Seriously folks, they must have been kidding. Remember, they said we'd won the war in Afghanistan, gotten rid of the Taliban and that we could move on to Iraq? There we were victorious as well, especially after "the surge"; security could be left in the hands of those crack military teams we trained for years. And President Bush repeatedly assured us, "we don't torture." The supply of hilarious claims is endless. Is anybody laughing?
The more earnest denials from the former administration are, the more ludicrous they appear. Claims of triumphant strategies and ignorance about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda when President Bush took office do not comport with the evidence at hand both then and now. In a recent interview with Sean Hannity at Fox Vice President Cheney was still claiming that little was known about Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 despite the explicit warnings set forth in the Hart-Rudman report. Along with proponent-in-chief Cheney, other defenders of Bush policies include former Attorney General Mukasy and former CIA Director Hayden both of whom seem less concerned with confirming their national security bona fides than protecting themselves from scrutiny and public censure
Perhaps because it was commissioned by President Clinton, the report was set aside - - ‘I'll have Cheney take a look at it when he has time,' the president said. But to suggest there was no information about the threat Al Qaeda posed is to bathe in the murky waters of the former vice president's fanciful reminiscences. Similarly, Condoleezza Rice testified before Congress that no-one imagined terrorists would fly planes into buildings. But author Tom Clancy seemed to have realized that possibility when he wrote The Sum of All Fears, some years before. Simply put, nobody was paying attention.
Today the Taliban is spreading its influence across Afghanistan; Pakistani armed forces don't much want to engage them along the Afghan border; they control an area just sixty or so miles from Kabul, the capital. And Afghanistan's democratically elected president, whose sphere of influence is limited to Kabul, is considered an American stooge, his administration distinguished by its tolerance for corruption. In Iraq, where security forces seem unable to cope, suicide bombers kill civilians, police trainees and whoever's handy.
Having pretty much lost the national-security debate Republicans try to change the subject by changing the names of things - - "cap-and-tax", "death tax" and so on. They are even trying to rename the Democratic Party the "Democrat Socialist Party." Amusingly, though, polls and election results seem to indicate a rejection of what Republicans are selling, often by small margins, but negative territory nonetheless.
In Minnesota, Norm Coleman hangs on despite repeated rulings that Al Franken won the senatorial election. Less dogged in defeat, Republican Jim Tedesco conceded to Scott Murphy in the special election to fill Kirsten Gillibrand's House seat from upstate New York, a district where Republicans outnumber Democrats by sizeable numbers. There may be some disagreements about where President Obama is taking the country, but there is even less enthusiasm for where we've been and where Republicans might lead us. If it weren't for the relentless right-wing rant that consumes so much air time it might be possible to engage in rational debate and forgo the jingoistic maneuvering that has no purpose other than to delay and obstruct.
There aren't always two sides to a question, just right and wrong, truth and lies, or as Bill Maher put it "sane and insane." After all it just isn't possible to reach agreement with people who deny the influence of human factors on climate change or insist that torture isn't torture if it doesn't include maiming or end in death. Rush Limbaugh slapped himself on air the other day, joking about whether slaps should be considered torture. Well slapping Rush around may not fit the current definition of torture, but there might be a few folks who wouldn't mind participating in an experiment to find out for sure.
During a discussion by a TV panel of mental health professionals about murder suspects, their motives and the mindset that allows them to commit acts of violence, one psychiatrist observed that it was possible they simply had no conscience. It may be that a similar character flaw exists among some of our politicians and their media advocates - - a disturbing but very real possibility that could explain why lying comes so easily to some of them and how they can defend making terrible decisions that cause death and destruction with such righteous indignation.
One more thing.
One more thing