Orchestrated dishonesty

I guess what gets me most is the orchestrated dishonesty.

Of course, I'm talking about the latest salvos fired by Georgie and Dickie over the war spending bill they intend to veto soon. As quoted in the NYT:

"Instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political statement," Mr. Bush said Tuesday morning before leaving for New York. "That's their right. But it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country."

Mr. Cheney was even tougher as he spoke to reporters after a private weekly lunch for Republican senators. He lashed out at Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who delivered stinging comments of his own on Monday, portraying Mr. Bush as being in denial about the war and saying Mr. Cheney had tarnished his own office.

"What's most troubling about Senator Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism," said Mr. Cheney. "And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat. Maybe it is a political calculation."

Good God, I think my head's going to explode!

The relentless repetition of talking points, smears, misdirection, and outright falsehoods in these two quotes demonstrate, in microcosm, everything that makes it oh so surreal that these men hold the titles they do. I mean:

"Instead of fashioning a bill I could sign..." Because that's the proper role of Congress (in a dictatorship), isn't it - to do exactly as King George says, regardless of irksome things like election results? The arrogance, the sense of entitlement in those eight little words is staggering. Especially since the man's plans and predictions (back when he enjoyed the lockstep loyalty of a rubber-stamp legislature) have all been proven right so far.

"...the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops..." Well, actually, the Democratic leaders have proposed even more money than our Dear Leader originally requested, ostensibly to better equip our men and women in uniform (finally) for the job they're trying to accomplish. Whatever that may be. So wouldn't vetoing the bill be delaying funding? Isn't it actually Bush himself who's willing to gamble with the lives of American soldiers, and all because he doesn't want to be held to any benchmark whatsoever, almost four years after declaring "mission accomplished"?

"...and they chose to make a political statement..." As if an Administration defined by the most rank, underhanded, divisive partisanship has the right to accuse anyone of being "political." I suppose that little "statement" We the People made last November was just some easily-dismissible partisanship as well.

"But it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country." Now who can argue with that ol' rallying cry. "Gimme a U. Gimme an S..." Except what has this Toy Soldier in Chief done, exactly, that's benefited our troops and our nation? Invaded a sovereign nation with no provocation for the first time in American history? Abandoned the legitimate search for the architects of 9/11 to pursue a colonial excursion based on fabricated evidence and lies? Made the Red White and Blue into a global pariah while actually swelling the rosters of terrorist organizations? Continued to send young men and women to their deaths in the midst of a civil war we helped to unleash, just so he can say in his autobiography that our inevitable withdrawal didn't happen on his watch?

"What's most troubling about Senator Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism..." You know, we simply have to change the language used when discussing Iraq. It cannot be framed in terms of "victory" or "defeat," "win" or "lose," and continuing to do so only prevents us from ever getting to the facts about our presence there. We are an Army of Occupation, caught in the midst of a centuries-old religious war our "leaders" clumsily let out of the bottle. And the next time I hear some chicken-hawk Conservative refer to sensible deployment of our military and the inclusion of diplomacy in our struggle against international terrorism as "defeatism," I may just exercise those 2nd Amendment rights and show him what "defeat" really means!

And finally, "...the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat." Think of it this way: A new pediatrician in your community has made 100 wrong diagnoses of his first 100 patients. This abysmal track record has been well documented, and is common knowledge throughout town. If your child gets sick, are you going to take her to this doctor for an examination? It almost seems to me that, given the 6-year track record of every Republican from TV pundit to think tank member to the President and VP themselves, if Cheney is against the timetable it's probably the exact thing we should do.

But then, I'm sure I haven't told most of you anything new here. As I've said for years, there is one vital step which must be taken in Washington before we can even hope to make things better in our nation and our world. It is the one thing without which nothing - and I mean nothing - will change in the foreseeable future. And that is the removal of the Bush Administration by whatever means necessary.

As if it weren't already crystal clear, the petulant President's latest refusal to acknowledge the voices of Congress and the American people should make it obvious that his dismissal must be Priority One. Until that happens, there's no point in pretending all the bills and hearings and non-binding resolutions in the world will amount to anything more than wasted time.

And as each additional, wasted day passes, another soldier is killed or maimed, another vengeful enemy is created, another Iraqi civilian is displaced or exterminated. Time for all of us to remind our elected legislators each and every day that without that crucial first step, all their agitated maneuvering means nothing.