Friday, November 18, 2005

"You Mean There Weren't WMD's?" "Who Knew?" "Everybody!"

This is another boring political post, so if you're a humor fan I suppose you can just tune out now if you want. Or you could read it anyways and feel free to throw in your two cents. I'll even try to make it somewhat entertaining. Here goes:

Lately members of Congress, apparently smelling blood in the water, have been circling the White House, swimming ever closer and closer to the Bush administration, and, when they feel the time is right, the slowly crescendo-ing music of John Williams growing ever more urgent, they dive in to bite off a gigantic chunk of flesh from the wounded administration, their rows of serrated teeth ripping through the skin and sinewy muscle tissue, crushing bone, like, well, if you hadn't gotten the analogy by now, sharks.

And pretty much, this makes me happy. I am not a Bush fan. Oh sure, I voted for him. But that was only for two reasons. 1. The Supreme Court, and 2. The Democrats were apparently sitting this one out with the inexplicable nomination of Kerry. So now that ├╝ber-intellectual John Roberts is firmly ensconced, and we've narrowly avoided a catastrophe, what with Alito replacing Harriet Miers, my goals for Bush have reached fruition. So from here on out, the less of Bush's legislative agenda accomplished, the better.

Swim little sharks, swim.

Yes, with the Court leaning a little further to the right, I'm content to look forward to 2008 when I'll be able to feel comfortable voting for a Democratic candidate. I hope. I really really hope. Unless, of course, McCain runs. Then it'll be a very tough choice.

But until then, I say we need to minimize the Bush agenda, and low approval ratings and constant fighting between the White House and the Capital is the best way to keep Bush from moving forward.

So I generally approve when Congress criticizes the President.

But their latest attacks are simply baffling to me. They are now trying to accuse the President of secretly trumping up the case for going to war in Iraq. The accusation is basically that Bush gave Congress, and the nation, only the evidence in favor of going to Iraq - namely WMD's - and tried to keep the evidence against going to Iraq quiet.

I think two points need to be made. First, Congress is accusing someone of using selective evidence to support their position. Basically, accusing someone of making the best case for their position. And that just seems stupid.

Secondly, and critical to their criticism, is the claim that the White House was secretly lying about the strength of the evidence. This too is just stupid. Because everyone knew the White House was lying. It was common knowledge that the evidence of WMD's was suspect. It was common knowledge that weapons inspectors hadn't found any sign of these weapons. It was common knowledge that Iraq was not linked to the 9/11 attacks. And it was common knowledge that the Bushies were lying about all of these things. So how in the world can Congress be pissed off now, two years into the war?

(By the way, on The Colbert Report Stephen Colbert asked precisely this type of question. I think he stole it from me since I'd been asking it for hours, if not days, before he did. Regardless, I'll give him some credit just because his show is so dang hilarious. You should be watching it if you aren't already. Comedy Central, 11:30 Eastern, Monday through Thursday.)

Anyways, at the time Congress made the decision to go to war it was common knowledge that the Bush evidence was suspect. It was common knowledge that Bush trumped up his argument for war with exaggeration, lies, and shoddy evidence. It was common knowledge that there existed plenty of evidence which shows what we know now. So why is Congress upset? They were the ones who chose to trust bad evidence.

If you buy a watch on the street you can be sure that one of two things is true. Either it's not a real Rolex or the vendor is ignoring the fact that the real owner is out there.

If you buy evidence from Bush you can be sure that one of two things is true. Either it isn't real or the President is ignoring the fact that the real evidence is out there.

Yes, Congress, you got ripped off. But you did so willingly. And you certainly didn't get ripped off by the best.

You're getting carried away feeling sorry for yourself
With these revisions and gaps in history


Emily said...

The Postal Service rocks my face off.

Matthew B. Novak said...

They do. They do rock your face off. I've been real into them lately, and this quote just seemed so perfect.

dyk said...

Um, no comment. Because if I were to offer you any sort of rousing agreement for your views, I could legally be sent to jail. Army jail.

Today's verification word: rafmlow

Matthew B. Novak said...

Today's verification word?

I figured you couldn't say anything.

But there seems to be something very wrong with that. I mean, how can it be a threat to our nation for you to speculate that you'd vote a certain way in 2008?

Or that you approve/disapprove of a Supreme Court nomination?

I understand a reasonable limit to free speech for those in the military, but it's gotta be reasonable. How far does this limit go?

the marvelous patric said...

look, it's simple... the military tells its members what to think. for them to do otherwise is unamerican. just like us in the blue states. let's face it, if the president told them that democrats were terrorists and that everyone who voted against him was an enemy of the state, the clone wars would begin and darth vader would be battling at mustefar. dangit... why is it everytime i think about evil i just end up with clone wars?

(for those of you unsure, at least part of this post in tongue in cheek. the rest of me truly does fear that we could be taken over by our own military which is what some argue the right to bear arms is really about. however, as a potential political candidate, i also want to state that i believe that the people actually in our military, not being clones, would never really go along with such a thing.)

dyk said...

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

As you can see, this article applies only to Commissioned officers and in actually perusing (first I've bothered) the UCMJ, I don't see anything that limits the speech of enlisted soldiers in any other way.

I'm actually reassured by the limited scope. I'd like to think that there might be some designed leniency for free speech among the citizens who volunteer to serve in the armed forces.

If I read that right, I can bad mouth the Secretary of State all I want. And the Senate, fair game. That Secretary of Transportation is lucky, though, I had some words for that guy.

dyk said...

I forgot to add that the only reason I knew about that article was the commercial I've been seeing with increasing fequency on AFN. It's almost as if somebody has something to worry about...