I don't know that you've picked the right word...

Here’s an argument we should have had a while back. See, I was digging through my notes and found a certain suggestion that I had made.

Remember the run up to the Iraq conflict and we were told by our media that “everyone” agreed with it? Remember those first months after the U.S. took control of Iraq (June 2003), when things started to look different—less hopeful really—and support began to ebb? Remember back in 2004 that security and Iraq were still the most important issues facing the U.S. population and what we talked about most was “winning” and “losing” in Iraq? Remember how Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney used one single word to describe their vision for Iraq? Do you remember what that word was?

It was optimism. They talked about their optimism. When asked what would happen when we invaded a sovereign nation, they said that they were optimists and that we would be treated as liberators. When that failed and they were being called to task for it, they said ‘we’re optimists’, as if that would really make a difference when the result was so bad. But there rationale was sneaky. ‘We’re optimists’ doesn’t suggest to the listener that they are bad decision-makers (though that is implied) or that they had unrealistic expectations (also implied) or even that they misread their intelligence and the situation (implied as well); no, it suggests that they are positive and opponents (Democrats—not Iraqis) are negative. Negative—in any way—is therefore bad. How else does being optimistic work as a defense?

“George, did you get that progress report written?”

“Sorry, Boss, I didn’t. I was being an optimist.”

“Huh?”

“I was so sure that I’d get it done. Look at what we had to work with.”

“But…”

“Some people, namely James in Accounting, are pessimists. They don’t think that I can write that progress report. Clearly, though, I am winning the war on reports and some day soon, say, in the next three months, there will be a turning point and I will be well on my way to completing that report.”

“But George, you said that you could have it done for me yesterday. You asked for two weeks and I gave you two weeks.”

“But Boss, I’m winning. I don’t cut-and-run from reports. I’m an optimist. Are you suggesting that cut-and-run from this report? Are you a pessimist?”

“No, George, I was just suggesting that you promised me two weeks.”

“That was me being an optimist. I’ll see what I can do in the next three months.”

But here’s the wacky question. We know that Bush has lied. We know that he is a liar (one with a pentiant for lying). We know that he loves getting other people to kill people (didn’t go to Vietnam, signed a record number of executions in Texas, and seemed far too eager to bomb people after 9/11/01). We know that George shows ‘optimism’ toward pro-corporate economic policies, but pessimism toward teachers, lawyers, the medical system, scientists, small business owners, farmers, environmentalists, sportspersons, children, working families, those below the poverty line, those above the poverty line, non-evangelicals, non-Israeli or Saudi Middle Easterners, coal miners, any person that does physical labor, any person that uses his/her brain intellectually for their work, the intelligence community, military veterans, active soldiers, the National Guard, women, minorities, and civil libertarians. I’m sure I’ve left some out, but that is a sufficient list. If Bush is such an optimist, why doesn’t he trust that teachers can teach our children? Why doesn’t he trust that scientists are looking out for our best interests? Could it be that Bush isn’t an optimist at all?

What happens when a person lies about being an optimist? It is the worst kind of pessimism there is! There is no trust in the people, no trust in the government, no trust in one’s peers, only lip service. Only lip service to the military commanders, to Congress, to the people. George Bush is the worst kind of liar: the kind that not only lies for self-interest, but to steal from, defame, and denigrate others. There’s another word we have for that kind of person: scoundrel. Could it be that our reluctance to name King George that slightly negative label (liar) actually prevents us from using the more apt (and ultimately useful) label?