Researching the
Downing Street Memo is not good for your blood pressure. But let me show you something:
From the Chicago Tribune:
But the potentially explosive revelation has proven to be something of a dud in the United States. The White House has denied the premise of the memo,
the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war.
All of this has contributed to something less than a robust discussion of a memo that would seem to bolster the strongest assertions of the war's critics.
In the U.S., however the account has drawn only passing attention, even in Washington, where the debate over prewar intelligence on Iraq once dogged the White House. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and Iraqi scientists have told U.S. inspectors that any weapons Iraq did possess were destroyed years ago.
A "dud". Wait, there's more:
The fact that we were misled regarding WMD's is hardly news. The fact that the intelligence was flawed and probably invented to fit the situation isn't anything new either. So what's the big deal?
And this is what the Atlanta Journal Constitution had to say (via Jeff Boatright):
Mr. Parko,
I can assure you we are not a mouthpiece for government. It's not news that
Bush lead [sic] us to war based on lies. The administration said long ago that
there were no WMD and we reported that on the front page many times.
Angela Tuck"
And the
kicker
A recent Gallup Poll showed that 50% of the American public believe that President Bush "deliberately misled" them on Iraq and WMDs.
See, nobody cares because it's nothing new. Everyone knows Bush lied. The media, the American public. Yeah, we know he broke the law by making us bleed blood and money for an illegal war. We know that. So, like, actually reporting on it is, like, totally passe.
If it ain't a lie about a blowjob, it just isn't worth harping on.
I would like to quote from a member of Congress, just to put things into perspective:
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be here today. I wish I could just ignore all of this and make it go away.
But I have a responsibility to answer a question today and that question is: How will history judge our actions that we take today?
I believe that this Nation sits at a crossroad. One direction points to the high road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant.
This path relies on truth, justice, and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.
Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us; when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.
Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter how unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential law breaking, forgive and forget, move on, and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system?
No man is above the law and no man is below the law. That is the principle that we all hold dear in this country. The President has many responsibilities and many privileges. His chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of this land. He does not have the privilege to break the law.
The American system of government is built on the proposition that the President of the United States can be removed if he violates his oath of office. This resolution simply starts that process of inquiry. Did the President break the law? And if he did, does that lawbreaking constitute an impeachable offense?
Closing our eyes to allegations of wrongdoing by voting `no,' or by limiting scope or time, constitutes a breach of our responsibilities as Members of this House. So let history judge us as having done our duty to uphold that sacred rule of law.
Makes sense, doesn't it? The President has a duty to uphold the Constitution, to not abuse his power, since not even the President is above the law.
By the way, the above-quoted flashback brought to you by Tom Delay, circa Oct. 8, 1998, in the debate authorizing a committee to bring up impeachment charges against President Clinton. (sorry, no link, a Thomas search expires).
And so, we keep getting abused. Administration lies are met with no resistance, so they keep piling them on. They got away with launching a war and getting re-elected to boot; can you imagine the powertrip they're on? Can you imagine how the President feels when he looks in the mirror, Mr. Cowboy, Mr. Toughguy, beating the pulp out of America on a daily basis while America just turns the other cheek and says "Please, sir! Can I have some more!"
The nation has taken the path of least resistence. It's easier to sit back and take the spin than, ugh, actually having to confront and challenge it. It's easier to say "Yeah, he lied, so what?" and just not pay attention to the flag-drapped coffins. It's easier for the media to be a lap dog and gush over Laura's horse masturbation jokes than, oh, I don't know, printing the full text of the Downing Street memo.
So, when history judges us, as Tom Delay said on the House floor in the shadow of a stained blue dress...when history looks to the carnage, the slow sapping of the American soul, what will be written? That our America is ok with a President lying--about war, not sex. That our America is ok with being misled--because we don't think we deserve any better. And that our America was filled with cowardice, not courage, in the face of systematic and horrific abuse.
crossposted at akou