This is the new portrait of Dubya that was recently unveiled at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. It’s the first time the National Portrait Gallery has ever exhibited portraits of the sitting President and First Lady (and I mean “sitting” as in “incumbent”, not “sitting” as in “seated”, even though they are both seated in the pictures).
Our Hero, Senator Bernie Saunders of Vermont, has wasted no time in firing off an angry letter to the National Picture Gallery to complain. Not about displaying the portraits, but about what he feels are inaccurate and deceptive statements in the description plaques next to the portraits. The description of the portrait of Dubya includes a statement to the effect that the September 11, 2001 attacks “led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq”. Bernie has pointed out to the NPG that:
When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one “led to” the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked … Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order.
Here’s a link to a PDF of the entire letter, courtest of Bernie’s own website.
It’s a minor point compared with some of the other efforts to buff up Dubya’s image, but history is in the details, and it’s the little mistakes that make the big lies believable. Given ‘em hell, Bernie!
Dear Harvey, Pete, Barry, Kevin, and every other weathermonkey on Boston-area TV: Enough is enough. The fucking blizzard was THIRTY-TWO YEARS AGO. It’s time to stop trotting out the same blurry videotape of cars stuck on Rt. 128 that is older than some of the people who are actually on your broadcast, just so we [...]
It’s going to be a long two months waiting for the iPad to actually ship so that all the tech bloggers and their hangers-on will stop writing so much speculative bullshit about iT and turn their attention iNstead to some other thing that’s going to Change Life As We Know iT. Since you cannot click [...]
Please, please, PUH-LEEZE stop talking about “What do we call the last decade?” Nobody could come up with an acceptable choice ten years ago, and nobody’s going to come up with one now. “Aughties” and “Naughties” are contrived and stupid, and so is the very idea that anything wraps up all nice and neatly into [...]
Bernie Saunders is a jealous putz, IMHO.
How very sad for you, Tom.
But does being a jealous putz make him wrong? I think not.
This is also an example of what is wrong with civil discourse (or uncivil discourse) in this country. It’s not enough to disagree with someone – in fact, Tom, you didn’t even disagree with the senator – but you have to resort to name-calling.
Yes, very sad.
To get away from the subject of Tom’s comment and back to Bernie’s, here’s a post from a history blog I read called “Edge Of The American West” that echoes the sentiment I described yesterday — that Bernie’s point is not to let the little details obfuscate the big one. He uses a lot more big fancy words ‘n’ shit than I do, so it sounds better.
Jeez, you guys on the Left have done nothing but call GWB names for the past 8 years, and then when the tables are turned, you can’t take the heat. As y’all say, how very sad.
Seems to me we’re all in agreement here not to engage in name calling. Both “sides” are pretty good at slamming the other, and I don’t see that changing any time soon. So nobody has the higher ground in this particular argument. That’s a wrap.