Frank’s Case Book

“Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody’s power, that is not easy.” — Aristotle.

To even the inattentive or preoccupied, Ronald Prescott Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Wilson Reagan, is outwardly his father’s son.  You can see it in their shared confident gate.  You can see it in their famous and endearing Reagan smiles.  You can even appreciate it in the same way they shake their head and say, “Well.”  However, on a more fundamental level, in their world views, in their personalities, in their decency, they could not be more radically different.

Ron Junior is not only a liberal, but radically so. He has been active in the “Creative Coalition,” a Left-wing group to politically organize artists. Ron Junior voted for Ralph Nader in 2000; Gore was not liberal enough for him. The elder Reagan was not only a Conservative, but “Mr. Conservative.”  Ron Junior is a self-proclaimed atheist, while his father was a quietly religious man. These are important intellectual and essential spiritual differences. Though such differences can vastly separate two people, the hope can remain that through honest dialog some differences might be bridged and those that remain may at least not be the source of prolonged bitterness. But unfortunately, there are ironic and sad dissimilarities in the temperament and dispositions of the former president and his namesake.

Ron Junior had it right when he said of his father when eulogizing him, “He was the most plainly decent man you could ever hope to meet… Dad treated everyone with the same unfailing courtesy.”  It would have been out of character for President Reagan to have descended into the personal vituperative attacks of a political adversary in the same way that Ron Junior has done with respect to President George W. Bush. When exasperated, a smile would crawl across the elder Reagan’s face as he would light up and lament, “There you go again.” By contrast, most are repelled by the single-minded bitterness of the younger Reagan when he says of the current Administration, “they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie.”

Upon what evidence does the younger Reagan assert this pervasive mendacity?  In a recent opinion piece, “The Case Against George W. Bush,” that appears in Esquire, Ron Junior cites George Bush’s presidential 2000 campaign when Bush eschewed an activist foreign policy, with the US actively confronting adversaries across the world.  Now, Bush has deployed troops to Afghanistan and then Iraq.  This might suggest to a reasonable person a dishonest election campaign by a closet internationalist, that is, if the United States had not been attacked on September 11, 2001.  The one most crucial event in the twenty-first century and the younger Reagan seems to have ignored the obvious explanation for the change in Bush’s approach.

Then, of course, there is the shop-worn argument that since we have not yet accounted for large stock piles weapons of mass destruction [1] that the Administration was deceitful. However, this ignores the fact that the former President Bill Clinton [2], the Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton [3], the Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry [4], and the British, French, German, and Russian intelligence services had all reached the same conclusion.  Indeed, the evidence for WMD in Iraq was stronger and clearer than the evidence that there would be an attack on 9/11 that Ron Junior criticizes Bush for missing.

Some of the younger Reagan’s claims are so demonstrably false and misleading that one wonders why he could not be a more skilled polemicist.  For example, Ron Junior writes, “If you are dead center on the earning scale in real-world twenty-first-century America, you make a bit less than $32,000 a year, and $32,000 is not a sum that Mr. Bush has ever associated with getting by in his world.”  What specifically is the complaint that justifies the ad hominem attack?  That level of income is comparable to the incomes during the previous Administration.  Moreover the $32,000 number represents a median wage, including teenagers living at home. The median household income in the country is closer to $50,000 and actually rises to $62,000 for a 4-person household.  The $32,000 figure alone is not false, but certainly does not provide a real context and the single use of this number does not suggest a person who wishes to seriously debate.

Does Ron Junior mean to imply that George Bush is some rich kid with no concern for those who have had a harder life? Surely, young Ron has also benefited from an affluent upbringing in a famous family.  Does that make Ron Junior unsympathetic to those who are less fortunate?  Does it make Senator John Kerry, whose economic fortunes have been enhanced by marrying two heiresses, a mean-spirited multi-millionaire unable to recognize the challenges that face those of lesser means?  One can be rich and cold-hearted, but Ron Junior certainly does not offer evidence to smear George Bush with that charge.

Ron Junior believes the Bush mendacity began during the 2000 election because Gore “would spend valuable weeks explaining away statements —`I invented the Internet’ — that he never made in the first place.” What Gore actually said was “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”  Close enough.

