Political Grandstanding
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong, and 100,000 people have paid with their lives -- 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies,"
George Gallaway, member of British Parliament testifying in front of the U.S. Senate in charges brought against him that he somehow profitted in the Iraqi oil-for-food program, came out with this sample of buffoonery.
I don't know if he profitted from the oil-for-food program. I don't know if he had anything to do with it, and the evidence against him could very well be very flimsy. He could be completely innocent and showing up just to clear his name, and he might succeed. To be honest, the senator to whom he was speaking, Norm Coleman, isn't someone I hold in high esteem either, so my opinion of the whole show is a debate among mental midgets and much ado about nothing, except the innocence or guilt of George Gallaway, which does matter on some level, especially for him. Still, whether innocent or guilty, the above statement ranks as one of the more moronic things I've heard in a long time.
Let's start with the "pack of lies", and work our way backward. There was, admittedly, one wrong statement made based on faulty intelligence. It is the statement which everyone who opposes the war hangs their hat on. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or at least if there were, the evidence hasn't been found. To lie, doesn't one have to know the statements one is making are false? Being wrong and lying are not the same, and I think the difference comes into play here. True, ignorance is no excuse, but it also doesn't constitute a lie. I think the powers that be in the U.S. Government made decisions based on faulty intelligence. I very much doubt they lied on this point, and I'm still looking for the rest of the "pack of lies". I'll give him this. "Pack of lies" sounds really good, and why let the truth get in the way of a good phrase?
Has our collective memory of life before the Iraq war been completely erased? Am I one of the few that remembers Saddam Hussein's shell game on the subject of weapons of mass destruction? First the inspectors (who were supposed to be there based on concessions from the first war) could come, then they couldn't, then they could and they'd show up at a site to be inspected, only to be turned away...but they could come back next week. The scenario played out over and over again in a cycle of suspicion, frustration and appeasment. If there were truly nothing to hide, why the stupid game? This behavior only made the perception that there was something there grow even more. I know it made me think he was hiding something, and I'm pretty sure it solidified the collective perception that there were weapons of mass destruction for most of the world. You cannot tell me that those who opposed the war weren't pleasantly, yet very surprised when nothing was found. I don't know anyone who is for a war, but sometimes you don't have a choice. How many times do we get to relive the lessons Adolph Hitler taught us with relation to appeasement and trying to stay out of a confrontation at any cost?
The other liberal mantra is that we really went into Iraq for the oil. Well, if that were the case, why don't we have it? Does anyone seriously doubt our ability to take it, if that was the real objective? Why are we trying to help the Iraqis control their own destiny in a democratic form of government? Why is there no pipeline directly from the oil fields of Iraq to my gas pump? Why isn't Iraq the 51st state? Why are we paying $2.25 a gallon for gas? The answer that the rest of the world wouldn't stand for it is valid, but we knew that beforehand. Since that's the case, why fight that war for oil if you know, once you win, you still can't have it? Even W isn't that dense. Oil may be a factor, but it isn't the factor. If it were, I would think Betsy Ross's great great great granddaughter would be sowing the 51st star on old glory, even as I rant.
But I digress. Back to the buffoonery. "In everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong." This is impossible. If I make a statement on a subject...any subject, you are uninvolved. If I make a statement, there is only one person with an opportunity to be right or wrong, and that person isn't you. If I say, "That car is a nice shade of blue." and it turns out to be orange, you weren't right or wrong. I, and only I, get to be a color blind ignoramus who can't tell his ass from a Cheerio. You do not. Mr. Gallaway could argue that statements Norm Coleman made about Iraq were wrong, but I don't know that Mr. Coleman ever expressed an opinion on the Iraqi situation. Maybe Mr. Gallaway has some documented quotes I missed, but in any case, Norm Coleman can't be wrong about opinions expressed by George Gallaway. That isn't possible. Next we can move on to absolutes and how stupid it is to go there. To say, "in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right," I'm sorry, but nobody's that good, and certainly not you, George Gallaway.
