Saturday, November 19, 2005

The Week's Talking Point


Oh how I love it when the Administration reveals it's "Talking Point of the Week!" It is always a source of amusement to me to unravel the word strands that are wrapped around the current nugget.


We are meant to hear only the oft-repeated and emphasized "nugget word" such as this week's "re-writing history." It's as much fun as getting "the word of the day," but much richer for further amusement.


It's like having a mini mystery to examine every week! The quest is to discern the truth from the web of surrounding words the "nugget" is wrapped in and see what you have left.


They make it pretty easy as it's easy to check their assertions from the print and video record. I think they assume that fluoridated water has keep us short of memory and devoid curiosity.In this they are "misunderestimating" us. It seems, however that they themselves either have selective memories or have overdosed on fluoride (or something else) as they constantly deny having said things that are on video tape for all to see!


Lucky for them the MSM also seems to be mentally foggy when it comes to a good analysis of what actually matches the facts. They fail time after time to question blatant points of error.


We, however are at our leisure to analyze to our content.
This week we have the "rewriting history" accusation being thrown around by the very people who have done their best to rewrite our history! Is this a cosmic joke, or what?


The first time I noticed this week's talking point was in President Bush's Veteran Day speech in PA. In response to war critics and their assertions that the intelligence had been manipulated, Bush said, "...it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began..." then Bush proceeded to rewrite history by stating "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."


Wrong!


Congress passed P.L.107-243 which declared that the President could use military force on Iraq only if Saddam refused to comply with UN res. 14541, if he sought a second resolution from the UN permitting force be used and if he obtained legislation from Congress to use military force. He was also supposed to keep Congress informed of progress and present to them evidence that force was necessary.


He failed to do all of these. Never was the removal of Saddam Hussein part of the agreement. He signed that agreement yet he violated every requirement he was to fulfill before using military force.


As Saddam had agreed to abide by UN resolution 1441 in September 2002 and the inspectors were back in Iraq doing their work and saying they were satisfied with the co-operation of the Iraqis, all requirements were being met. Yet, on March 17 2003 Predident Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to get out of Iraq or face attack. Where did this come from? The inspectors were forced to stop their work and flee for safety as Bush unleashed an attack two days later.


It begs the question: Why wasn't there an emergency session of Congress calling the President to order on these points? This situation reminds me of a kid who gets the keys to the family car by agreeing to all the family rules then, keys in hand, goes out and does as he pleases, ending up in a wreck.


In the Nov 11th speech, President Bush also makes the assertion "critics are now claiming that we manipulated intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war." He follows with the statement .". a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgements related to Iraq's weapons." Here's one of those sneaky maneuvers where two true statements are used but in a deceptive way. The Senate investigation was only part one where they looked at whether pressure had been put on intelligence people to come up with slanted information. It did not go into phase 2 which was to examine whether the intelligence was manipulated. That investigation is yet to come. So he is misleading us when he claims that the question of manipulation has been satisfied. Another rewrite.


The next mention of "rewrite" was by Cheney on Nov 16. In response to members of Congress demanding investigations into the use of pre-war intelligence, Cheney said, "The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone, but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history." I guess they feel that's exclusively their domaine.


Well, that's it. Once you eliminate the facts from the fiction all that is left is a rewrite of history! I can't wait 'til next week's "talking point!"

Sue Dyer

-->