Friday, April 16, 2004
The Lemmings Jump
This idiotic Letter to the Editor of the Times indicates that those with the broken antennae are picking up the GOP's desperate attempt to discredit the 9/11 commission:
Ms. Lepick might be fooled, but we suspect the majority of Americans aren't.
As the old lawyers' saying goes: if the law is on your side, cite the law, if the facts are on your side, cite the facts, and if neither is on your side, pound the table. The Bush administration and its friendly hacks are pounding away mightily, but most people will see it for what it is.
We aren't just whistling Dixe (pun intended). In the last week we've heard from three former Bush supporters who have turned on him completely. What's more, they are three completely different types who supported him for different reasons, and who have all turned against him.
One is a regular guy, fairly conservative without thinking about it, who doesn't normally pay attention to politics but watches Fox News, and therefor has a skewed view of reality. He asked us if we'd seen Condoleezza Rice's testimony, and when we asked why he responded, "because she was lying--it was obvious that she was lying."
And it WAS obvious--but up to that moment this chronic condition for the Bush administration had not been clear to him. It is now.
The second guy is a friend we amicably refer to as a "soldier of fortune" Republican. His political philosophy is essentially military Darwinism--he believes that the US should do whatever and take whatever it wants in the world because it has the power to do so. His philosophical underpinnings for this view start with a confusion between the ethics of emergencies and the realities of society, and go from there--but that's a tale for another day.
He, who until now has been a strident Bush supporter, and who refers to John Kerry as "Kerredy", has decided that Bush is a religious zealot controlled by the Moral Majority (paraphrased) who MUST be defeated.
The third case is the most interesting. He actually called us at home to tell us about his switch. He is a moderately conservative guy--salesman, businessman--who says he was the only one of his friends to have supported the war, which he did for one reason only: he believed Colin Powell.
Those were his words: "I told everyone I believed Colin Powell because he was a stand-up guy and if he said Iraq had weapons then it must be true". Last week he CALLED US UP to say he'd been wrong--about the weapons and about Powell--and that he was embarrassed and disappointed.
Of course, the now-gone credibility of Powell is exactly what the Bush administration needed to sell the Iraq war. Our friend was not alone. But now he's so ticked off about being lied to that he made a $100 donation to Kerry and claims he may volunteer for him--the first time for a Democrat ever.
So while the Brenda Lepicks of the world may put party loyalty ahead of the truth, we believe that a majority of Americans are coming to grips with the inescapable reality that the Bush administration will do anything and say anything not only to enact their preconceived right-wing agenda, but also to cover up for the disasters that inevitably flow from them.
Bottom line for those on the fence is to ask themselves this: how are our troops in Iraq better off fighting essentially alone, just because the Bush administration didn't want to cut France and Russia in on the oil?
Who does that greedy pig-headedness help? Our soldiers?
What percentage of the Iraq oil do you think our soldeirs would trade for a truly international coalition to be with them right now?
More importantly: who made the decision not to give that percentage up? And why?
To the Editor:As mentioned here last week, the revelations of the 9/11 commission are so startlingly bad for the Bush administration that the GOP has no choice but to wage an all-out attack on its credibility. So they've widened their usual strategy of character assassination to try to encompass an entire bipartisan commission.
I am outraged by the fact that one of the 9/11 commission members is in direct conflict with this investigation ("For Members of Panel, Past Work Becomes an Issue in the Present Hearings," news article, April 14).
Jamie S. Gorelick was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, and had to recuse herself from questioning Ms. Reno.
The commission is tainted. As it stands, it is also a waste of taxpayer dollars and time.
BRENDA LEPICK
St. Augustine, Fla., April 14, 2004
Ms. Lepick might be fooled, but we suspect the majority of Americans aren't.
As the old lawyers' saying goes: if the law is on your side, cite the law, if the facts are on your side, cite the facts, and if neither is on your side, pound the table. The Bush administration and its friendly hacks are pounding away mightily, but most people will see it for what it is.
We aren't just whistling Dixe (pun intended). In the last week we've heard from three former Bush supporters who have turned on him completely. What's more, they are three completely different types who supported him for different reasons, and who have all turned against him.
One is a regular guy, fairly conservative without thinking about it, who doesn't normally pay attention to politics but watches Fox News, and therefor has a skewed view of reality. He asked us if we'd seen Condoleezza Rice's testimony, and when we asked why he responded, "because she was lying--it was obvious that she was lying."
And it WAS obvious--but up to that moment this chronic condition for the Bush administration had not been clear to him. It is now.
The second guy is a friend we amicably refer to as a "soldier of fortune" Republican. His political philosophy is essentially military Darwinism--he believes that the US should do whatever and take whatever it wants in the world because it has the power to do so. His philosophical underpinnings for this view start with a confusion between the ethics of emergencies and the realities of society, and go from there--but that's a tale for another day.
He, who until now has been a strident Bush supporter, and who refers to John Kerry as "Kerredy", has decided that Bush is a religious zealot controlled by the Moral Majority (paraphrased) who MUST be defeated.
The third case is the most interesting. He actually called us at home to tell us about his switch. He is a moderately conservative guy--salesman, businessman--who says he was the only one of his friends to have supported the war, which he did for one reason only: he believed Colin Powell.
Those were his words: "I told everyone I believed Colin Powell because he was a stand-up guy and if he said Iraq had weapons then it must be true". Last week he CALLED US UP to say he'd been wrong--about the weapons and about Powell--and that he was embarrassed and disappointed.
Of course, the now-gone credibility of Powell is exactly what the Bush administration needed to sell the Iraq war. Our friend was not alone. But now he's so ticked off about being lied to that he made a $100 donation to Kerry and claims he may volunteer for him--the first time for a Democrat ever.
So while the Brenda Lepicks of the world may put party loyalty ahead of the truth, we believe that a majority of Americans are coming to grips with the inescapable reality that the Bush administration will do anything and say anything not only to enact their preconceived right-wing agenda, but also to cover up for the disasters that inevitably flow from them.
Bottom line for those on the fence is to ask themselves this: how are our troops in Iraq better off fighting essentially alone, just because the Bush administration didn't want to cut France and Russia in on the oil?
Who does that greedy pig-headedness help? Our soldiers?
What percentage of the Iraq oil do you think our soldeirs would trade for a truly international coalition to be with them right now?
More importantly: who made the decision not to give that percentage up? And why?
