[Vision2020] Little News in Woodward's Latest (Molly Ivins)

[Tom Hansen]

>From today's (October 9, 2006) Spokesman Review -

-------------------------------------------------------------

Little news in Woodward's latest 
By Molly Ivins

October 9, 2006

The Old War Criminal is back. I try not to hold grudges, but I must admit I
have never lost one ounce of rancor toward Henry Kissinger, that cynical,
slithery, self-absorbed pathological liar. He has all the loyalty and
principle of Charles Talleyrand, whom Napoleon described as "a piece of dung
in a silk stocking."

Come to think of it, Talleyrand looks pretty good compared with Kissinger,
who always aspired to be Metternich (a 19th-century Austrian diplomat). Just
count the number of Americans and Vietnamese who died between 1969 and 1973,
and see if you can find any indication he ever gave a damn. 

As for Kissinger's getting the Nobel Peace Prize, it is a thing so wrong it
has come to define wrongness - as in, "As weird as the time Henry Kissinger
got the Nobel Peace Prize." 

Tom Lehrer, who was a lovely political satirist, gave up satire after that
blow. 

The War Criminal's return is the only piece of news I have yet found in Bob
Woodward's new book, and what amazes me is the reaction to the work. Gosh,
gasp, imagine, Woodward says the war's a disaster! 

People who know a lot more than Bob Woodward have been saying the war's a
disaster for years - because war is self-evidently a disaster. Why this is
greeted as an annunciation from on high just because Woodward, the world's
most establishment reporter, now says so is a mystery to me. 

I have read snippets here and there suggesting the self-important chattering
class of Washington is massively resistant to admitting they were wrong
about Iraq, and that you only have credibility as a critic of the war if you
were for it in the first place. I missed a logical link there. I know how
vain the chattering classes are, but the majority of the American people has
since come to conclude they were wrong about the war - and they say so
without feeling disgraced. 

What's wrong with the Washington press corps? Speaking of people who have
trouble with the truth, here's a recent George W. line from two weeks ago I
particularly prize: "There's kind of an urban myth here in Washington about
how this administration hasn't stayed focused on Osama bin Laden. Forget it.
It's convenient throwaway lines when people say that." 

How do these urban myths get started? Perhaps with GWB on March 13, 2002: "I
don't know where bin Laden is. . You know . I just don't spend that much
time on him. . I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about
him."

Or as Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on
April 6, 2002: "The goal (in Afghanistan) has never been to get bin Laden. .
The goal there was never (to go) after specific individuals." Donald
Rumsfeld: Bin Laden has been "neutralized." And Vice President Cheney: "Bin
Laden himself is not that big a threat." 

And etc., etc. We got two straight years of quotes from officials all across
the Bush administration pushing the idea that Osama bin Laden is just a
minor player, we're not hunting him, the war on terror is a much larger
deal, and so on and so forth. You know, it's one thing to tell a whopper
yourself - it's adding insult to injury to call the people who point this
out liars themselves.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Vandalville, Idaho

*****************************************************************

"Sins can be committed in ignorance, and the fact that they were committed
in ignorance doesn't cause the sin to just disappear . . . "

- Princess Sushitushi (September 10, 2006)

*****************************************************************