Tuesday, April 24, 2007

The Truth? You Can't Handle the Truth!!

Redstate frontpage regular Mark I faces a daunting dilemma in today's review of congressional hearings including testimony by former Army private and POW Jessica Lynch and members of ex-NFL star Pat Tillman's family.

Mr. I acknowledges the military lied. He also accepts that Mr. Waxman, the Democratic chair of the House Oversight Committee, is presenting an accurate version of these events.

This just won't do, will it? Mr. I must make Mr. Waxman the villain while praising the military and avoiding criticism of Ms. Lynch or the Tillmans.

It's a difficult challenge, and one that apparently overwhelms Mr. I. He's barely able to rouse himself to offer even the most strained and improbable explanation of the hearing. Right from the outset, Mr. I confesses that something has gone awry:
"For the purposes of this piece, I will stipulate to all of Waxman’s “facts.” I will agree that Lynch did not go down fighting, as was first reported in the Washington Post by Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb, and that that myth was not the creation of Schmidt and Loeb. I will submit that generals in high levels of command knew within days of his death that Tillman was the victim of friendly fire--fratricide in military speak--and that they conspired among themselves and even ordered subordinates to withhold that fact from his family."


(Why does Mr. I stipulate to sneer-quoted "facts" when he has just allowed that they are, indeed, facts? He explains that no congressional hearing is needed to unearth the truth. The military--diligently setting the record straight--has already 'fessed up to their earlier wayward statements.)

So if the facts (or "facts") are all on the table, why the hearing?

The clairvoyant Mr I sees all, tells all. He divines Mr. Waxman's real motives:
  • use Lynch, Tillman, and their families to further erode the American people’s support for the war in Iraq

  • pressure the Bush Administration into abandoning the noble work being done there

  • convince the American public to question everything they hear from the Pentagon and from the Bush Administration


Not surprisingly, Mr. Waxman, stubbornly refuses to own up to any of this. In his opening statement, he insists on masking his sinister agenda:
"...I want to say to Private Lynch and her family: this Committee is going to do its best to find out the source of the fabrications that you have had to endure. We want to know whether they were the result of incompetence or a deliberate strategy to spin a compelling story at a critical time. And we will do our best to find out who should be held accountable."


But these are only Mr. Waxman's lesser depredations, Mr. I explains. By asking uncomfortable questions about who, exactly, hid the truth and invented tales about Ms. Lynch, Mr. Tillman, and others, Mr. Waxman actually seeks to:
"paint doubt with a broad brush onto the genuine stories of heroism from Iraq and Afghanistan."


Summary: Mr. Waxman is guilty of seeking the truth for reasons unacceptable to Mr. I.

Having bumbled this far, Mr. I goes for broke. To bolster his unsupported charges, he explains how Mr. Waxman's impertinent questions reveal rampant treachery:
"Does it make a difference in the end? It is hard to say. Perhaps in the deep, dank fever swamps of the rabidly anti-war left, soldiers like Lynch, Tillman, Smith, and Dunham are already viewed as murderers, torturers, and mindless killing machines."

Who? Wuzzat?!?
"Perhaps the majority of Americans will continue to trust the military to accurately report on the actions of our soldiers. But as a result of these hearings, and the resulting media coverage, many others will now view the action reports from the military with skepticism first. Still others will call into question the citations already awarded for bravery and valor in Iraq and Afghanistan up to and including the Medal of Honor recipients. To the extent that happens, all of the heroes of the Global War on Terror are diminished."

Shorter: It's not the lying that destroys credibility, it's asking who lied that does it.

****

Maybe Mr. I just fired off his post a little hastily. I'm sure he eventually got around to reading the highlights of Ms. Lynch's testimony before the committee. Quite elequently, she said:
"The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate tales."



Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Fast Forward

Redstate's Jeff Emanuel notes--with a shriek of gleeful triumph--the discovery of a cache of nitric acid in Iraq.

Why?

Here, let Mr. Emanuel tell you:
So, the bad guys are making chemical weapons in Iraq...chemical weapons are classified by the UN as WMDs...so there are WMDs in Iraq...wait. That can't be right. The reality-based community said they weren't.

Mr. Emanuel is correct. Opponents of the invasion of Iraq--the "reality-based community"--did indeed say exactly that.

Four years ago.

Nowhere in Mr. Emanuel's post, nor in the article he links, does it say that the nitric acid is part of a Saddam-era arsenal.

Perhaps Mr. Emanuel would have better luck trying to pin the blame for the nitric acid on the Iranians. Or the Syrians.

Or even Harry Reid.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Help Wanted

Says Mr. "Streetwise" and seconded by Mr. Lane:

Churchill did not go after Baldwin with wild recriminations, but used his famous wit to leave no doubt how he felt...This is the path we should follow with Madame Speaker and her minions.

Watch for the "Help Wanted" sign to appear in the Redstate window shortly.