September 17, 2003

Why Are We Ruled by These Liars?

Reason's Jeff Taylor sounds grimly amused: he watches Rumsfeld cut Cheney and Rice adrift as Rumsfeld says that he has not seen any intelligence "that would lead me to believe that I could say" that Saddam Hussein was linked to 911.

Hit & Run: Coup du Jour: The Bush team's spin patrol must be getting dizzy. First we had Vice President Dick Cheney giving us a rather interesting tale of close al Qaeda work with Iraq dating back a decade and pronouncing Iraq "the geographic base of terrorism. " Then Condi Rice slightly amended that to the Middle Eat being "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged," a horseshoe pit still big enough to justify the invasion of Iraq.

But then Rummy got into the act to express bafflement that two-thirds of the American people think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Gee, Don could it be cuz we blew the Hell out of his country and zippered his creepy-ass sons, displaying the carcasses like we'd bagged Agog and Magog? That sort of thing makes an impression on your average American.

If this is confusing, don't worry. It'll all change by tomorrow.

Posted by DeLong at September 17, 2003 07:48 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Hey look, there's some openings at Fox News!

Tuesday , September 02, 2003

The FOX News Channel is looking for experienced media professionals, journalists and support staff who understand what people want from today's news: More information, presented in a fair and balanced format.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,27906,00.html

Posted by: Kosh on September 17, 2003 10:21 AM

We are ruled by these liars because the population is generally ignorant of the fact. The "Big Lie" works, at least so far for the Republicans like Cheney that have no compunction about using it.

Ask you older Aunt and Uncle who have voted GOP all their lives to support fiscal and personal responsibility. That's all they know. When confronted with the facts it's "oh my goodness but if that were not true don't you think someone would say something about it?"

Posted by: Alan on September 17, 2003 11:21 AM

Didn't Rummy set up his own intelligence group in the pentagon because he did not like the Intelligence from other agencies reporting to Cheney and Rice. Maybe Rummy gets different info?

Maybe they are getting ready to launch the next war against "the real perp behind 9/11" and need to demonize someone other than Saddam or bin forgotten? That whole group lost credibility with me years ago.

Posted by: bakho on September 17, 2003 12:53 PM

bakho, I have the same memories, to me it was proof enough that they had no proof at all.

DSW

Posted by: Antoni Jaume on September 17, 2003 01:27 PM

Thankfully the prez hisself has cleared up the confusion:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Posted by: bakho on September 17, 2003 02:21 PM

"Why Are We Ruled by These Liars?"

You're absolutely right Brad. Bring back Clinton. He NEVER told a lie, did he? Or Johnson or Kennedy? Or is lying only wrong when Republicans do it? I'm afraid that's the inescapable conclusion from your posts.

Posted by: PJ on September 17, 2003 08:44 PM

PJ, how on earth can you compare a lie about a blowjob (and who wouldn't lie about extra-marital sex if push comes to shove?) and the current regime's lies? How in hell can you compare?

Posted by: Mario on September 18, 2003 05:55 AM

PJ doesn't understand that there is a huge difference between telling a lie, something that we all do, that polite society insist we do and what we're seeing from our current administration. "Why Aunt Martha, I love your apple pie" or "No honey, those pants don't make your butt look big" leading all the way up to, "I would never cheat on you, you're the center of my world" are fairly common. Don't even get me started on the size of the one that got away, when you think that report will really be ready or what you thought you scored on that last par 5. Most, if not all of us, lie to either protect the feelings of those close to us, to hide our personal shortcomings or gain slight competitive edges.

What makes Bush (and crew) different is that they are pathological liars. Psychologically there is an immense difference and these people tend to do tremendous damage to any systems they're involved with.

As evidenced by what we're witnessing unfold.

Posted by: Thumb on September 18, 2003 08:17 AM

PJ doesn't understand that there is a huge difference between telling a lie, something that we all do, that polite society insist we do and what we're seeing from our current administration. "Why Aunt Martha, I love your apple pie" or "No honey, those pants don't make your butt look big" leading all the way up to, "I would never cheat on you, you're the center of my world" are fairly common. Don't even get me started on the size of the one that got away, when you think that report will really be ready or what you thought you scored on that last par 5. Most, if not all of us, lie to either protect the feelings of those close to us, to hide our personal shortcomings or gain slight competitive edges.

