Rewriting History

"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." — Robert F. Kennedy, 1925 - 1968

From the mouth of Dana Perino, with no objection from Sean Hannity and his pals: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term."


(YouTube video)

That extraordinary lie is insulting to our entire country. We won't forget that the attacks on September 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3000 people, and the subsequent anthrax attacks, and the 2002 Beltway sniper attacks all happened under the careless watch of President George W. Bush.

I only mention the Beltway sniper attacks because if anybody wants to call the Fort Hood shootings an act of terrorism, then we also must call the Beltway attacks an act of terrorism.

And I'll tell Perino what she owes the American people: the truth or shut up.

My Suspicious Mind

I can't accept good news without feeling a bit suspicious. For example, today the Guardian reports that the US plans to station diplomats in Iran for the first time since 1979. This news is a remarkable shift from President Bush's attitude two months ago when he equated talking to Iran with appeasement.

But wait. What's Congress doing? Trying to pass a strongly worded piece of legislation (H.CON.RES.362) demanding that "the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by... prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

Despite the statement that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran", it could easily be confused for exactly that. After all, it calls for stringent inspection requirements which mean a naval blockade which would of course involve the use of force.

But wait. Now one of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Robert Wexler, is saying he made a mistake. He now plans to amend the bill adding language "highlighting a more effective American strategy that calls for direct engagement with Tehran for the purpose of thwarting Iran's nuclear weapons program and ending its support for international terrorism."

Wexler also states "I fully understand and share the American public's mistrust of President Bush and his administration, which has abused its executive powers, willfully misled this nation into a disastrous war in Iraq and disturbingly continues to beat the Iran war drum."

So I have to wonder why he sponsored the bill in the first place.

What also puzzles and surprises me is that Condoleezza Rice has been a major proponent of negotiations with Iran all along. Her push for diplomacy makes me hopeful that maybe she at least learned something from the Iraq war... But wait. No. She is still proud of the decision to invade Iraq. Yeah, it's a scary thought that Rice could be our last, best chance for peace.

Meanwhile, Dana Perino keeps repeating the same stuff about how Iran must do what we say before we will negotiate. Makes me wonder if she understands what the word "negotiate" means.

So forgive me if I'm suspicious of any good news.

Loyalty

Which is more important? Loyalty or honesty?

The release of the bombshell book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception by former press secretary Scott McClellan is causing Bush's inner circle to freak out.

McClellan's scathing memoir offers many revelations: Bush relied on propaganda to sell the war, the liberal media was too easy on the Bush administration, and Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity.

In response to these accusations, Karl Rove compared McClellan to a left-wing blogger. This must be a new technique for Rove -- disarming his opponent with an unexpected compliment.

But most White House supporters are resorting to personal attacks. Dana Perino called McClellan "disgruntled." Fran Townsend slammed him with "self-serving, disingenuous, and unprofessional." Pat Buchanan called the memoir an "act of disloyalty."

Disloyalty -- a scathing label either spoken or implied -- at least in the Republican lexicon. The Republican brand of loyalty is what holds them together and has made them strong. However, don't be fooled into thinking that their loyalty is to a cause or an idea. Their loyalty is to the party, the candidates, and their careers.

Because those in power always value loyalty over honesty. A loyal follower is a team-player and an asset. An honest person might become a trouble-maker or a whistle-blower like Scott McClellan.

McClellan told AP News "I felt it was important to step back from my personal affection for the president and take a good hard look at the truth. The truth isn't always pleasant."

And I think the American public always has a right to know the truth from the people who serve them. Honesty should be expected. Loyalty to the people, the constitution and its principles should be demanded. That's the brand of loyalty we need.