not-lucid: a saturday wall street journal opinion of cheney- bush, and their reaction to the iran NIE

TPM points out the irony
in the first paragraph
, quoted
below, so i’ll leave you to
read that for yourself. . .

i note that the second paragraph,
omitted from TPM’s discussion, is
equally — if not surpassingly — illu-
minating. [you may read the entire, largely
pungent, opinion at the opinion journal.]

the problem, we are told, is a
simple lack of loyalty. a lack
of loyalty to those who would lie
us into yet another quagmire/war, i
gather. so what we need here is more
to our liars leaders,
so asserts the punditry of the
wall street journal opinion page:

. . .We reported earlier this week that the authors of this Iran NIE include former State Department officials who have a history of hostility to Mr. Bush’s foreign policy. But the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with Mr. Bush. Too often he has appointed, or tolerated, officials who oppose his agenda, and failed to discipline them even when they have worked against his policies. Instead of being candid this week about the problems with the NIE, Mr. Bush and his National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, tried to spin it as a victory for their policy. They simply weren’t believable.

It’s a sign of the Bush Administration’s flagging authority that even many of its natural allies wondered this week if the NIE was really an attempt to back down from its own Iran policy. We only wish it were that competent.

well, at least as to that last
bolded bit, above, we agree.

but again, let me point out the
fundamental flaw in the journal’s
line of reasoning — it assumes that
loyalty is the surpassing virtue re-
quired of all government agencies — to
the president. or should i say “king”.

no, our system contemplates that all parts
of the executive branch will act first to
tell the truth, and second, to be loyal to
the president
. these two goals ordinarily
will not conflict, for in other administrations,
the truth is accepted by the executive. not
so here. only nixon (watergate), and reagan
(iran-contra) come to mind, as recent examples
of the tension between truth-telling and law-
less executive branch conduct.

so — it is more than irony — it is a sad
mistatement of our founding principles — that
animates the journal’s saturday opinion.

now, as to that last bit — i agree. i too
only wish messrs. cheney and bush were clever
enough to be subtly distancing themselves from
their badly flawed iran analysis — but as mr.
cheney’s friday speech made clear — he, at least,
will continue to claim that iran is presently
enriching uranium — for military gain.
and that, per the NIE, is false.

it is simply a lie.

hopefully now, though, fewer will believe him.


6 responses to “not-lucid: a saturday wall street journal opinion of cheney- bush, and their reaction to the iran NIE

  1. uh, who now owns the Wall Street Journal and what is their agenda? nuff said.

  2. exactly my point, lib.

    murdoch now controls the
    paper of record for capitalists.

    though this would be their
    editorial “wide stance”, even
    before his purchase closed.

    i guess i was surprised that
    there was no attempt to cloak
    their emperor in a gown of
    reasoned discourse — no, they
    just paraded him, butt-nekkid,
    through the streets, for all to see.

    and that seems odd. they are
    smarter than this would imply.

    p e a c e
    on earth
    to those
    of good-will. . .

  3. I would have thought that a public servant in an intelligence capacity shows LOYALTY to the executive by fulfilling the constitutional duty to provide accurate information interpreted objectively. Which is what they did.
    A necessary part of prudence is to seek wise counsel. Hiow can the executive make prudent decisions without accurate information?
    Suck on that, Murdoch.

  4. D I N G!

    exactly, priscianus jr.


  5. And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher’s arguments against the peace process ( )?

  6. alex — the referenced blog-post
    seems not very-well-thought-out.

    to oppose peace — on principle,
    without regard to the terms on
    which the peace is offered — seems

    but that is just my take.

    it seems with the execution
    of bhutto, peace will be even
    harder to acheive.

    sad, actually.

    p e a c e

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s