I’m growing increasingly frustrated by the Bush team’s accusation that folks are “rewriting history” simply because they’re looking critically at information that was put forward by the administration to further its agenda. If you ask me, that whiny, Because-I’m-the-daddy-that’s-why attitude is a big, fat cop-out. What’s more, it’s a rhetorical dead-end: in W’s garbled lingo, asking questions of the administration’s motives and/or actions is tantamount to high treason.
Maybe I don’t read as much as some of you, but I have yet to find an article that really tackles this issue. I can’t believe I’m the only one who sees the flaws in Bush’s arguments. I mean, Maureen Dowd seems to loathe everything about Bush, and even she hasn’t said anything about it. It’s as though everyone assumes (a) he’s right, and (b) there’s something inherently wrong about re-examining “facts.” Of course, given that a close inspection of the “facts” of the 2000 presidential election–not to mention the endless (and fruitless) investigations of former president Clinton–would probably prove disastrous for Bush and the Right, I’m not really surprised.
Yes, I know: I’m preaching to the choir. And yes, I know: politics are dull. But they pay me to sit at this desk, so I gotta look busy.
sturtle [dot] com 