Oops, Our Bad
From the Boston.com News:
The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.
Well, isn’t that a surprise? And, of course, Bush will suffer no repercussions from this, will not drop an iota in popularity, and will not suffer from the fact that he blatantly lied to the American people and sent more than thirteen hundred American soldiers to their deaths, thousands more maimed and crippled, and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead because of those lies.
The article ends with:
Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq’s weapons was wrong.
And by golly, they’re going to get to the bottom of this!
This is why I’m not reading the news so much any more. The sheer sickening vileness of the Bush administration, and the ignorant, sheeplike following it enjoys is just too much to take sometimes.
Oh, and yes–it looks like Armstrong Williams was not the only member of the press on the take–he let slip that “This happens all the time. There are others.” And you wonder why we’ve been calling the media whores to the Bush administration?
Where is the democratic opposition shoving this into Bush’s face?
I don’t get it. If they don’t point out his mistakes, no one else will – then they are complicit in a one party state shill.
The issue is competence and honesty and professional conduct. They should be doing their level best to make Bush look inept. Its really not that hard with this group.
I think the Dems need a dynamic leader to be the face of the party. Someone who can serve in some function, relatively safely in terms of re-election, but also someone who comes across well to the general public- especially that crucial middle group of “undecided” voters.
Kerry’s out, he’s a stiff. Pelosi looks like a bug-eyed freak and is from the city that let gays marry, so she’s out. Kennedy is the grandpa of the party but has way too much history.
To be frank, if he wanted the job, Bill Clinton would be the best guy for it… but he probably doesn’t want it because he’s got skirts to chase and his heart to rehab.
Maybe Edwards… that might be a good pick, except that he’s going to run again for President and therefore would have too much opposition in the party.
Still, I like the notion of a “shadow cabinet” that would have a strong, dynamic leader, and some experts, who could not only pick apart the Republicans’ stupid ideas, but also present clear, concise, logical, and beneficial Democratic alternatives.
Too bad it won’t happen.
Paul
Enumclaw, WA
I like a lot of the observations you make on your blog, but I do think that Bush’s support is more insecure and restive than you suggest.
I checked on some surveys (the best I locked was at CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/poll/), though I was trolling for Zogby, and Bush is considered to be doing well these days at a hair plus 50 percent.
I do think there will be repurcussions for the conservatives, and I hope they’re soon on there way. I would, however, agree that there seems to be little change in the short run.
I know what you mean; there seems to be such a disconnect from reality sometimes. Luis, I don’t know if I mentioned this before, but you need to read “Terrorism and Tyranny” by James Bovard.