King George’s lies
According to my Webster’s II New College Dictionary, “reactionary” is defined as, “Marked by reaction, esp. opposing progress or liberalism.”
I’m guessing Andy Stone is as surprised as I am to learn of his conservative opposition. As for being predictable and reactive, that would well define the response expected from right-wing nutcases any time a member of the press dares to suggest anything negative concerning King George.
One would think that a mark of intellectual sophistication is the ability to listen to or read a statement, then examine the facts that concern the statement, and be able to decide if the statement is true or false. If one accepts this as a mark of intellectual sophistication, then it seems that Jay Pate should not be the one deciding who it is that lacks this quality.
“Dubious intelligence” is the Bush administration’s excuse for one of King George’s lies. In actuality, the CIA report on the intelligence concerning the alleged evidence that Iran was trying to buy uranium included information that stated that the letters the intelligence was based upon were, in fact, forgeries.
Perhaps Bush truly didn’t know this; perhaps he skipped that page of the report. In this instance, it would mean he wasn’t lying about this one fact, but is instead criminally incompetent.
“We have a single drop of dubious intelligence, amidst an ocean of clear indications.” Actually, the single drop is just what most American media are concentrating on, while ignoring the ocean of lies.
Bush claimed, before invading Iraq, that they possessed “tons” of biological and chemical weapons, drone aircraft for delivering biological weapons, and inferred that they had long range missiles. He claimed that Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda and intimated that he was behind the terrorist attacks of 9-11.
Perhaps Mr. Pate would care to explain where these WMDs, drone aircraft and missiles are, as our military can’t find them. Perhaps he can show evidence of the (nonexistent) ties to Al Qaeda and how Hussein supported the terrorist attacks, because our intelligence departments could use the help, as they can’t find evidence of any of this.
When you can’t defend your position in an argument, the best course is to attack another position, even if it has nothing to do with what you are defending, thus Mr. Pate’s outrage at Clinton’s perjury.
He is missing the point, however. This is not about Clinton. (For the record, I think Clinton is a spoiled, corrupt frat boy who had a lot more to answer for than perjury, but that’s another subject.)
Clinton’s lie meant that one woman did not get justice in a sexual harassment suit. Bush’s lies meant that thousands of people, including American servicemen, died in an illegal invasion of a foreign country.
I guess I’m a bit of a simpleton, as I can’t figure out why anyone would defend a corrupt scumbag like George Bush. Forget the war, lies, corruption and fraud; the White House said on Tuesday the federal budget deficit would balloon to a record $455 billion this fiscal year.
Three million Americans are out of work. The national debt has grown to almost $8 trillion, after a projected surplus before Bush was appointed to the presidency. More than half the states in our country are facing budget deficits totaling $100 billion.
My one question for those who would defend King George: Are you one of the few who is so rich you actually make a profit off of his actions, or are you just stupid?
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User