Surely, Ron Junior should be a little more careful in making charges that are so easily refuted.  Of Fox News he says, “…a staff member at Fox News — the cable-TV outlet of the Bush White House — told me a year ago that mere mention of bin Laden’s name was forbidden within the company, lest we be reminded that the actual bad guy remained at large.”  A quick online check refutes this notion.  Fox had many stories about bin Laden from September 11, 2001 to the present, even an interview with his mistress almost exactly a year ago.  This is hardly the activity of a network that does not mention bin Laden’s name. Ron Junior would not have made this simple and embarrassing mistake, if he had simply watched Fox News as opposed to relying on an unnamed staff member.

Some day we may grow weary of pointing out the fundamental inaccuracy employed by Ron Junior and almost daily by others about the 2000 elections, but not today.  The false assertion is that in the words of Ron Junior a “cabal of right-wing justices” delivered the White House to Bush. It seems that “denial” is not just a river in Egypt.  The local Florida judges, the determiners of fact in election cases, all denied Gore additional recounts.  It was a highly partisan Florida Supreme Court made up entirely of Democrats, who made up new deadlines and election rules along the way.  But even if one disagrees with the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision in the Bush v. Gore case, subsequent recounts by US Today and by the Miami Herald confirm that an additional recount as requested by Gore would have still resulted in a Bush electoral victory [5].  Get over it.

Of course, the greatest irony of all is that Ron Junior has aligned himself with that part of the political spectrum that treated his father with the same anger and disdain he now reserves for George W. Bush.  It was President Ronald Reagan that was originally portrayed as the “amiable dunce” who was the pawn of nefarious people behind the scenes, like Bush is now.  It was President Ronald Reagan who was called a liar by the Left for the Iran-Contra scandal, like Bush is now. It was President Ronald Reagan that the Left accused of war crimes for his support of the Contras, much as Bush is now.  But then perhaps the younger Reagan is not totally inconsistent.  He did not vote for his own father in 1984.

1. It can no longer be said that there are no WMD, some 30 chemical shells have been found
2. “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998.
3. “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.
4. “I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that — that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.” — John Kerry, September 15, 2002.
5. Perhaps Ron Junior has been watching too many movies and not enough Fox News.  In Michael Moore’s “documentary ” Fahrenheit 9/11 an altered front page of the Illinois Pantagraph newspaper appeared and the paper is suing for the misrepresentation.  They are asking for $1 and an apology. The paper claims that the film shows a December 19, 2001 headline “Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election.” Actually the words were from December 5, and did not appear as a headline on the front page, but rather in much smaller type as a label for a letter to the editor. The letter represented the opinion of the writer not the reporting of the paper. It would seem that if the case against Bush were so compelling, the use of juvenile distortions by Moore would not be necessary.

“[A gentleman] is never mean or little in his disputes…. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend.” — Victorian Station.

It is not clear whether having class or being a gentleman is an inherited trait or a learned behavior ingrained through years of instruction and practice. However, it is clear that some people have class and some do not and politics is not a place gentleman with class tend to aggregate. Yet, the former Senator Paul Wellstone from Minnesota was a gentleman who could argue passionately without malice. As his son said at Wellstone’s public memorial after his untimely death just before his potential re-election in October 2002, “it was never about Paul Wellstone. It was about the ideal, it was about the dream that he had.”

Unfortunately, Wellstone was unable to pass along the class and integrity with which he conducted his own life to some of his supporters. His public memorial degenerated from the celebration of a life well-lived to ugly and inappropriate partisanship marked with the jeering of political opponents who had come to pay their respects. The distasteful transformation of the service to a political rally offended many who watched the event on television. It was probably the reason that former Senator Walter Mondale, who assumed the Democratic nomination for Wellstone’s Senate seat, lost several days later to Republican Norm Coleman.

The recent public state funeral and remembrance of former President Ronald Reagan, another politician and gentleman, fortunately passed with little public rancor. Sure there are always small people with small attitudes like Ted Rall who said of Ronald Reagan, “I’m sure he’s turning crispy brown right about now.” Some Reagan haters populate the DemocraticUnderground.com, griping about the coverage of the Reagan funeral. But these voices were few and largely ignored. The public wanted to come together to honor the former president. Shrill voices echoed unnoticed, serving only to illustrate the anger and hatred of those who cannot wait until a person is buried before launching into vicious criticism.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans generally refrained from taking overt political advantage of sympathy for Reagan. Save for some remarks that bordered on the political by Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Republicans conducted themselves properly. The eulogies at the funeral struck just the right tone: remembrance without excessive effusiveness.

