Tangle Tongue

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Listening
to George W. Bush speak off-the-cuff is a bit like watching Shaquille
O'Neal shoot free throws. The anxiety produced by a sense of impending
disaster is coupled with incredulity that someone in so exalted
a position has failed to master one of the rudimentary skills
of his profession.

In a recent
round-table interview with 14 reporters, Mr. Bush finally addressed
the collateral damage that resulted from his July 2, 2003 challenge
to insurgents in Iraq: "My answer is, bring’em on."

"Sometimes
words have consequences you don't intend them to mean," Mr.
Bush ruefully admitted, in a poorly constructed sentence that
tidily illustrates his point. That extemporaneous remark, full
of the mock bravado one would expect from a male cheerleader trying
to ingratiate himself with the varsity football team, was intended
"to rally the troops," continued Mr. Bush. "And
those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of — some interpreted
it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't
the case."

The last
remark is indisputably true. Mr. Bush is surrounded by an impenetrable
security cocoon. He's shielded from the unsightly spectacle of
public protests by those opposed to his policies. In fact, performers
at Mr. Bush's second inauguration have been instructed not to
look directly at the president as they pass the reviewing stand,
lest by doing so they be considered a security threat. So it's
obvious that however one might characterize the "bring’em
on" taunt, it didn't represent "defiance in the face
of danger," since Mr. Bush — unlike the men and women he
dispatched to Iraq – is entirely unacquainted with personal peril.

In some ways,
George W. Bush's relationship with the English language resembles
that of his much more articulate — and notoriously dishonest —
predecessor.

During a
recent interview with the Washington Post, Mr. Bush was
asked if significant changes needed to be made in his policy toward
Iraq. After all, the administration now admits that Saddam did
not possess a fearsome arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
With casualties mounting, and scandals accumulating with respect
to torture and faulty intelligence, the Post inquired,
could we expect to see changes in policy or personnel? To judge
from Mr. Bush's astoundingly self-serving reply, the answer is
— apparently not.

“We had an
accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections,”
Mr. Bush told the Post. “The American people listened to
different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq,
and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me.”

This statement
earns a full 9.0 on the Clinton Scale of artful dishonesty. (Although,
to be fair, I've given Mr. Bush an additional point for "degree
of difficulty" in light of the special challenges he has
with the English language.) It should be noted that the president
did not say that his assessment was truthful or reliable, but
only that a spare majority of the voting public bought into it.
Rather than being subject to accountability, in other words,
Mr. Bush and his handlers are now beyond accountability.

This sense
of impunity has taken hold throughout the Bush administration.
Left-wing investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who has bragging
rights to a series of remarkable scoops regarding the Iraq War,
reports that "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with
the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told
them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American
people did not accept the message. Rumsfeld added that America
was committed to staying in Iraq and there would be no second-guessing."

"This
is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign,"
a former high-level intelligence official informed Hersh. "Next,
we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and
the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last
hurrah — we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying
we won the war on terrorism."

As that official's
comments illustrate, George W. Bush's difficulties with the English
language — like the casual arrogance with which he holds himself
above accountability – is contagious. "We" — the American
people — have not "declared war" on Iraq, or any other
nation, since December 1941. And while the Bush administration
will be gone four years from now (assuming it doesn't stage a
coup, which is a possibility not to be lightly dismissed), the
American public will still be paying for the policy decisions
made as part of the administration's "last hurrah."
Our military is already badly over-extended in Iraq. Extending
the war to Iran, Syria, and points beyond, will almost certainly
require a return to conscription — and accelerate our descent
into national bankruptcy.

By permitting
the Bush administration's usurpation of the power to declare war,
Congress has written a blank check against the blood, treasure,
and liberties of the American people. The result is what Abraham
Lincoln in 1848 described as "the most oppressive of all
Kingly oppressions" — the power of a chief executive to commit
our nation to war on his word alone. The words of any president
given such power will have dire consequences for our freedom and
prosperity. But this is particularly true of President Bush, who
not only has difficulty using words correctly, but is demonstrably
a man whose word means nothing.

January
21, 2005

William
Norman Grigg [send
him mail
] writes for The
New American
magazine.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts