How Can He Just Keeping Saying That?

George_w_bushHe’s saying it again.

How can he keep saying it again?

Via Pandagon:

President Bush, defending his troop surge in Iraq, insisted Thursday that the insurgents attacking US troops in Iraq “are the same ones who attacked us on Sept. 11.”

Bush was speaking at a White House press conference on the same day an interim progress report on his troop surge in Iraq was released. Asked for proof of the connection between insurgents in Iraq and the 9/11 hijackers, Bush said both had pledged their allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

“The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq are the ones who attacked us on Sept. 11,” Bush said.

1984orwellOceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

How can he keep saying this? Didn’t he already have to admit that this wasn’t true, that Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11? Isn’t that one of the basic rules of debate and public discourse — that once you admit you’re wrong about something, you don’t get to keep saying it over and over as if it were plain fact?

I mean, this is just laughably pathetic. Or it would be if it weren’t so appalling.

I hereby propose a new law, possibly even a Constitutional amendment: The President of the United States is not allowed to say, in public, things that he freakin’ knows for a fact are not true.

Comments

  1. says

    But does he know for a fact it isn’t true? Are you giving him too much credit?
    I can’t decide if he’s a moron or pure evil. Moron. Evil. Moron. Evil.
    Which is worse?

  2. stephen gottlieb says

    george bush is a political puppet of the oil cartels. He has to say something to defend his illegal, unethical and immoral war against a basically defenseless nation. this is the best kind of war for a warmonger, long, bloody, pointless and totally unwinnable within the limitations of “acceptable behavior” during wartime. the only way we actually win this war is to incinerate entire cities whenever anybody attacks us in any way. Mass murder would work to end the hostilities, but it would take millions of deaths and untold, catastrophic destruction of an entire culture. being as we are unprepared to do that, we need to go home, but an end to war without victory is embarrasing for our monkey of a president. to put it succinctly, we are screwed.

  3. says

    “He has to say something to defend his illegal, unethical and immoral war against a basically defenseless nation.”
    I understand that. But why does he have to keep saying the same thing in defense of his illegal and immoral war — Iraq was responsible for 9/11 — that he’s already admitted wasn’t true? Can’t he make up a new lie? Can’t he say that Iraq was responsible for Hurricane Katrina, high rates of heart disease, “Firefly” being cancelled? Anything?

  4. Emile says

    “But why does he have to keep saying the same thing … that he’s already admitted wasn’t true?”
    Somehow this comment sparked a tip of the tongue moment for me that I hope someone can help me out with. I can vividly remember reading something (Orwell? Solzhenitsyn?) where the author was pointing out that opressive governments don’t tell bald-faced, ridiculous, obviously wrong lies through incompetence. They tell them because their ability to assert falsehoods and be taken seriously demonstrates their power over you.
    It’s why Bush wins every time he says something like that and CNN doesn’t play the clip of him acknowledging the truth side by side with it. It’s why the Daily Show is, really and truly, the only actual political news show now. It’s why I’m so ashamed of my country.

  5. Eclectic says

    Unfortunately, “things that he freakin’ knows for a fact are not true” allows the out of stupidity. And boy, W sure has a lot of stupidity to go around. (IMHO, leave Bush alone; prosecute Cheney and Rove.)
    However, I’ve long had a similar wish, but with a more pragmatic phrasing: whereas a well-informed electorate is an indispensable precondition to a functioning democracy, a politician may not not WILFULY lie to his or her constituents.
    Now, “wilful” is a well-understood concept in law, and it has three degrees:
    1) Deliberately. An act is wilful if you intended for it to happen.
    2) Recklessly. An act is reckless if you disregarded the consequences, or arranged a state of deliberate ignorance of the consequences.
    3) Negligently. An act is negligent if you have a responsibility to take precautions against the consequences and failed to do so.
    The point being, the President has a DUTY to be informed about things like the reasons for wars. “I didn’t know” isn’t good enough; with the office and oath comes a responsibility TO know.
    I don’t know if I can ding him for deliberately lying, but I can almost certainly say he recklessly lied, and with absolute certainty say that it’s a negligent act.
    I think I ranted before: I think impeachment is the absolute minimum the current administration deserves. I think the current executive has, with their reckless adventurism, given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States within the meaning of Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
    No, not deliberately. But if the Commander-in-Chief doesn’t have a responsibility to anticipate the geopolitical effects of military action, then what the fuck IS his job? Hey, everyone! Let’s get involved in another land war in Asia! But just to make it fun, let’s not pick a country full of impoverished peasants with a pre-existing civil war, but one that’s actually moderately stable in a powder-keg part of the world!

Leave a Reply