Friday, September 24, 2004


Lying Liars And The Lying Lies They Lie About (Or Something Like That)

Lately there has been a lot of talk about the truth; who's telling it and who isn't. We've heard about memos, military service, military honors, commitments, WMD, ties to terrorism, thirty year-old testimony, voting records, business deals, and a myriad of other instances where the truth has been fudged, twisted, altered, or just plain obliterated. Every story has two sides and in this election year those two sides see things very differently. Over the last several days, the harshest accusations of not telling the truth have been leveled directly at President Bush by Senator John Kerry. Kerry claims that President Bush is not telling the American public the truth about the current situation in Iraq. According to Senator Kerry, the president and his entourage are purposely painting an overly optimistic picture to mislead voters into a sense of security and strength. Faced with a scathing criticism of that nature, a person might expect the president to fire back with some statistics, reports, or news accounts that would refute the Senator's claims, however, the only response from our president and his administration is to say that Kerry is being disrespectful.

Notice Cheney didn't say that John Kerry was wrong about his facts. Notice Cheney didn't give any examples of the "good that has been accomplished" to refute Senator Kerry's claims. No, Cheney gave an opinion. Why, because even he knows that John Kerry is right. And another thing, what was so disrespectful about what Kerry did? He told the truth when Prime Minister Allawi didn't. This isn't a social gathering we're dealing with here, it's a war in which our soldiers are being killed. It's not like Kerry said "Wow, Allawi's ass sure looked big in that suit." He pointed out the inconsistencies between what is being said by the president and his friend and what is being reported by our intelligence agencies and our military personel.

Now you might be asking yourself, what is President Bush's rection to all of this mess?

There are so many problems with this statement it's hard to know where to start. First of all, notice the lack of any facts, statistics, news accounts, etc. to prove Senator Kerry wrong. It's all opinion. And although Prime Minister Allawi may be friendly to the United States, he is not really a foriegn ally. He doesn't actually lead the country of Iraq. As I'm sure many others have pointed out, there is not a single Iraqi that voted for this man. He was appointed by us, so sure he's friendly to us, but to call him an "ally" is stretching it just a bit. And I find it ironic that Bush is talking about our allies as if most of them haven't abandoned us. Bush should stay away from the "allies" statements until he's actually built a coalition that includes others besides Great Britain.

Moving along, I have to say, I find his Freudian slip entertaining, but be honest, has anyone ever heard Kerry say that we would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? Saying that "we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure" does not equal "I would prefer that Saddam Hussein was still in power." As is the case in many situations, it's a twist on syntax. Instead of offering proof to the contrary, he's putting words in Kerry's mouth. This is the only way President Bush can counteract the Kerry attack: by changing what he has said.

President Bush can't run on the truth, it makes him look bad. With the truth on his side, Kerry will win in November. He just has to get the public to hear past the soundbites and see the emptiness in the Bush administration's rhetoric. He could start with next Thursday's debate.

Next week: Debate advice for the Kerry campaign.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by