What makes Bush (and crew) different is that they are pathological liars. Psychologically there is an immense difference and these people tend to do tremendous damage to any systems they're involved with.

As evidenced by what we're witnessing unfold.

Posted by: Thumb on September 18, 2003 08:18 AM

Maybe I've become too cynical, but I'm suspicious it was a setup. Cheney is meant to be the fall guy for "honest Abe" GW Bush who has now given us the real story. The timing is just right: Cheney leads with the old story very strongly on the weekend - Rumsfeld corrects him first so that it is not real obvious and then GW shows up as the "adult" and says Rummy is right. I actually believe this is most likely what happenend. So little that is said by this administration is not orchestrated precisely (just look at the Treasury Sec'ys comments about the dollar - at first it seemed like he was off message but it now appears the intention is to both talk the dollar down and to set up China as a scapegoat.

Posted by: apav on September 18, 2003 09:43 AM

Mario - it wasn't Clinton's lies about blowjobs I had particularly in mind, but rather his lies to blow away a chemical factory in Sudan (which made pharmaceutical drugs) at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Or his 1992 campaign promises to, for instance, allow gays in the military. Although, now you mention it, perjury in a court of law is not lightly to be dismissed, no matter how sordid or distasteful the behaviour. I also had in mind Johnson's lies about the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident to justify sending more troops to Vietnam.

I happen to think Clinton, Nixon and Johnson answer much better the description of "pathological liars" than Bush or Cheney.

Posted by: PJ on September 18, 2003 12:40 PM

I happen to think Clinton, Nixon and Johnson answer much better the description of "pathological liars" than Bush or Cheney.

Then you need to do some homework on the meaning of Pathologocal, because you obviously don't have a clue.

Posted by: Thumb on September 18, 2003 04:09 PM

PJ, Thumb is exactly right. You clearly haven't studied your history, and you haven't studied the backbone administration, and you haven't even studied Clinton - your list is both inane and wrong on the merits.

There has been no president in the modern era (FDR and beyond) who has so consistently just plain made stuff up with respect to policy.

Posted by: howard on September 18, 2003 08:50 PM

I must say I'm confused by these last two posts.

So Clinton DID introduce gays into the military as he repeatedly pledged to do during the 1992 election campaign?
The pharmaceutical factory in Sudan WAS making chemical weapons? And its rocketing had NOTHING to do with the Lewinsky impeachment?
The Gulf of Tonkin incident DID happen as Johnson reported? And the Vietnam war WASN'T sold to the American public on the basis of a pack of lies?
And Richard Nixon DID always tell the truth, and wasn't a sleazy bastard?

Or is it the case that most politicians lie, lie repeatedly and aren't ashamed to do so unless they are caught? And that most partisans only forgive their friends' lies, never their enemies'?

What the hell is a "backbone administration" anyway?

Posted by: PJ on September 18, 2003 10:06 PM

The love affair of American left-liberals with Saddam Hussein and with Islamist radicalism is difficult to understand, unless you grasp what left-liberalism is all about. It is about a deep, sick, poisonous hatred of all that most Americans hold dear: liberty, honor, family, decency, country. I can hear the yowls and squeals of the left now. But c'mon folks, the apologists for Saddam Hussein and Yassir Arafat are the same people who defended the Soviet Union against the "western imperialists": the Gore Vidals, the Noam Chomskys and all the other fans of Communist genocide.

Left-liberalism belongs in the DSM, the official handbook of mental illness. It is sick, neurotic, abnormal.

All that is old news. But what is embarrassing and distressing is to see people who let their hatred of President Bush run away with them and make common cause with the people who stand for the opposite of all that they hold dear.

Brad, to let your hatred of Bush to allow you to make common cause with the Vidals and the Saids is comparable to the Robert McCormick Republicans who made common cause with the Axis in World War II. That is what calling for President Bush's impeachment amounts to.

Posted by: Joe Willingham on September 19, 2003 12:23 AM

And obviously everybody who voted for the impeachment of Nixon was involved in a torrid love affair with the Khmer Rouge.

Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer on September 19, 2003 04:21 AM

"The love affair of American left-liberals with Saddam Hussein and with Islamist radicalism is difficult to understand ..."

Since there is none, must be really difficult to understand indeed ... Squaring of the circle ...
Oh, but wait? They have a mental illness ...
But of course! Duh ....

Posted by: OJB on September 20, 2003 01:56 PM
Post a comment