As soldiers die, Bush’s lies and half truths are coming to light.
By: Hank Kalet
Everyday some bit of news arrives that further clouds what had expected to be a foregone conclusion. More and more though for very different reaons George W. Bush resembles his father, the 41st president of the United States.
George the First is notable for having been a one-term president who had been riding fairly high in the polls less than two years before he had to stand for re-election. That was after a rather swift and convincing victory in Iraq.
Then came the economic meltdown of 1992 and the rest, as the first President Bush knows all too well, is history.
One has to wonder if history is repeating itself. Each new death in Iraq seems to be accompanied by new questions about the president’s credibility. About 100 Americans have died in Iraq this month at the same time that people like former terrorism czar Richard Clarke publicly criticizes the president and his administration for blowing the Iraq threat out of proportion at the expense of al-Qaida and the unveiling of a memo indicating that, perhaps, the administration should have taken al-Qaida more seriously before 9/11. And there is the matter of the Bob Woodward book that claims our fearless leader decided to attack before discussing it with his advisers (in particular, Secretary of State Colin Powell) plus the lack of those pesky weapons of mass destruction.
So here we are, watching the bad news erode faith in a popular president, watching the lies and half-truths erode his credibility, possibly cutting short what Bush the Second may have thought was a promising shot at four more years.
It’s his own fault, really. He could have just told the truth about why he wanted to invade Iraq, then the Senate could have nixed the invasion and we could be focusing our attention on more important matters. But that’s just not his style.