The War on Reality I got another letter from my incarcerated friend up in Michigan, with whom I've been corresponding for many years now (a situation, sadly, that will not end until we pen pals are both old and gray). He was dropping me a thank-you note for a packet of papers I'd gathered up and sent for his perusal, which included a copy of "Hard Boiled Fiction", my Deep Throat send-off article from last month. It was, in his estimation, "engaging", but he said he didn't share it with any of his (how best to put this?) colleagues. "You have to understand," he wrote, "that in here it is much more fun to be The Patriot rather than the liberal voice of doom... Anyhow, given that, I make my stand on the Right Wing. I see it to my advantage to suppress certain bits of information when it's for a good cause." So wry, that one. Even so, there are millions of Americans who can appreciate his line of thinking. So you see how the War on Reality goes. The weapons used by conservatives have seeped through every membrane of our existence. Their version of governance makes sense to people who are not able to appreciate freedom. Their do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do routine appeals to a mass audience. Search for any signs of rational behavior among conservatives, from the Bush administration on down, over any of their spectacular debacles... And keep searching. Like many inmates, conservatives refuse to admit to any instance of wrongdoing. Apologies, remorse, regret, empathy - that's the stuff you need on the outside. When you're one of the clowns under the Big Tent, everything's different. Here's an example. On September 11th, 2004, the White House issued one of their little "fact sheets", titled "Three Years of Progress in the War on Terror". Amid all the other mumbo-jumbo was this tag line, a Red State favorite if there ever was one: "We are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy – confronting them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home." Although I didn't see any such wording in the Downing Street Memos, I'm sure Tony Blair probably thought the same thing as he took his country to war. That premise has been proven to be terribly - and predictably - wrong for Great Britain. Now, Blair and his crew are up in arms over a report recently produced by a respected British think tank, a report that is particularly critical of the war in Iraq. The report declares that "the situation" in Iraq has actually helped Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, providing them with "a boost" with regard to "propaganda, recruitment and fundraising." In addition, the report says that Iraq itself has become a training ground for terrorists (a sentiment echoed by the CIA). It finds that valuable resources, which could have been used to find bin Laden or to better protect Great Britain, have been diverted and are gone. Yet do you see any conservatives here scratching their heads and saying, "Gee, I guess Bush was wrong?" Of course not; they don't have it in them. They can't even do that over Karl Rove, who turns out to be the most insulated man in America. While polling suggests that only 25 percent of Americans support the president in the Case of the Leaky White House, the Republican faithful still insist that their political point man has done nothing wrong (and neither did Scooter, God-dang it). Therefore, they feel no real discomfort when George W. Bush changes his stance on whether or not such a leaker might have to lose his job. We didn't even have to read his lips this time. In 2003, before the election, Bush' intentions were stated clearly, both by himself and by his handler, Scott McClellan (a man who looks astonishingly like Rosie O'Donnell). McClellan said, "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." In June of the following year, Dubya was asked if he would honor his "pledge to fire anyone" involved in the leak. He replied, "Yes," and it was not reported that he stuttered. Just lately, the president has changed his tune - though not the pitch. "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts," Bush said yesterday, "And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," (emphasis mine). Well, then; back to Scott, is this any different from what you, as his official spokesperson, said two years ago? McClellan: "I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the president said at this point." Okay, that was easy enough - and was accomplished without so much as a bleat from those who, just nine months ago, so vehemently decried John Kerry for being a "flip-flopper." Those would be the same folks who claim to be so ardently against "obscenity", except when said obscenity is uttered on the Senate floor by the Vice President of the United States. Anyway, as we've been told, the Rove case is supposed to be an ongoing criminal investigation, so let's all just shut up, sit down and wait for the facts to come out. That's all our government asks of us good citizens, because the facts, you know, are important; Bush said so himself. "And I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions," said the Commander in Chief. "And I will do so as well. . . . I want to know all the facts. The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it." Sound familiar? In the murky world of GOP politics, facts aren't something that "are". Facts are something "to be done." That's the War on Reality, and the 59 million Americans who are waging it approve of this message (no matter what it might be). Paul Heller 7/19/05 << back to the archives
	All site contents © 2005, Paul F. Heller