for Bill, and people like him. I mean, I've never sworn the oath, I've never put my life on the line, I've never said it's my duty to stop the big nasty before it hurts one of my fellow citizens. But every one of them who did the right thing when it hurt, and hell, every one who did the wrong thing, and accepted their punishment, all of those people were betrayed by that.

And yeah... the grass roots Republicans, they're being betrayed too.

That's what gets to me, more than anything else. The need to reach out, not just to you, but to all of them. To wake them up, and help them shake off the lies, and become what the Republican Party should be... the party where Lincoln and Eisenhower could be Presidential candidates.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: janetmiles
2005-07-13 10:27 pm (UTC)
it was much more accurate to say that Iraq was asking around about buying uranium than it was to say they were "trying to buy" uranium. The first gives people a truthful view of the situation; the second does not.

John, I agree with you in general and in principle, and I'm going to pick one small nit.

Trying to find a source from which to buy something *is*, at least in my lexicon, part of trying to buy that thing. It's not all of it, and it would indeed be *more* honest to be explicit: "Iraq has been seeking a source for uranium", but it's not, in my dictionary, an out-and-out lie to say "Iraq has been trying to buy uranium".
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: johnpalmer
2005-07-13 10:55 pm (UTC)
That's a valid nitpick... but my main thesis isn't that "they were trying to buy uranium" was a lie. You're right; seeking a source is certainly part of trying to buy.

My big point is just that Wilson could honestly and truthfully say that they weren't. They would have if they'd found someone willing to sell, but it was extremely unlikely (he felt) that they'd be able to find anyone willing to sell.

It *is* an ugly split, because of the ambiguity of what it means to be "trying". (For example, now that I've done some research, I find most of the articles I read most trying... never mind :-).)

I'm just bugged by the insistence that Wilson's statements were lies... especially because they tend to be viewed as partisan lies.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: thbeatnik
2005-07-14 02:36 am (UTC)
I think, perhaps, that one of the reasons the administration et al are trying so strenuously to split hairs here is that if Wilson's findings are interpreted as saying that Iraq was trying, *but failing*, to locate a source of uranium, then the logical conclusion would be that the system already in place to deter proliferation of WMDs was working as planned, which runs directly counter to the White House's case for war- the case that the status quo had failed, and that therefore military intervention was necessary. If one can twist Wilson's report to the point that one can claim he asserted that Iraq *wasn't* looking for banned materials, then one can attack his truthfulness, and, as a bonus, skirt that nasty issue of those all-too-effective international arms controls.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: johnpalmer
2005-07-14 07:06 pm (UTC)
Nod. I think you're right; that's part of it. That Iraq couldn't get uranium because of the sanctions would have undercut the case for war.

But part of it was, I think, just part of the whole attack-dog mentality. It's not enough to shout down criticism; you also have to hurt the person who gave the criticism.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)