Sam Says Bush dogma needs a reality check

Author: Sam Wilson

One of the things that really bugs me about the Bush Administration is how often its rhetoric has nothing to do with reality.

We heard about Iraqi ties to al- Qaeda, and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, both of which ended up being bogus. Then we heard about a Social Security crisis happening now. That being correct only if "now" means about 40 years from now, and "crisis" means easily fixable problem.

And of course to keep the public from catching onto the gulf betwixt reality and rhetoric, the press corps has to be kept in line. And this is why journalists get money from the government to promote the President's agenda, with no disclosure. And this is why "Jeff Gannon," legally known as James Guckert gets into White House press briefings to toss lobs at Scott McClellan.

And then there are the beautiful times where the reality/rhetoric discrepancy merges with the secretive manipulation of the press to create a truly beautiful bit of monkey mung.

A few months ago, you may recall, the administration got caught sending out videos of news reports to local news agencies. The problem with the videos was that the government never alerted the locals that it had produced the videos. They were taken for legitimate reporting.

This caused a little tiff. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, went so far as to call these videos "covert propaganda," and let drop that it was most likely illegal. When questioned about this, the President declared it wrong and said it should stop. Kudos for him on that.

However, as this baby-scandal lacked sex, drugs, violence or anything else titillating or fantastical it quickly faded from public consciousness. So now I find myself getting bugged by the administration. With this boop-boop-scandal out of the light, the administration has decided that maybe it is not so wrong, and does not need to stop, it just needs some unethical justification.

Last week the Justice Department issued an opinion declaring that the practice is appropriate as long as the information contained is factual. The GAO, remember, is nonpartisan and they called the practice "propaganda" and illegal. The Justice Department is headed by Alberto Gonzales. During his confirmation hearings it was universally recognized that his loyalty to the President was among his higher qualities.

And while these videos are not blatant ideological preaching - as far as I know they do not declare anything like "Democrats kill puppies" - they are also not objective journalism. The New York Times reported that many of these reports cherrypicked the most favorable "facts" they could find in an apparent attempt to promote the President's agenda. The video clips also often omit any information that does not buttress the Administration's goals.

It is wrong but is it also appropriate? I just get bugged when rhetoric is so divorced from reality.