July 10, 2003
The Meaning of Reflective
Merriam-Webster defines the word “reflective” as meaning “capable of reflecting light, images, or sound waves,” “marked by reflection : THOUGHTFUL, DELIBERATIVE” and “relating to, or caused by reflection.”
Why the English lesson? Because our view of Bill Clinton is marked by his curious circumlocution before a grand jury, concerning his infidelity, that whether he’d had sex “depends on what the meaning of is is.” That became the meme that destroyed him before history, even if it did not cost him his Presidency.
Here is Ari Flesicher on the Niger “yellow cake uranium” that led us to war with Iraq. “So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president’s broader statement.”
What was he saying? After several days reflection, the word reflective has taken on a new meaning.
Bush lied.
Bush lied in his claim Iraq was a direct threat to the United States. Bush lied to the United Nations, lied to the U.S. Congress, and he lied to you.
Bush didn't lie about a blowjob. Bush lied about the most important part of his real job, the decision to commit U.S. troops to risk their lives. So far, 6,000 Iraqis have lost their lives in that war. I mention that because the Administration now claims 9/11, in which 3,000 died, as its justification for the Iraq War. Since May 1, the day Bush said on national television that hostilities ended, 45 more U.S. soldiers have died. I guess if you can lie about the reason for a war, a lie about when it ends doesn't mean much to you.
Since the war, of course, the Administration has been moving the goal posts, hoping history will still record a touchdown. It wasn't whether Hussein had enough weaponry to threaten us, but whether he had any unconventional weapons at all. (A lie.) The war was about "liberating the people of Iraq" from a tyrant. (A lie.) We have secret intelligence proving we are telling the truth. (A lie.)
What's more important, war and the death of thousands, or a blowjob? What is more deserving of removal from office, the death of thousands or a blowjob?
Republicans say a blowjob.
What do you say?
Posted by Danablankenhorn at July 10, 2003 11:35 AMExcellent post.
I saw a great line yesterday, “When Clinton lied, no one was killed.”
BTW - this Ari quote in the NY Times is a real freak-out.
“I think the American people continue to express their support for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein based on just cause, knowing that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons that were unaccounted for that we’re still confident we’ll find,” Mr. Fleischer said. “I think the burden is on those people who think he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.”
Nice. So since I thiught the WMD stuff was a lie all along, it is now *MY* responsibility to prove that it wasn’t.
Bastards!
Posted by: Robbie D at July 10, 2003 01:14 PMDon’t just get mad. Get even. Get involved.
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at July 10, 2003 01:54 PMGreat recap of what is wrong with Bush’s public statements. I don’t want to sound like I’m undercutting your criticisms, but isn’t there such a creature as a “political lie” where a politician plays up certain facts or plays down others in order to make his case to be as convincing as possible. Perhaps it’s not a lie but simple self-deception. Do political lies belong in a different category? Or are lies just lies?
Posted by: Robert Nagle at July 10, 2003 02:02 PMClinton’s “depends on what the meaning of is is” actually made sense in context, because he was asked if he was having sex with the trollop Lewinsky - present tense - and not just if he had in the past. But Clinton’s big screwup wasn’t getting blow jobs from a chunky intern, it was signing a sexual harassment law — with great fanfare — that allowed accusers to delve into the sex lives of the accused in a way that’s not at all permissible toward the accuser, and then failing to abide by the conditions of that law. So he was hoist by his own petard, or hung on the gallows of his own hypocrisy. But Clinton’s not president any more, so we don’t care about any of that any more.
Iraq was in possession of uranium yellow cake, and it was in possession of the means to enrich it into bombs, and we have hard, physical evidence of these things, so the question of the uranium coming from Niger or from some other place never struck me as all that interesting, and whether the war killed 2000 Iraqis or 6000 Iraqis or 10,000 Iraqis doesn’t seem all that great compared to the number of Iraqis Saddam himself killed, exiled, and tortured: a million or so.
But let’s not rewrite history: Bush didn’t say that Saddam had the means to wipe out the US already, he said he was working towards that end, and it would easier to deal with him now than later. That’s why you all complained about “pre-emptive war,” remember?
Posted by: Richard Bennett at July 10, 2003 04:07 PMMr. Bennett is attempting to rewrite history.
It reminds me a lot about the Georgia flag debate. The KKK flag was added in 1956 because of Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. But there was a “cover story,” a public claim it was to “honor Confederate veterans.” Everyone knew it was a lie, everyone knew the truth, but decades later that lie still haunts us.
Mr. Bennett has now done the same thing. He gives us a “cover story,” created after the decision, meant to cover up the decision’s predicate.
That predicate was that Saddam Hussein was a clear, present, direct threat to the United States, due to the quantity of unconventional weapons he had at his disposal. That was the basis upon which the U.S. Congress acted.
But the cover story (delivered after the vote) will soon be found to have been a lie, too.
No one is arguing here that Saddam Hussein wasn’t evil. But there are many, many evil dictators in the world.
Charles Taylor of Liberia comes to mind. So does Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. When was the last time our Egyptian or Saudi “allies” held an election? How many people has Mr. Musharraf murdered?
And who supported Saddam Hussein in the first place? Who gave him the means? Who put those weapons in his hand?
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Evil is often just evil. That is the key lesson we must learn. When you dance with the devil you grow a tail.
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at July 10, 2003 09:03 PMYeah, well, don’t forget that
(a) Bush is also directly responsible for the deaths of countless thousands of Iraqi soldiers and some number of Afghan civilians, who doubtless had other plans for their lives, and
(b) Clinton also lied when he told Lewinsky “I won’t cum in your mouth.”
Posted by: Wes at July 10, 2003 09:18 PMRichard,
Your argument is dead in the water. It doesn’t matter what Saddam *had* at some time. You sound like Tony Blair when he says he is sure we will find “evidence” Saddam had some WMD plan.
That’s not the kool-aid we were sold. We went to war because we were told there was immediate danger.
It was a lie Richard.
You guys are finished.
Robbie D
Posted by: Robbie D at July 11, 2003 10:47 AM
