The Lonely Goatherd Blog And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats - Matthew 25:32
Up to the minute notes on the current state of free thinking and free living: Kentucky moonshine - original analysis and reporting from MoreThings, and all round pop culture museum of sight and sound - photo galleries, mp3 and video downloads.
Al Barger and MoreThings - getting people's goats since 1998.
Live free or die!
----
I wouldn't want to ask people to just give me money cause they like my website, but do please take a quick look at Barger's Boutique. You might find yourself a little something-something for 2 or 3 bucks that you just can't resist! Any of the round images you find around MoreThings will get you to an Amazon page to buy my stuff and help ol' Al keep the lights on.
Links
To explicitly state the obvious, these external links go to interesting and provocative websites, but they speak for themselves. I don't necessarily agree with anything they say - especially that no-goodnik Richard Marcus.
*************
All original content on MoreThings.com copyright 2008 Albert Barger or the respective authors
July 30, 2003
A Machiavellian 16 word rope-a-dope? The "16 words" flap has puzzled me. To recap, in the State of the Union address in January, President Bush said that British intelligence had reported that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium in Africa last year.
For weeks now, the Democrats and the media have been just BESIDE themselves with furious accusations that the president LIED. They want blood. The Washington Post had a big front page article how this flap has caused a big drop in Condoleeza Rice's reputation. LIE, LIE, LIE. Howard Dean is demanding that people be fired.
Thing is, Bush's 16 words were absolutely true and correct. British intelligence did say that Hussein was attempting to buy uranium, and they are still sticking by their story.
American intelligence on this story was mixed, with one guy reporting back that the information was incorrect. Considering that it was a case for war in a SOTU speech, you might reasonably argue that even this one sentence buried in the middle of an hour plus long speech was somewhat questionable. The fact that he specifically said that the information was from BRITISH intelligence, however, might reasonably be seen to imply that our people hadn't confirmed it. At worst, this item constitutes a slightly questionable judgment call.
The FACT that Bush's 16 words were totally TRUE does not, of course, dissuade the opposition from screaming their bloody heads off. That's not real puzzling or surprising to me. Further, they've had one defense that does seem legitimate, which leads to my puzzlement.
If what the president said was true and above board, then why are they acting like they've done something wrong? Why was Ari Fleischer out apologizing? Why did they send George Tenet out to accept responsibility when there's been nothing done wrong? Huh?
This does seem pretty odd. The administration has a perfectly reasonable defense, yet acts like they've been caught at something. This doesn't make any sense. You can hardly get a politician to accept responsibility for things they've done realy, really wrong, so why would they be apologizing for things that are NOT wrong?
Gentle readers, I have a theory. I'm not saying that it's necessarily true, but I'll just throw it at the wall and see if it sticks:
Perhaps the administration has purposely chosen to draw fire for a minor issue. It's just enough that Democrats and media will find themselves irresistably drawn to the chance to smear Bush- at least it became irresistable once Bush's people started acting like they were vulnerable. It's a rope-a-dope, causing the opposition to pound themselves bloody, and wear themselves down.
Naturally the Democrats and the media have spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of column inches carrying on. LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE. Democrats have been SO anxious to come up with a good excuse to say this that they just can't help themselves.
Yet it's not going to fly with the American public. They hear all the carrying on, but anyone who's not a partisan Democrat and doesn't have a pathological hatred of Dubya will just blow this off. It's one line, and that one line wasn't what sold any significant number of people on supporting the war. Plus, the words are easily demonstrably true. The shrill, hysterical eagerness of these half-assed attacks on the president aren't impressing the average guy, who would be more interested in knowing what exactly the Democrats would do instead.
Meanwhile, this 16 word lightning rod for criticism was reaching full charge just before the 9/11 inquiry report came out. There's considerably more real danger to the administration in the contents of THAT than in the SOTU. The kid gloves treatment of the Saudis looks FAR more questionable to me. I am MUCH more interested in the missing 28 pages redacted from the 9/11 report than the 16 words of the SOTU.
The 16 words flap is something like a flu vaccination, building up some immunity from criticism by drawing the opposition into blowing their credibility on some petty nonsense. They have wasted their time and ammo on something that ain't going to get them anywhere. Moreover, their predictably hysterical reactions are cutting into their credibility such that many people won't listen to them even if they come up with totally warranted criticism of something else, such as our relations with the Saudis.
This theory has a twisted Machiavellian air about it. It's a backwards way of making sense of the administration's reactions to 16-words-gate, but it's the most sensible explanation I've come up with.
