foolmenot.comThis article is the best… My friend Eric J. Greene, who is paid quite handsomely by the Battle Creek Enquirer(no relation to the National Enquirer) comes right to the point; I love this guy. I used to think he was nuts but now, the new me, understands him… Eric always gets right to the point which is so great… There is no one better at one-liners than Eric; I don’t think!
I hope he lampoons Dick DeVos soon. Gooo Jen….
Full article follows…
CAPITOL CONNECTION
Bush wants people to
believe he's doing everything by the book
He said there were weapons of mass destruction. There weren't.
He said we'd easily win the war in Iraq. We didn't.
He said we'd catch Osama bin Laden. We haven't.
He said we were prepared for Katrina. We weren't.
He said no one foresaw the levee breach. They did.
He said America doesn't torture. We do.
He said America doesn't have secret prisons. We do.
He said America doesn't spy without oversight on domestic soil. We do.
He said his Medicare plan was sound. It wasn't.
He said he doesn't tolerate leaks. He does.
He said he'd control spending. He didn't.
He said he didn't know Jack Abramoff. He does.
He said he appreciates a free press. He doesn't.
He said he won't politicize science. He has.
He said he won't politicize religion. He has.
He said he had political capital to spend. Not anymore.
The amazing thing about George W. Bush isn't that he lies — telling the truth is an increasingly less common act these days, especially in the gray world of politics — but that he's lying when he could otherwise get away with simply telling the truth. He'd have more support in Congress and across the nation if he had just maintained the in-your-face honesty he championed a few years ago.
In 2000, love him or hate him, Bush was elected largely because he was viewed as a man who meant what he said.
At first, the plain talk strengthened his fan base as the American people got to know a president who seemed so different from others in the past, particularly Bill Clinton, who labored over the definition of "is."
Bush let it be known that he doesn't stay up late, work on weekends or read newspapers. True or not, many people loved the notion that they had a president who left work at work and spent a lot of time vacationing.
Spending: He was going to cut it, whether you liked it or not.
Energy and environmental issues: He was doing it his way, period.
Politicking in Washington, D.C.: He didn't like it and he wouldn't do it.
About the time that endearing simplicity might have worn off, terrorists attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and the straight-shooter-in-chief got an extended honeymoon.
As Americans squealed in delight and squirmed in fright, Bush said he wanted them thar terrorists dead or alive; he'd smoke 'em from their holes if he had to light the fire himself.
Again, like it or not, no one questioned whether Bush meant what he said. In itself, that was a refreshing change.
But something strange and as yet unexplained happened after the invasion of Afghanistan. Just when he had the world on his side, Bush decided to take his bravado-driven ratings for a spin around the globe. And it was only when Americans started questioning the president — something they hadn't done in earnest until the Iraq war buildup in late 2002 — that the administration adopted a new homefront public relations strategy, that being to make believers of the people at all costs.
It became less about doing it his way, and more about keeping the political troops in line and the political enemies hamstrung.
Using tactics honed in Texas, where he attacked opponents on their strengths instead of their weaknesses, Bush has habitually challenged legitimate criticism by declaring it completely untrue and denigrating the source of the criticism.
Watching the charade is like watching a conversation between a father and his rebellious teenage son.
"Son, I understand you were in a car accident tonight."
"No I wasn't. Who told you that? The police? Well, the police are lying."
And then a glance at the damaged car in the driveway reveals the truth: There was a crash and it was a bad one. Inevitably, the kid confesses.
The difference with Bush is he never lets the public see the car in the driveway until they've already fought, pressured or sued to get a look for themselves.
Sadly for the state of public discourse, Bush wants to forge his own way as a president and, despite the direct contrast with his practices, wants the people to believe he's doing everything by the book.
How different our national debates would be if Bush simply said, "The book's no good. We need to write a new book so we can torture terrorists and catch them on our home soil. Oh, and we need to topple Iraq because (insert true reason here)."
Then we'd have a real debate that civil Americans would appreciate. Should we torture terrorists? Should we let the government spy on our library habits? Should we ignore Geneva Convention rules sometimes? Should we invade Iraq? Should we fight a multi-front war against a subjectively defined concept?
Of course, those are complex discussions that don't easily or quickly reach consensus.
And Bush has never had much use for that, either.
Eric J. Greene is metro editor. He can be reached at 966-0687 or egreene@battlecr.gannett.com. Read his blog in the News Extras area at battlecreekenquirer.com