Cynicism aside, there was a time when getting caught in a genuine, impeachable lie was a big deal for the President of the United States. But we are all five years of Hell gone from that reality. The thing that astonishes me these days . . . I mean truly leaves me gaping in disbelief, is the fact that no one even reacts anymore when it is proven, yet again, that the President has lied to us.
Now, let's get beyond all of the things we know are lies but which can't be proven. I mean, we know that Bush lied about his time in the Texas Air National Guard, and we know he lied about why we went into Iraq, and we know he lied about how well he knew super-lobbyist-turned-indicted-bribery-co-conspirator-and 1940s-fashion-clothes-horse Jack Abramoff. Let's just get past those. In the old days, each of those would have been a major controversy, but these days, they shrink to nothingness in the truth-killing-fields that are the public face of this White House. No, let's go back to the things we know they've lied about:
Bush said he would fire anyone in the White House who was responsible for outing an undercover CIA agent. It was proven that his political handler Karl Rove did it. He's still there.
The White House Press Secretary, Scott Mclellan, said that Karl Rove personally verified that he had nothing to do with the Valerie Plame leak. Either Scott lied, or Karl Rove lied. My personal bet is that they both did. Karl lied to Scott, and Scott, knowing better than to believe him, lied to all of us.
Bush lied that no one had told his administration about the possibility that Hurricane Katrina could have breached the levees in New Orleans. We have the emails and messages proving otherwise. We even know that the government did it's own computer modeling of what might happen, and it showed things that were even worse than the tragedy that did occur in that city. And George W. Bush lied to us about it.
And we all know he lied about his Texas Air National Guard service. No, really, we do know that. Remember the memo that got Dan Rather to resign and got CBS News producer Mary Mapes fired? The one that showed that Bush's CO in the Guard was trying desperately to get him to come back and fulfill his BASIC SERVICE REQUIREMENT?? We know he lied about it. Yeah, Dan Rather and CBS News apologized for having 'poor judgment.' The only poor judgment they showed was attempting to tell the truth about the character-black-hole that is our current president with documentary evidence. See, the rabid fuckwits over at Little-Green-Footballs and Instapundit and all the other right wing internet 'conservative-playhouse' commentator sites know exactly what to do with evidence. They prefer innuendo . . . it's much more damaging and hard to resist, but they certainly know how to deal with evidence. They twist it. They fold it. They take a fact and, oragami-like, turn it into a 'possible forgery' and besides, this guy doesn't like Bush, so how can you trust him? It's all sick. They know Bush bailed on his service. And they descended on CBS news like one of the plagues of Egypt brought down upon Pharaoh. (By the way, Amy Goodman over at Democracy Now is in the middle of a terrific, two-day interview with Mary Mapes about the truth about the TANG memo and the events after it was published.) The conservative blowhards descended upon CBS news in a locust-swarm and caused so much damage that CBS, fearing genuine retribution from the White House, backed down . . . and admitted a mistake, even though their own reporters stood behind the report. We know Bush and his White House lied about all of this. We know it. What do we look like, idiots?
And yet, there he was, Dan Rather interviewing the source of the memos, former commander in the Texas Air National Guard, Bill Burkett. And Dan Rather went after him, on air, and got him to admit publicly that he had lied, not about his own belief in the validity of the memos, but rather in where he got them. And Dan Rather, finally finding journalist balls, asked him this question: "You lied to us. Why would I, or anyone, believe that you wouldn't mislead us about something else?"
It's a devastating question. And Mr Burkett had no other response but to accept it as valid and hope people would continue to trust him. Bill Burkett lied about where he got the memos, because he was pressured to provide a name that CBS News could verify with an iron-clad guarantee, so they would be protected from a vicious White House that is proven to go after enemies like pit bulls with stomachs full of halapeños. But still there is that question at the end. You lied to us. Why would I, or anyone, believe that you wouldn't mislead us about something else?"
Why should we believe you? George W. Bush has blatantly lied to the American people on at least three occasions that we can verify. And most people believe he has lied to us many, many more times, that we cannot. So I see a story this morning on CNN about how George W. Bush is explaining the importance of his method of fighting terrorism by explaining how he and his administration prevented a terrorist strike along the west coast of the United States in 2002. (He wants us to be OK with him spying on us and destroying our civil liberties, you see.) And the news agencies report it, and say not a word beyond that.
And last week we saw U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sitting before a senate committee, also trying to justify the illegal wiretaps of the administration, and he explained that he could talk about most of the details because the program (or programs!) are a matter of national security.
And we see Scott Mclellan continuing to give press briefings, and we see Secretary of State Rice talking about international security issues, and we see all the members of this administration out in front of the press and the public, earnestly making their case.
And we see George W. Bush give a bullshit state-of-the-union address, followed up by a bull-shit budget proposal that (oops) forgets to add in the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (cough . . .lies by omission) And how does the media respond? And how does the public respond? They ask for details. They ask for justifications. They ask for context.
What they should be asking BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE GETS SAID, is . . . . "You lied to us. Why would I, or anyone, believe that you wouldn't mislead us about something else?"
So, Mr Bush, and Ms Rice, and Mr. McLellan, and Mr Cheney, and Mr Rove, and Ms Hughes, and Mr Hadley, and all the rest of you . . . why the FUCK should we believe anything you say??
I'm really waiting for an answer. And you don't get to ignore the question.