Wednesday, September 6, 2006

Meanwhile, In the ‘Logical Interpretations’ Department

But is it true? Hell no, it isn’t even close to truth, but it doesn’t matter. It has been said and will be said again. And after that, guess what? It will be said again until, right slam-bang up against the election it’ll be rung out across the nation as a truth. A bell tolls a lie as beautifully as it rings the truth.


Fasten your seatbelt, baby, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei wrote in The Washington Post on Thursday: (italics mine)

"President Bush and his surrogates are launching a new campaign intended to rebuild support for the war in Iraq by accusing the opposition of aiming to appease terrorists and cut off funding for troops on the battlefield. . . .

"Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics 'claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone.' And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that 'many have still not learned history's lessons' and 'believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased.'

"Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq."

Cheneyiraq_3 So, the bad guys, those immoral and rascally Democrats are terrorist appeasers. Not only that, they’re going to cut off funds for troops on the battlefield. Right out there in the middle of a sandstorm, with bullets whizzing and car-bombs blowing, when those troops look around them for funding, the funding-gun will be out of bullets. Unloaded by Democrats. Sounds like a logical interpretation for the Bush gang--maybe even a Rove interpretation.

But is it true? Hell no, it isn’t even close to truth, but it doesn’t matter. It has been said and will be said again. And after that, guess what? It will be said again until, right slam-bang up against the election it’ll be rung out across the nation as a truth. A bell tolls a lie as beautifully as it rings the truth.

Tomdefrank Elsewhere, Thomas M. DeFrank writes in the New York Daily News:

"President Bush and the Republicans expect a stinging defeat in November, but they're betting the terror card saves them from an electoral debacle.

"'The security issue trumps everything,' a senior Bush official said last week. 'That's why even though they're really mad at us, in the end they're going to give us another two years.'

"Nevertheless, many other senior Bush loyalists privately believe anti-Iraq and anti-Bush sentiment will cost the Republicans the House nine weeks from today, a doomsday scenario that would cripple Bush for his final two years in office.

"'We'll lose the House,' one of the party's most prominent officials flatly predicted, 'and the President will be dead in the water for two years.'"

Hamasvictory_2 Terror is a big seller among the Bush crowd, their hottest product, running just a tad behind fear. Cheney comes right out and says it, with the same firm candor and accuracy as when he said that terrorists were in their last throes.

Maybe it’s their next to last throe, but Democrats if you give them half a chance will be out there satisfying the appetite of terrorists. Rummy lectures that many have not learned from Neville Chamberlain the brutal lesson that he learned by shaking Saddam Hussein’s hand and sending him armaments. “Who knew?” says Rummy and besides the particular many he’s talking about are all Democrats.

Stuff happens.

Those investigations will go way beyond dead in the water. Dead in the water suggests motionlessness and flapping sails. If Democrats turn the House and/or Senate, the surf will be up. The waves are going to roll right up against prison walls. Prior to Bush, the Reagan administration set the current record for high officials being sent off to the slammer.

Ronnancyreagan By the time Ron and Nancy limped home to Santa Barbara, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  A merely partial list includes

  • Lyn Nofziger--Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of the White House.
  • Mike Deaver, three years' probation, fined one hundred thousand dollars, convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury.
  • James Watt, Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, five years in prison.
  • Ed Meese, resigned as Reagan's Attorney General after having been the subject of investigations by the United States Office of the Independent Counsel.
  • Casper Weinberger, Secretary of Defense during Iran-Contra. Vice-President George Bush pardoned Weinberger to keep him from going to trial.

Would Dick Cheney possibly pardon Don Rumsfeld to keep him from testifying?

  • Elliott Abrams, sentenced in 1991 to two years probation and 100 hours of community service, pardoned by President George Bush.
  • Bob McFarlane, Reagan's National Security Advisor, pled guilty to four misdemeanors and was sentenced to two years probation and 200 hours of community service, fined $20,000.  Pardoned by President George Bush.
  • Oliver North (my personal favorite), convicted of falsifying and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting the obstruction of Congress.  Conviction overturned on appeal due to legal technicalities
  • John Poindexter, Reagan's national security advisor, guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used "high national security" to mask deceit and wrong-doing.

Oooohh, that one sounds familiar.

  • Richard Secord pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to Congress over Iran-Contra.
  • Alan D. Fiers, Chief of the CIA’s Central American Task Force, received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President Bush.
  • Clair George, Chief of the CIA's Division of Covert Operations, received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President George Bush.
  • Duane R. (Dewey) Clarridge, head of the CIA's Western European Division, received a blanket from President George Bush.

One thing about Bush-the-father, he’d been head of the CIA and was loyal to the core, if not to his country then certainly to the agency. The man pardoned lots and lots of blankets. And Rumsfeld is prescient when he worries about those appeasers winning in November.

Stuff happens-it's a logical interpretation.

Links to other thoughts and further extrapolations;

No comments:

Post a Comment