Copyright © 2012 by Wayne Stegall
Updated November 3, 2012. See Document History at end for
Lies and Scapegoats
Participation in politics by moral people is very difficult at best
because political free speech enables deceit for any adversaries not so
Recently Syrian claims to possess chemical weapons uncovered a
long-standing lie. Liberal pundits denounced the Bush
administration for not producing evidence of the weapons of mass
destruction that was the basis of starting the Iraq war. Counter
claims that Saddam Hussein had tricked us by sending his stockpile of
such weapons to Syria just prior to the war passed silently in the
liberal media because it was not convenient to their campaign against
an administration not suitable to their ideology. They did this
in spite of the fact that they knew there was an extensive and
well-protected convoy out of Iraq to Syria during the claimed time
of the export of WMD. Consider the testimony cited in the
International Herald Tribune a subsidiary of the New York Times:1
James Clapper, the director of
National Intelligence and formerly the director of the National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency, in 2003 cited satellite imagery
suggesting materials had been moved out of Iraq in the months before
Other more or less credible claims have followed, from international
inspectors to Saddam-era dissidents.
My own evidence, for what it is worth, is purely anecdotal. As I drove
east from Damascus in mid-March 2003 to cross the border into Iraq, my
Iraqi Kurdish companion said he had spoken to Kurdish truck drivers who
regularly used the road.
They reported an unusual build-up of traffic out of Iraq in previous
days. Closed convoys of unmarked trucks, which other drivers were
forbidden from approaching or overtaking, had been streaming across the
border into Syria.
Then when the Bush administration admitted to allowing the CIA to use
advanced interrogation technique of water-boarding they were being
transparent about a policy that a more secular administration would
have done secretly and then disclaimed. Yet they were penalized
by the liberal system for honesty they would not have held
themselves. How unfair.
As for the economy, no one could have stopped corporations from
outsourcing in a democracy, neither Bush, nor the Republicans nor those
who criticized them. If the Democrats were concerned about the
economy after 2006, they did not show it. How much of the time
before they could install a complicit president did they spend out of
session? What bills they did pass were of the sort that would not
encourage corporate reinvestment in our economy. Then too, a
against a adversarial Congress often has to compromise to get anything
wants in return. In order to hold some ground on the issues most
important to him, Bush had to allow
this adversarial Congress some of the things they wanted. In this
context, Bush mistakenly allowed the Democrats to pass a bill on July
30, 2008 promoting subprime housing loans to those who could not afford
them under the deceptive title of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act
The timing of the economic crisis did not really begin to move until it
was clear that Barack Hussein Obama was clearly the Democratic
nominee. Indeed, all was quiet economically in August 2008 when
the Democratic convention was held. If Democratic policy since
2006 was hostile to money interests already, a nominee set up by the
system to win was now going to redistribute their wealth. Now on
the lam looking for a way to protect their assets, their minds were not
on the operation of their businesses. AIG in particular never
appeared to have their minds on their business and their later
investment of public bailout money in Europe shows where they were
looking for sympathy. A precarious economy now
had no real guidance or oversight. No wonder that a housing
bubble created by the Democrats to give risky loans to a poor who could
not pay them back then burst. The rest is history.
The beginning of these tragedies is not the end of them. In spite
of Obama's declared intent to create jobs, his and his party's policies
have worked against them. For example, Intel said in 2009 that
they wanted to bring back jobs to America. Yet because of a
political environment hostile to business interests, they put it
off. Now instead, they have made a big investment in Asia.
Another is that the EPA shutdown 200 coal-fired power plants contrary
declared policy of energy independence. This is an EPA that
declared under rule of an Obama appointee an intent to crucify
A top official at the
Environmental Protection Agency has apologized after being captured on
video saying his agency's method of enforcing oil and gas regulations
was to find a few bad actors to "crucify" and hold up as examples.3
This kind of policy is killing jobs, not creating them. Then when
I see ads on
television and the internet advertising subprime loans they claim Obama
enabled them through the law, I have to wonder. How can the
Democrats lay on Bush that which they currently advocate, especially
since their current advocacy shows ownership of the fated bill passed
in July 2008. Will America survive the rule of these radical
The truth is not convenient however, and still Bush is made the quiet
scapegoat for all these things. Why don't he speak up?
I was interrupted repeated by hacking for a time when I first started
this article on November 2. Jackboots!
1Harvey Morris, "The Unresolved
Mystery of Syria’s ‘Iraqi’ Chemical
Weapons," International Herald Tribune, July 24, 2012, link,
2"The Financial Crisis: A Timeline
of Events and Policy Actions." Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. link.
3Ben Wolfgang, "EPA official
apologizes for ‘crucify’ comments," The Washington Times, April 26,
2012, link to similar article, archive.
November 2, 2012 Created.
November 3, 2012 Added links to footnoted references.