It's Not a Bomb--It's a Device that Exploded

If I recall, some idiot French government official explained the bomb that destroyed Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior this way. Aside: Another great moment in French political discourse in the early 1990's concerned a legislator who was indicted in a bribery/soccer game-fixing scandal. After protesting his innocence for almost a year, he changed his plea to guilty just before trial, received a slap on the wrist, and later claimed to have "lied in good faith." Man, that's almost as good as Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling over at Enron.

But the real comparison is Team Bush. Whod've thought they'd adopt a French approach to parsing oratory. Josh Marshall held a contest recently to highlight the disengenous claims by Bush regarding his assertion that Iraq is an imminent threat. Actually, Bush is not taking the lead on this, but I'm tired of keeping up with the myriad spinners, either under his direct employ, or those who work on the private side. Besides, it's time Bush took command of the ship. Given that he's the Commander, for chrissakes, he needs to lead. And a good leader assumes responsibility.

So, regarding the latest word game: imminent threat, did he say it or not? Like Bill O'Rielly and the Peabody/Polk Award controversy, the administration and their helpers are trying to parse talking points--did Bush say the words? Did he? Well, did he? Find a transcript that has the exact phrase "imminent threat" uttered by the president...

(This is sort of like Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is...)

Marshall's contest, which I entered but likely won't win, is more than a simple exercise in gotcha journalism. By asking for reader submissions, he's found a SIGNIFICANT number of statements that, taken together, are as damning to the Bush presidency as the blue dress was to Clinton's.

I encourage folks to read the article from The Hill. Compare the statements Marshall cites with the spin points they're now hawking. It seems as if they are relying on the collective amnesia of the public to maintain a business-as-usual demeanor that seriously flies in the face of reality on the issue of Iraq.

The fact is, Clinton DID have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. The fact is, Bush DID seriously exaggerate the threat from Iraq. Which one has done more damage to the country?

Final note: A couple of weeks ago on CSPAN, I happened across a focus group session conducted by Pat Caddell, the bigtime Democratic pollster. What frightened me was that several folks are STILL mad at Clinton, apparently because of their embarrassment at having see sexual references on television/explain said references to their kids. Actually, I'll bet it's much more likely that they had to endure having their kids see overt references to oral sex on television . As a single adult with no children, I sometimes forget that parents often adopt very--uh, parental approaches to everything. Duh--after all, parenting IS a full time job, making working parents automatic double-shifters. But I'll admit to being a little troubled by this. Yeah, it can be uncomfortable when kids see/hear references to decidedly adult topics. But is that anymore uncomfortable than having hundreds of American soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis, die because of a foolish, wrongheaded, and ultimately destructive policy that has the additional effect of alienating the crap out of the world? Sorry, parents--there's really no comparison, no matter HOW embarrassed you might be.