Is the truth now only an academic concept good for nothing except a discussion of philosophy? And if not, how are we to determine when the president is telling us the truth and when he's conveying a carefully crafted message that may contain elements of truth but is actually a lie? These are the questions that rose to mind in watching the president's speech this week. It was a good speech, delivered with a straight face. But it was just another statement that lacked any credibility. While many were analyzing the speech in the context of 9/11, I couldn't help but relate it to what was happening on the following day. Namely, Primary day. And I couldn't help wondering whether he was talking to all Americans, or just that slightly slightly smaller group stealing away from the Repiglican Party.
And so it goes with George Bush and his entire administration. He and it have lied about so many things , that now we can't believe anything he says.
And that could be dangerous.
Take, for instance, the report coming out of the UK a couple weeks ago, when British authorities announced the arrests people plotting to blow up airliners bound for the U.S. Was that the truth of a lie crafted to gain Tony Blair and the president good press at a time when the Parliment was getting restless and itchy for Blair's departure date?
Our first thought on hearing the news wasn't one of relief, like dodging a bullet. It was one of skepticism, as in "I wonder if this could be true," ... Blame it on the WMD lie, or the help-is-on-the-way lie during hurricane Katrina, or the Mission Accomplished lie, or the I-won-fair-and-square-in-Florida lie, or the Islamofascits-hate-freedom lie. Or, Hell, just blame it on all the them. Whichever you choose, the fact remains that our Fearless Leader is full of crap and has no credibility.
So how are we to take his words when he tells us to remain vigilant for terrorists who will strike at any time? I mean, he uses he same face whether he's lying or telling the truth. So, when he fixes his audience with that half-bright but sincere expression of his and proceeds to tell us something he thinks we really need to know, my immediate reaction is to make sure I don't have any soda, beer, or milk in my mouth. I hate when I laugh so hard it comes out my nose.
And it's sad to be stuck with a leader whose every utterance is open to question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
After rereading some of the posts on this blog, I realize that I've been sucked in....again. You see, I used to hang out in a chat room that was supposed to talk about wall street, but ended up in a screaming match about the administration and Republicans versus Democrats. I left not only the chat room in question, but the server as well.
As stated earlier this week on this blog, I thought this blog was supposed to be about local politics. If I wanted to read the rants of how a liberal hates the Bush administration and our current President, I could go read the DailyKoz, or the George Soros web site.
You're correct Rat, you have the freedom and right to type and post whatever you want. Just like I have the right to not read or visit the trash you call "insight".
I'm outta here...I've wasted enough of my time
"I thought this blog was supposed to be about local politics."
And, as usual, you were wrong. The description reads "Socio-political discussions of interest to residents of Snow Hill and Worcester County without fear of censorship."
Nowhere does it say "local politics." But, I suspect you know that and are simply using this as an excuse to leave a discussion board that is way above your head.
"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"
Sound familiar?
... yeah, but what does that have to do with the question at hand, which is whether Bush's lies about policies and procedures in his administration have poisoned his credibility in virtually every facet of his presidency?
Wel, yes, the term "National Security" does make me shiver, but it's more like fingernails on a chalkboard. ......And Dick, I just know you can't really believe the First Shrub is a fine, upstanding president who would only lie (something you say he didn't do) for the good of the nation. .... So, if did lie for the good of the nation, which lie was it? Was it the WMD lie? Was it the "Mission Accomplished lie?.... I mean which lie was for the good of the nation? And more to the point, what good purpose id it serve> Hown can lie be for good?
Dick: you have a rich imagination and you must have stayed up all night constructing this scenario, or maybe just ripped it off from a book.... I dunno.
Nevertheless, none of that happened. WHat DID happen was that The First Shrub lied about WMD. .... NO, don't start with that crap about "best available intelligence," because the Downing Street memos and Colin Powell's words clearly show it's not true.. It it's wasn't true, then Bush either lied, or he was so stupid that he didn't understand what his own advisors were telling him.... I'll let you decide which of those two choices is most comfortable for you.
The Mission-Acomplished Lie: Here again, he was either telling a lie, or he was so amazingly stupid that he though hostilities had ended. This, despite advice from many people, including his own father (by comparison a Rhodes Scholar) not to depose Hussein because it would cause a major destabilization in the region that would last indefinately. And so, here we are.
The I-won-fair-and-square-in-Florida Lie: Yeah, we believe that, but couldn't help noticing your brother was governor of the most contested state and ws the boss of the person who certified the results, which were so controversial that the Supreme Court ended up naming a president. That sounds a lot like a political coup to us.
The Post-Katrina lie: No doubt about it, stupidity and utter incompetance top to bottom. But no matter what the state officials did or didn't do, it still doesn't mitigate the federal government's lack of performance. And since Bush is president, the buck stops with him. He is ultimately responsible. Period
Merrywidow:
Welcome to the fray. But please. please change your costume. It really doesn't look good on someone of your age and girth.
SAneman: a merrywidow is a piece of lingerie. It's an older term and may be out of style by now. .... It's helpful to actually learn your native tongue, Saneman
http://www.fredericks.com/product.asp?catalog_name=Holiday2002&category_name=Bridal-Corset&product_id=51141&cookie%5Ftest=1
nope... I just googled "merrywidow" and the site popped up.... frankly, I was surprised that Fredericks still existed.
well, I, at least want them to bend over.... okay, Symmy, don't complain.... you assed ...um, I mean asked.
Uh, Dick.... never let your wife see that thing about "settle." you could be talking like Michael Jackson in no time.
Post a Comment