When Albright lied, no one cried
It came up again last night. "When Clinton lied, no one died" - that adorable yet vitriolic little piece of anti-Bush candy was uttered aloud, in all seriousness, just as though it had been established as incontrovertible evidence of Bush's evil. I had thought this to be the kind of quip one finds in speeches given to specially-selected audiences, but I had forgotten how easily people can adopt absurdities as war cries. So now that it has arrived in ordinary conversation, we'd better understand exactly what it means, and what's behind it.The overwhelming supposition, presented as conclusion in this advertising jingle of the left, is that "Bush lied". "What did he lie about?" would be the logical follow-up question, but in this club, if you have to ask the price of something, it means you can't comprehend it. So in the spirit of full disclosure, here's how it goes: Bush lied about intelligence indicating the threat level of Iraq's WMD program had become sufficiently high to warrant military invasion, partly for oil, and partly to avenge his Dad's lack of success in getting rid of Saddam. It is never clear in this line of thinking whether Bush lied about the intelligence material he was given, or whether the intelligence material was wrong, which would mean that Bush didn't lie, but was misinformed. That's a key distinction, but most of those who toss around the new jingle prefer the more seductive hallucination of Bush gleefully misleading the American people for his own pernicious purposes.
The truth is much more complicated, but most people can't be bothered with such 'nuance'; Bush as demon is a much easier explanation for all the perceived failures of one's surroundings. Let's not forget that Clinton himself signed off on pronouncements of Saddam Hussein and his WMD program as highly dangerous and worthy of intervention. Let's also not forget that such tut-tutters as France agreed with the threat analyses. In fact - and this may surprise many of us, who have managed to ignore this reality since March, 2003 - the UNITED NATIONS, that paragon of international brotherhood and communication, issued resolution after resolution informing Saddam that he faced the prospect of being forcefully deposed, based on its very own findings.
In the righteous firestorm of Bush denunciations, the gyrations and contortions of the U.N. have been ignored, suppressed, repressed, willfully forgotten, never even acknowledged. John Kerry's incredibly childish description of the coalition as "Fraudulent" as well as "Bribed" and "Coerced" was willful ignorance at its most accomplished, and only further served to illustrate the ineptitude he hoped to bring to the White House. Barbara Boxer's recent attempt to indict Condoleeza Rice as a lying stooge of Bush contained a lie of its own ("WMD - period."), but it was consistent in its complete denial of reality.
Those of us who support the war in Iraq are accused of complicity in killing American military personnel; as always, the myopic view that waging peace is always better than waging war reigns supreme, no matter how compelling and disturbing the facts are. And no matter how readily everyone agrees that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, no amount of American military deployment is ever justified, according to the anti-war types, unless it is given the blessing of the U.N. and our purported 'allies'.
Those who decry our efforts in Iraq also tend to be in denial about 9/11 itself, of course. It is much easier to imagine that the attacks that day were directed towards Bush himself - never mind the fact that the 1993 bomb was intended to accomplish the exact same thing. According to this view, the peace-loving American people who would never harm a fly agree that every action ever taken by America in the Middle East has been in the name of evil, and must be atoned for. When you take this view, it is even possible to live in New York, having witnessed the attacks, and instead of blaming madmen who hijacked airplanes, blame America for having provoked it all. I could scarcely have imagined this possible, until the media began trumpeting them and their corrupted thought processes. While the first round of reporting focused on the despair and horror of the victims and their families, these stories were quickly pushed aside in favor of those who found the blame to fall with America. I thought the compassion-at-all-costs type eschewed the strategy of "Blaming the victim", but apparently, it didn't jibe with their agenda this time.
So, "When Clinton lied, no one died" - now that we understand the fantastically backwards logic of the "George Bush LIED" juggernaut, let's look at the first portion of the jingle. Clinton's lie - which, it has been well established, was in fact a lie - is now presented as a comparison. Assuming you have swallowed the story that Bush "Lied" about the need to go to war, you can now reassure yourself of your righteousness by contrasting this with Clinton's antics in sworn testimony regarding his sexual escapades. Never mind that the comparison is absurd; if military intervention is the question, why is Clinton's bombing campaign ignored? You remember the one, undertaken wholly without the U.N. and with far more "Unilateralism" than anything Bush has done.
The proponents of this fun little rhyme like the feeling that they are conveying something of deep meaning; by demonstrating that Clinton's alleged shortcomings were far less serious than those of Bush, the case appears to be closed. Never mind that comparing these two "Lies" is meaningless at best, and fraudulent to the point of psychosis at worst. Like Clinton, feeling good about yourself and your views is the most important thing - never mind the ugliness of reality. Never mind that the adolescent mindset which calls for perpetual rebellion against Mom and Dad - and by extension, society - feeds much more readily on the conclusion that America is proven to be the bad guy because of the actions of a few wayward soldiers at Abu Ghraib, and completely ignores the horrors perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and his regime on so many ordinary Iraqi citizens, not to mention the cash prizes awarded to suicide bombers in Israel.
Never mind such complicated thoughts, for a good jingle erases the need for objectivity, as any witness of advertising knows. But if a meaningful comparison combined with a catchy slogan is what you crave, a better one might be:
"Clinton talked, Bush walked"
Or perhaps:
"Clinton ignored, Bush implored"
Or maybe:
"Clinton retracted, Bush acted"
Or maybe this is the wrong approach. Could it be that truth and reality are not well served by PR ditties?
posted by ET @ 8:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home