All this generally splendid behavior by responsible people made the small and sour actions of French President Jacques Chirac that much more conspicuous. Many foreign leaders were in Georgia for the G8 summit this last week. Thus, for many leaders, attending Ronald Reagan’s funeral in Washington only required extending the US trip by one day and adding couple hours in the air. Many leaders did attend, including German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Other leaders came from as far away as Uganda and the Czech Republic. Even though French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier and former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing did attend, Chirac quick get away can only be interpreted as a deliberate insult.

Despite being hobbled by minor strokes, the Iron Lady, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, not only took the long flight across the Atlantic against the orders of her doctors, she took the trouble to tape a eulogy she knew she would not be able to deliver. She then accompanied the President’s casket and family on a flight back to the burial in Simi Valley, California.

Now Thatcher was an exceptional case. She was both a contemporary and friend of Reagan. Nonetheless, her actions make Chirac’s refusal to attend the funeral appear so much more mean spirited. To borrow words from playwright Harold Pinter, Chirac “you’re no bloody gentleman.”

Regardless of any biases, the national media outlets in the US do not generally misstate facts. If the facts are demonstrably incorrect, a correction usually follows. European papers tend to follow this example.

The Daily Mirror made a terrible mistake when it published what turned out to be faked photographs purporting to show abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British troops. Regardless of how anxious the Daily Mirror is to find evidence to discredit Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision to join a Coalition in Iraq, the Mirror editors were probably too credulous in believing what they now claim was a “calculated and malicious hoax.” Perhaps the Mirror made its anti-government bias a little too conspicuous when it suggested that the government was deliberately calling into question the legitimacy of the photographs because it “likes to produce a scapegoat to distract attention when it is in a crisis.”

In the end the Mirror did the right thing: it apologized for publishing the photographs and dismissed Piers Morgan, the editor responsible. The really unique situation is that Morgan remained stubbornly unrepentant and disturbingly unconcerned about the veracity of the photographs. He dismissed the fact that the photographs were faked by noting that they nonetheless “accurately illustrated the reality about the appalling conduct of some British troops.” The journalistic ethos, at least in the United States, fortunately still has residual respect for facts.

Media biases are typically not evident in deliberately false statements. Rather, it creeps in indirectly and mostly unintentionally via a bias by agenda. Editors have a finite amount of space and resources to devote to coverage. They, therefore, have to make judgments about what stories are more important, more deserving, or just plain more interesting. It is in deciding between priorities in coverage that even editors and journalists who genuinely seek to be fair can unconsciously allow their own perspectives to color reporting.

This difference in agenda was clearer than usual in the coverage this week of the discovery of an unmarked Iraqi artillery shell containing deadly sarin nerve gas. On the day that the information was released, there was some coverage of the finding, but certainly not the saturation coverage granted the prisoner abuse scandal. The next day, Fox News had found military sources confirming that the tests for sarin gas in the field had been confirmed by further tests. The story was a headline all day at Fox News. CNN did not mention this on its home page and neither did the Washington Post. The NY Times had a small link at the bottom of its page to the story. Apparently the fact that New York was still in the running for the 2012 Olympics and that the actor Tony Randall died were all, in the collective judgments of the NY Times, CNN, and the Washington Post, significantly more important than the first confirmation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after more than a year. The only way to guard against such differences in agenda is to maintain a truly diverse editorial staff, real intellectual and political diversity.

The bias of agenda based on different editorial perspectives is a well-documented and discussed phenomenon. However, what is less well understood is the bias in news consumption. We all have the natural proclivity to focus on stories that confirm our world view. Hence, those against the Iraq War follow in detail the prisoner abuse scandal, perhaps secretly hoping that the abuse was not isolated and that high officials in the Bush Administration are implicated. While responsible people will not make such an accusation without sufficient evidence, they will still eagerly consume stories like the ones in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh that suggest some culpability on the part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in prisoner abuse.

Some follow such stories hoping to be politically vindicated. Yet, it would seem that the proper perspective for an American would be to hope that the abuse scandal is isolated, both to redeem American values and make life a little safer for innocent American soldiers. However embarrassing it might be to concede it publicly, Bush opponents are not above a little schadenfreude at the prisoner abuse scandal, regardless of the cost to American prestige and risk to American lives. Such people should ask themselves whether they will be disappointed or excited to find out that prisoner abuse is pervasive. I know of no way to demonstrate this, but am willing to assert than many who are carefully scouring the news for information that Rumsfeld is somehow connect to prisoner abuse are not devoting the same study to scandal in the United Nation’s Oil-for-Food program, or evidence of operational links between Al Qaeda, or the discovery of nuclear material in Jordan.

