Ah, the amusing predictability of the Bushsessed. I'm just fascinated by this sort of behavior, which is good, because I can look at it and be interested without being incensed.
A case in point: somewhat disgruntled ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil has produced one o' them there Insider Books about the Bush administration, which caused the ever-alert ears of certain segments of the polity to perk right up, and their salivary glands to start a-pumping. Froth followed, forthwith.
Typical of such froth is Paul Krugman, who never met a Bush critic he didn't like. Or rather, he did, but didn't know that O'Neill was a Bush critic at the time, and now that he does know, he must commend O'Neill for "showing the courage I missed back then."
Listing the Things That Are Bad About Bush And Therefore Must Be True, Krugman asks, "How can charges by Wesley Clark and others that the administration was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq be dismissed as paranoid in the light of Mr. O'Neill's revelations?"
Here's what Mr. O'Neill said yesterday about those revelations:
People are trying to say that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be a regime change in Iraq.
Which is, basically, what Bush said when asked about Mr. O'Neill's revelations yesterday in Mexico:
Like the previous administration, we were for regime change. And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with Desert Badger, or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines.
The Foolish Dance that is the American Standard Media goes on. Typical of the headlines that were fashioned from yesterday's comments to the press was the one I saw over someone's shoulder on the train this morning: Bush admits planning Iraq invasion before 9/11. And let's tack on the subtext, there, just to be clear: Watch out! He's oppressing you!
Also from the Bad If Bush Says It, Fine If Someone Else Says It department is the following from Wesley Clark, former Republican, current candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination:
"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda," [Clark] said in 2002. "It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"
Credit to the NYT for publishing that, not that it will make any difference to the True Believers.
What are we to make of people such as Krugman, Princeton economist and New York Times columnist? From his high loud platform he bullhorns his views on Iraq, and in less than 24 hours is shot down so thoroughly by the very people he claims as his support that any ordinary person would be downright embarrassed. But not our Paul. He's a trooper, that one.
As are so many others...picking and choosing, choosing and picking...heavens, there's just so much to be outraged about!
Fortunately, we're above that sort of thing here at Astonished Head.