George Gallaway, member of British Parliament testifying in front of the U.S. Senate in charges brought against him that he somehow profitted in the Iraqi oil-for-food program, came out with this sample of buffoonery.
I don't know if he profitted from the oil-for-food program. I don't know if he had anything to do with it, and the evidence against him could very well be very flimsy. He could be completely innocent and showing up just to clear his name, and he might succeed. To be honest, the senator to whom he was speaking, Norm Coleman, isn't someone I hold in high esteem either, so my opinion of the whole show is a debate among mental midgets and much ado about nothing, except the innocence or guilt of George Gallaway, which does matter on some level, especially for him. Still, whether innocent or guilty, the above statement ranks as one of the more moronic things I've heard in a long time.
Let's start with the "pack of lies", and work our way backward. There was, admittedly, one wrong statement made based on faulty intelligence. It is the statement which everyone who opposes the war hangs their hat on. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or at least if there were, the evidence hasn't been found. To lie, doesn't one have to know the statements one is making are false? Being wrong and lying are not the same, and I think the difference comes into play here. True, ignorance is no excuse, but it also doesn't constitute a lie. I think the powers that be in the U.S. Government made decisions based on faulty intelligence. I very much doubt they lied on this point, and I'm still looking for the rest of the "pack of lies". I'll give him this. "Pack of lies" sounds really good, and why let the truth get in the way of a good phrase?
Has our collective memory of life before the Iraq war been completely erased? Am I one of the few that remembers Saddam Hussein's shell game on the subject of weapons of mass destruction? First the inspectors (who were supposed to be there based on concessions from the first war) could come, then they couldn't, then they could and they'd show up at a site to be inspected, only to be turned away...but they could come back next week. The scenario played out over and over again in a cycle of suspicion, frustration and appeasment. If there were truly nothing to hide, why the stupid game? This behavior only made the perception that there was something there grow even more. I know it made me think he was hiding something, and I'm pretty sure it solidified the collective perception that there were weapons of mass destruction for most of the world. You cannot tell me that those who opposed the war weren't pleasantly, yet very surprised when nothing was found. I don't know anyone who is for a war, but sometimes you don't have a choice. How many times do we get to relive the lessons Adolph Hitler taught us with relation to appeasement and trying to stay out of a confrontation at any cost?
The other liberal mantra is that we really went into Iraq for the oil. Well, if that were the case, why don't we have it? Does anyone seriously doubt our ability to take it, if that was the real objective? Why are we trying to help the Iraqis control their own destiny in a democratic form of government? Why is there no pipeline directly from the oil fields of Iraq to my gas pump? Why isn't Iraq the 51st state? Why are we paying $2.25 a gallon for gas? The answer that the rest of the world wouldn't stand for it is valid, but we knew that beforehand. Since that's the case, why fight that war for oil if you know, once you win, you still can't have it? Even W isn't that dense. Oil may be a factor, but it isn't the factor. If it were, I would think Betsy Ross's great great great granddaughter would be sowing the 51st star on old glory, even as I rant.
But I digress. Back to the buffoonery. "In everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong." This is impossible. If I make a statement on a subject...any subject, you are uninvolved. If I make a statement, there is only one person with an opportunity to be right or wrong, and that person isn't you. If I say, "That car is a nice shade of blue." and it turns out to be orange, you weren't right or wrong. I, and only I, get to be a color blind ignoramus who can't tell his ass from a Cheerio. You do not. Mr. Gallaway could argue that statements Norm Coleman made about Iraq were wrong, but I don't know that Mr. Coleman ever expressed an opinion on the Iraqi situation. Maybe Mr. Gallaway has some documented quotes I missed, but in any case, Norm Coleman can't be wrong about opinions expressed by George Gallaway. That isn't possible. Next we can move on to absolutes and how stupid it is to go there. To say, "in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right," I'm sorry, but nobody's that good, and certainly not you, George Gallaway.
John put this out here at 7:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home