Spurious George on His Own
By Karen Kwiatkowski*
huffingtonpost.com
02.09.2006
When George W. Bush tells lies to the American people, he usually has an official and patriotic-sounding excuse. The country forgave him for the disastrous trillion dollar invasion of Iraq. That was just bad intel from the Agency and stupid advice from Chalabi and Wolfowitz. The poor planning in occupied Iraq was all Rumsfeld's fault, you see.
Incredibly, much of America is still willing to follow salivating and bloodthirsty chicken hawks like Richard Perle into Iran. In fact, many seem to feel, as Perle recently noted, that the bad intelligence we had on Iraq in 2002 only PROVES we ought to invade Iran right away, before we know any more, and take Khuzestan, home to 90 per cent of Iran's oil.
Bush's latest lie, however, is different. "I don't know Abramoff" marks a new phase for our disingenuous president. It's almost as if he is lying about sex, given the "who cares" factor, massive evidence to the contrary, and the sheer stupidity of the denial. This Bush lie cannot be explained away by the incompetence of the CIA, or fabrications of his war-hungry neoconservative advisors, or even the verbal screwups his defenders find so charming.
Deny, deny, deny and deny again is the Rovian battlecry, and a time tested political strategy. But knowing or not knowing Abramoff isn't a national security issue, or a budgetary issue, or a social security reform issue, or a Medicare debacle issue. It has nothing to do with FEMA's incredibly screwy Katrina response. It does not relate to the ongoing destruction of the United States military capability, accompanied by a record-breaking and secretive military budget. It doesn't have to do with torture of illegally held and uncharged detainees. It doesn't concern illegal electronic sweeps conducted and analyzed by the NSA on the President's orders in lieu of FISA court orders. It doesn't have a thing to do with what young George was or was not drinking and snorting when he was assigned to the National Guard in the early 1970s.
Now - all of these things are important enough that the president felt he had to lie, early and often. So why in everything that is sacred in Washington should the President lie about knowing Abramoff? Some may think that Bush is a man overcome by the habit of lying. Others might conclude that his advisors are frozen in the lie-deny mode and in the heat on the White House with investigations at Justice and in the House, they reverted to type. Still others may believe that Bush's denial of a friendly relationship with Abramoff is a sign the White House sees an iceberg of scandal that could rip their ship of state wide open.
But I think the story of the unknown Abramoff is just a cute little lie that Bush thought up all by himself. Bush has been a bush-league fabricator, more often than not a slave to verbal dyslexia, and the mendacity of his speechwriters and his Vice President. But in Year Six of Our President, George may be emerging from his shell, coming into his own as a liar. I'm really looking forward to hearing Bush expatiate on how he saved Los Angeles through his illegal domestic surveillance program, how he brought democracy to the Iranian oil fields, and how he singlehandedly won the Long War. Aren't you?
__________________________________________________________
*Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D, is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform in the upper echelons of Pentagon. She shared her story about what went on during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq with the American Conservative Magazine and Salon. |
