Discussion Topic for Wednesday, January 19, 2005
A week ago today the story came out that the Bush administration had officially given up on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We put up a post memorializing the passing of what was originally the major justification for the war and it generated a lot of good comments.
There was one in particular, though, that I had really wanted to write an answer to but I simply haven't had time. It came from a previously regular poster who doesn't seem to have posted since, which is a pity because he was an interesting and thoughtful contributor. Here's his comment:
"However, what is most notable about this is that it just doesn't matter!
The story was on p. 1 of the WaPo, but it was buried in the Globe, and anyway, WTF, we've known it for more than a year and there are no consequences. Chimpoleon just goes cruising right along pretending to be strong and resolute, and the fact that the war was premised on a stinking pile of lies is irrelevant. All the liars are being rewarded, the corporate media continue to kiss Chimpanzee ass, the Democrats in Congress are still a bunch of terrified woosies (exactly what they are scared of I do not know, but they appear to be scared to death of something), and the truth doesn't f***ing matter!
The sentiment is certainly understandable. Lieutenant AWOL's teflon coating makes St. Ronnie's look like scratched enamel, as this Salon article on 34 major scandals
from the first four Bush years makes clear. Between our spineless media and our spineless opposition party it often seems like we're paddling against the current. Sometimes it feels pointless, no question about it.
So here's the question: Does
the truth matter? Is the facade beginning to crack or is it invulnerable to all we do?
How would you answer his post?
As always, please post answers to this question in the comments here and post news in the comments of the previous post. Thanks!