Under the title, ‘Iraq and the ‘L’ Word’, Washington Post Op-Ed columnist Richard Cohen discusses the issue of dishonesty within the Bush Administration. This is a worthy and legitimate discussion no matter who is in the White House, as it analyses the actual behavior of the administration rather than getting derailed with rhetoric and accusations. The fact that Democrats may or may not have actually called Bush a ‘liar’ seems to be far from the point as he discusses the larger issue of whether or not the President of the United States of America and his cronies behaved dishonestly (i.e. Lied). Reasonable people would presumably find the larger issue more important. Reasonable people who, when faced with overwhelming evidence and a sincere concern for the welfare of the country rather than undying devotion to a Republican President, wouldn’t be so foolishly bent on staring at the lines in the road that they missed where they were really going. Would they?
We shall see…
On the same page as Cohen’s article, under the ‘Who’s Blogging?’ section, I linked to a fearless little man who managed to do just that. So I figured that, since this is the Free World and I happen to have a few blogs and a hatred of people who post dumb things without allowing anyone else to post comments, I would dedicate a blog post to him. In fact, this has inspired me to offer him the Chuckin’ Down exclusive, Little Man of the Day Award.
Keith D. Milby was kind enough to tell Mr. Cohen, ‘Nice try’ by claiming that Democrats have, in fact, called Mr. Bush a ‘Liar.’ This was done with great ease (because that’s how the internet is) and glibness (because that’s how Keith is) and without any sources (because that’s how a Little Man is).
Considering that there are probably a million others ways to call a person a liar without actually calling him a one [sic]. Though I think it is a rule that politicians don’t explicitly call each other liars. In that lying and politician are two words that go really well together. Then you could get technical and say that everybody else but members of congress has called the President a liar and or [sic] course the most extreme of the party never hesitated to use the phrase “Bush Lied, People Died”.
So Mr. Cohen, nice try on splitting hairs, but I am not buying it. The democrats have staked out their claim on the losing side of this war and will be unable to share in the victory that is and will be Iraq. Of course as politicians they will certainly try.
Just so I’m clear on this, did the honorable Keith just miss the larger issue (and point of the article) that dishonesty has lead the US, UK, and other countries into war? Did he just accuse Richard Cohen of ‘splitting hairs’? Did he just say that ‘politician’ and ‘lying’ are well-suited toward each other? Did he just concede that the Bush Administration may have actually behaved dishonestly in their efforts to invade Iraq? Did he just suggest that the Democrats, unlike him, will not be able to enjoy ‘victory in Iraq’, whatever that may be?
Here’s to you, my daft Little Man.
Mothslayer,
Thanks for your thoughts on my thoughts of Mr. Cohen's article.
To be clear, I was just commenting on one particular aspect of the article. That was the point that Mr. Cohen was making that the democrat congressmen/women had not called the President a liar.
As far as the larger part of the article, I consider it to be bogus. The information that was used to justify taking Saddam out was the same information that Clinton and the congress used that made it US policy to remove Saddam from power. The same information that the UN used to pass all of those resolutions before we took him out
More importantly the fact that Saddam violated the peace agreement that was signed at the end of the first gulf war that kept us from going in and taking him then.
So thanks for the debate.
Also, sorry for all of the grammatical errors in my post, sometimes I don't take all of the time I should when making a post.