Skip to main content

if george says it, it must be true

the more i read the words that come out of his mouth, the more i become convinced that george w bush might be losing his mind. i've passed a certain threshold, because it's no longer even the incoherent, inadvertently hilarious stuff that catches my attention. what concerns me now is what i think he really is saying, where he's not making mistakes.

the cbc today ran a piece on his comments in reaction to a story that the cia is running secret military prisons and refusing to give highly suspect organisations like the red cross access to them, so that the public can rest assured that there is nothing shameful taking place.

you can read the whole story, but i thought that i would treat you to my favourite line (inserts mine):

"Anything we do to that end [protecting the american people from terrorists] in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture."

there is no evidence given, no attempt at even a modest amount of openness, we're just supposed to trust him. i have just one question:

why?

what on earth has george w bush done to win my trust or anyone else's? am i supposed to believe him because he claims to be a good christian? right, because no one has ever claimed to be a principled, religious person and then gone on to do something horrible.

senior members of his administration are being arrested and indicted, popular support for the war he started for reasons that turned out to be specious is dropping daily, he won't actually let an independent test verify what he's saying, but trust him. he couldn't be elected president and be a liar after all.

Comments

Now, now, stop that liberal nonsense. Youre being unpatriotic and those words are treacherous! Support our troops! If we dont support the president, the terrorists wins!

Oh, wait. Were not americans. We say anything we damn want in this country without refering to the constitution. I pity you, you poor americans. I truly pity you.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …