from Steve Perry's preview of his July 30th publication of "All the President's Lies." More here.

But now the extent and gravity of the White House’s lies are beginning to look manifest even on television. One regular guest on the news-chat circuit, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, recently wrote, “In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed…. To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be ‘a high crime’ under the Constitution's impeachment clause.”

10:27:42 PM    

Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo was just added to my own personal "must read" list.  This is the best analysis of the real reason we are in Iraq I have seen.  It reads neither like a partisan apologist nor a "believe the worst" conspiracy theorist.   I won't summarize it here; I simply recommend it highly.

I will, however, take issue with one part.  Marshall writes:

Now, a few points about the dishonesty at the center of all this. It's bad just on principle not to fundamentally level with the public about why you're getting into a war and just what sort of war you're getting into. [emphasis mine, Ibyx] Quite apart from that, however, doing so gets you into some practical difficulties. If you don't level with the public that you're getting into a very long-term, extremely costly enterprise you may find that your tough talk about having the staying power to finish the job isn't matched by public sentiment, or that you face a backlash over getting the country into far more than you led voters to believe. You may find that the public really isn't on board for what you're trying to accomplish. And that's a big problem if the public doesn't have the staying power and you have to leave the task half-finished, because this is one of those things that is better not to have tried at all than leave half-done.

That one emphasized sentence above is the only sentence in the entire article that acknowledges that it is in principle "bad" that the Executive branch of a Democratic nation would behave dishonestly.

I am so intensely frustrated by the fact that all these seemingly intelligent, reflective, politically aware folks engaged in important public discourse are so willing to waive the moral high ground on this.  In one way or another, the administration's critics all seem to be saying, "Yes the dishonesty was wrong, but the real problems with it are the practical ramifications and repercussions." 

I am not arguing that we should ignore the practical repercussions of the war that -- legitimate or not -- we have begun and must finish appropriately.   There is much sound criticism to be voiced of the administration's practical [mis]handling of the war they started.  I am not even arguing that the war was necessarily the wrong decision, or ill-advised. [Though I happen to think it was both].  I am simply standing for the fact that -- whatever one thinks of the legitimacy of the war, or of the way it is being directed, or, even, what should now be done to finish it -- US Americans should stand united and firm in their censure of the administration's manipulation of the facts. 

The end does not justify the means.  Might does not make right.  The entire historic tide of Western democratic ideals moves in opposition to these morally bankrupt doctrines.  We must not allow the fact that their use has created practical problems demanding our attention to distract us from prosecuting those that abused our trust, manipulated our fears and violated our democratic institutions.

/Rant off.

Update: Just about as soon as this was finished, I sent a copy via e-mail to Marshall at TPM.  And just about immediately, I received a response. In fairness I am posting the response here:

I have written on this for months and I have stated repeatedly, time after time, that this story should be pursued because president's shouldn't lie to the public, and particularly not about critical issues of national security.  I'm not sure I'm required to "acknowledge" what I've said repeatedly, not least of which in the very article you note.  Thanks for the kind words about the site.  jmm

I am posting Marshall's response because it made me realize that my post could be construed as a rant against him in particular.  I want to clarify.  In no way was it intended as a a criticism of Marshall.  His post was just another jumping point from which I got back on the same soap box to make the same arguement I have been pounding out for days.  And, incidently, I will continue to point out just how rotten it is in Denmark until I am confident that the banner will not be dropped by others.  [Once again, no inflated sense of my reach here.  I check my site stats continuously.  I have no illusions about my "readership."  But I will continue to add my voice to the din none-the-less.]

And finally, a sincere thank you to Marshall for taking my inquiry seriously and responding promptly.

8:39:57 PM    

There is a post in me brewing on the qualitative differences in the rhetoric of the right vs. the left.  Not quite ready to be written yet.  In the interim:

I'm totally game for this  rhetorical manuever from Conceptual Guerilla's Strategies and Tactics  . You've heard of "bleeding heart liberals" and "tax and spend Democrats?"  Well, meet the "cheap labor conservative."  [Thanks to Anne at Peevish for the link.]

At bottom, conservatives believe in a social hierarchy of "haves" and "have nots" that I call "corporate feudalism". They have taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a "respectable" sounding ideology. That ideology is pure hogwash, and you can prove it.

But you have to do more than defeat the ideology. You have to defeat the "drum beat". You have to defeat the "propaganda machine", that brainwashes people with their slogans and catch-phrases. You've heard those slogans."Less government", "personal responsibility" and lots of flag waving. They are "shorthand" for an entire worldview, and the right has been pounding their slogans out into the public domain for getting on forty years.

So you need a really good slogan – a "counter-slogan" really, to "deprogram" the brainwashed. You need a "magic bullet" that quickly and efficiently destroys the effectiveness of their "drum beat". You need your own "drum beat" that sums up the right's position. Only your "drum beat" exposes the ugly reality of right-wing philosophy – the reality their slogans are meant to hide. Our slogan contains the governing concept that explains the entire right-wing agenda. That's why it works. You can see it in every policy, and virtually all of Republican rhetoric. And it's so easy to remember, and captures the essence of the Republican Right so well, we can pin it on them like a "scarlet letter".

Ergo: Cheap Labor Conservatives. Read the whole thing to truly appreciate its brilliance and utility.

8:02:35 PM