Questions for President Bush’s Next Press Conference.
Nice misleading piece. The author needs to re-read the state of the union address where the President spells out why we might go to war. Not because Al Qaeda was operating out of Iraq. Not for oil (see the Democratic attempt to make part of the 87 billion in aid a “loan” to be repaid with oil money - the President said he’d veto a “loan” and wanted the money to be a grant, not a loan). Not for caches and caches of WMDs.
Here’s the URL - read it and see if you can pinpoint exactly where the President makes the one, yes, one Al Qaeda connection to Iraq:
If you make it that far, you might see five or six or eighteen other reasons we went to war. There seem to be two that get repeated quite often - Iraqi freedom, and a UN resolution. I guess those things weren’t important to the author and his clever “flower” and “zen” questions.
As you read through the speech, make sure you don’t gloss over the AIDS package to Africa or the funding for alternative energy.
1. The NY’er piece was intended as satire, not as reporting. You can fault it—as I do—for not being especially timely or funny (except for the SDI zen question, which is hi-larious)—but not for being misleading.
2. While every item pointed out here can be refuted, discounted, or counterspun, what remains unchanged is that we *did* go to war, and Bush decided to go to war long before pretending to mull over in front of the teleprompters. Whatever rationalizations were flung against the wall of public opinion were thrown in hopes that enough would stick in peoples’ minds to enable the long-set plan to go forward.
3. It may be difficult to accept, but there are millions of people who have heard and read and studied and considered the administration’s arguments for going to war, and who don’t believe them. There are millions who gravely question the credibility and integrity and motives of Bush and his advisors. I am one of these people.
4. Bush’s hollow gestures for AIDS and alternative energy are exactly like Clinton’s stall tactics “supporting” SDI: political ploys designed to innoculate against criticism and to put off any substantial policies to an unfunded, unspecified future. At the simplest level of comparison, a real alternative energy policy would focus on reducing fossil fuel consumption, even through utility co. waste reduction or mileage efficiency increases; it would not emphasize some pie-in-the-sky, ten-years-hence technology that allows automakers and energy companies to continue business as usual, or easier than usual, now that thirty years of environmental regulation are being systematically dismantled with barely the meekest “sir?” from the media.
The “What Would Jesus Test Drive” (last week?) was much funnier — not to say that this one doesn’t have it’s own charms…
Sorry, here’s the link.
“and a UN resolution”
1) Because the U.N.’s word is the LAW and we are honor bound to enforce every resolution it churns out. Right?
2) And it’s a resolution about … weapons of mass destruction, strong-armed into being passed by the U.S.
Reality is not affected by our apprehension of it.
Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.
You get what anyone gets. You get a lifetime.
I would like to know why the president isn’t changing the law on abortion? What better time know with a Republican house and senate and President. That’s what is campaign was about pro life now lets see some results.
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.