
It's official: Hypocrisy is
annoying, but never fatal. A recent clinical
trial in which George W. Bush blurted out the
most hypocritical sentence ever uttered by a
human being produced no ill effects to the
subject. Rumor has it that hypocrites run a high
risk of cerebral hemorrhage. Fortunately, there's
no evidence that blood ever reaches the subject's
brain.
Yes, dear friends, just when
you thought you heard every lie, distortion, and
hypocritical statement in existence from Bush and
his henchmen, last Tuesday saw an utterance leave
Dubya's mouth that blew out the windows within a
twenty block radius and rendered the White House
uninhabitable for several months - but, luckily
for Bush and company, the current condition of
White House only presents a danger to mammals.
And what was this statement
that sent scientists around the world scrambling
to recalibrate their hypocri-meters? It came in
response to John
Kerry's claim that some foreign leaders privately
support his candidacy.
On Tuesday during a news conference with the
Netherlands' Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende,
Bush challenged Kerry to offer proof of this
alleged support by detonating his own backpack:
I think if you're gonna make
an accusation in the course of a presidential
campaign, you ought to back it up with facts.
Of course, Kerry made an
assertion, not an accusation, but both words
begin with an "a," which is good enough
for Bush. Is it possible to speak English as a
second language if you don't have a first
language?
Let's examine Bush's statement
from two angles. First, we'll look at the
political strategy involved. Then, we'll put on
our welding masks and discuss the hypocrisy..
I'll admit that I'm perplexed
as to why Bush's people chose this issue as the
one they wanted to challenge Kerry on, but the
motivation is simple: Bush is looking for Kerry's
"Internet" issue. In the 2000 election,
much was made by Bush and Republicans in general
about Al
Gore's alleged statement that he invented the
Internet. Nevermind
that Gore really said that he took the initiative
in creating the Internet, which anybody
associated with its creation will tell you is
absolutely true. Republicans took this statement,
twisted it to make it sound like Gore said he
actually designed the Internet in his basement,
and proceeded to beat him over the head with it
throughout the 2000 election. Man, what a nut
that Gore is! He actually thinks he invented the
Internet! I'd better vote for the alcoholic draft-dodger
guy who can't pronounce "nuclear." And
the rest is history.
Four years later, with
absolutely no issues to run on, Bush is
attempting to produce an issue to make his new
opponent look nutty. The problem with trying to
convince us that no foreign leaders are closet
Kerry fans is that nobody believes it, not even
the Republicans. Here's a quick list of possible
foreign Kerry supporters:
1. Spain's new prime minister-elect,
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Here's a quote:
The
war (in Iraq) has been a disaster, the occupation
continues to be a great disaster . . . Mr. Bush
and Mr. Blair will have to reflect and engage in
some self-criticism, so things like that don't
happen again.
Gee, who could read that
statement and believe that Zapatero wasn't
solidly in the Bush camp?
2. Polish President Aleksander
Kwasniewski. His latest
quote:
I
personally think that today, Iraq without Saddam
Hussein is a truly better Iraq than Iraq with
Saddam Hussein. But, naturally, I also feel
uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled
with the information on weapons of mass
destruction . . . We were taken for a ride.
Another staunch Bush fan sounds
off.
3. The leaders of Russia,
China, France, Greece, Germany, India, Indonesia,
and every Middle Eastern nation except possibly
Saudi Arabia.
Read the link.
4. A majority of people in the
civilized world.
Link
again. My fingers are
getting tired.
Anyway, you get the idea. Not
only is Kerry's claim of private support from
foreign leaders most likely true, but given the
state of the world, Bush's implied counterclaim
that he has the unwavering support of every
foreign leader is absolutely ludicrous. If only
Bush could figure out a way to cut the taxes of
foreign leaders . . .
Okay, now to hypocrisy. Let me
repeat Bush's statement from Tuesday:
I think if you're gonna make
an accusation in the course of a presidential
campaign, you ought to back it up with facts.
I wonder if Saddam Hussein read
this quote in the paper? I'm guessing he didn't,
because I'm pretty sure I could have heard the
sarcastic laughter even from half a world away.
Here's a little refresher for
those who may have been watching Fox News for the
last couple of years. In the run-up to the Iraq
War, the Bush administration accused Saddam
Hussein of the following:
1. Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction.
2. Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda.
3. Hussein represented a grave and gathering
danger, whatever that is.
All three of these accusations
were backed up with absolutely no facts. We now
know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
We have always known that Saddam Hussein, the
leader of secular Iraq, and al-Qaeda, who wanted
a religious Iraqi state, were enemies. We also
know that Saddam Hussein was no danger to anybody
outside of his own country. Despite this, the
Bush administration stood before the world and
presented these baseless accusations as facts.
The chain of events that followed is a matter of
record: The
United States has since lost 577 soldiers, with 2,868
soldiers wounded. It
has killed untold thousands of Iraqi soldiers and
civilians, with
no accurate figure available because it refuses
to count them. It has borrowed
at least $107 billion
from its children and grandchildren. It has pulled
resources away from the fight against terror. The
war has been used as a recruiting tool by
terrorist groups,
increasing their strength and making us less safe.
And despite the complete absence of factual
support, Bush
continues to make the baseless assertion that the
war in Iraq is a war on terrorism to this day.
Even in the unlikely event that
Kerry made up the statement that he has the
private support of some foreign leaders, it doesn't
even show up on the 'baseless accusation' radar
screen, which is currently overwhelmed by Bush's
accusations about Saddam Hussein.
So, what does Bush believe
should happen to a presidential candidate who
makes accusations without facts to back him/her
up? Should people stop supporting the candidate?
Should that candidate drop out of the race?
Should the candidate throw his/her support to the
opponent? I really think Bush should clarify this
right away. And when he's finished describing how
any candidate who makes baseless accusations is
not fit to be president, Bush could pass out
Kerry buttons to his supporters. They could wear
them on the inside of their lapels, where they
can' t be seen. I hear that's where most of the
world's leaders wear them.
3/20/04
Unless
otherwise noted, all original content and
headlines are © The Angry Liberal . Contact The
Angry Liberal for
reprint rights.
|