Similarly those who would prefer to see at least one of the reasons for the war more fully vindicated are more likely to follow with rapt attention stories lending credence to the WMD threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Though the prudent would caution against grasping too tightly at the latest discovery of sarin gas artillery shell, would it not really be a cause of celebration to learn with certainty Hussein disposed of his WMD stockpiles shortly before the war? Would it not be better to be assured that the WMD could not fall into the hands of terrorists — terrorists with no scruples against use of such weapons against civilian populations? Some want to believe that their pre-war assessments of WMD, yet evidence supporting such a conclusion might prove to be more destabilizing. Do we really want a world where some WMD have been taken to unknown haunts? Some should ask themselves if they would be disappointed to find out that all WMD stockpiles were destroyed before the war so that the threat of war was sufficient to disarm Saddam (even if we didn’t know at the time). Of course, for those who accepted pre-war WMD assessments, there is sill a graceful way out: These WMD stockpiles could be found and disposed of now.

We are all subject to ugly, quiet feelings. We would rather nestle in the comfort of feeling right, even it that means others would be less well off. From a political perspective, the prospects of the party out of power vary inversely with the prospects of the country as a whole. In this case, the more destabilized Iraq becomes and the slower the economy grows, the better off Democrats are. It is an unfortunate position to be in, but there is no escaping the logic of the situation. There are times when people find themselves grasping their convictions firmly, while at the same time having to hope that they are wrong.

Many of us can remember a course or two in college that we expected to be interesting because it covered a topic we were particularly fascinated by, but we were disappointed by the droning of a dry and boring professor. On the other hand, some of us might also be able to recall a course taken solely for scheduling convenience that pleasantly surprised us. A passionate and pedagogically competent professor introduced us to what we had thought to be an arid topic. Many will undergo the latter pleasant experience when they read the current bestseller, Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, by Lynne Truss. The book focuses on what many formerly believed to be the most parched of topics: punctuation and its (definitely not “it’s”) abusive use.

Clear writing and clear thinking are intimately linked, and punctuation is indispensable for clear writing. Punctuation is a late development in the history of the written word. As Truss explains, we emerged from a “scriptio continua swamp” where words where placed in sequence without punctuation, and where the reader was often required to literally divine the meaning of passages. Indeed, religious controversy swirled over the meaning of simple passages, ambiguous for the lack of punctuation.Consider the meaning of the word sequence:

“verily I say to thee this day thou shalt be with me in paradise”

Perhaps it is a promise of immediate entrance into Paradise as in:

“Verily, I say to thee. This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”

Or, perhaps it is a present promise for a more distant heavenly reward:

“Verily, I say to thee this day. Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”

Despite the interesting historical lessons in punctuation, the charm of Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, rests with Truss’ sardonic British wit. She describes herself and kindred spirits as “sticklers” and half-seriously as wanting to lead the militant wing of the Apostrophe Protection Society. This militant wing would be armed with markers and paint to mark in desperately needed apostrophes or to eradicate impertinent ones from public signs.

In addition to humorous anecdotes illustrating hilarious confusion associated with misapplied punctuation, Truss uses wondrous and loving metaphors to describe punctuation. Did you know the period is male and the apostrophe is female? As Truss explains:

“In fact while one may dare to say that the full stop [a period for Americans] is the lumpen male of the punctuation world (do one job at a time; do it well; forget about it instantly), the apostrophe is the frantically multi-tasking female, dotting hither and yon and succumbing to burnout for all the thankless effort.”

Two trends have allied together to form the current assault on punctuation. The first is education. Children for the last few decades have not been instructed on the rules of punctuation. There is little wonder that the misuse of punctuation has proliferated. Second, the explosion of unedited text on the Internet and e-mail increased the speed of writing with a consequent loss of thought, consideration, (note the comma) and punctuation.

The Washington Post even once touted as an advantage of e-mail that employees “took less time to formulate their thoughts.” No wonder Truss was momentarily excited about a fictional Strunkandwhite [After the Strunk and White Style Guide] computer virus that would prevent the sending of ungrammatical e-mail.

Ironically, the lack of punctuation has compelled people to include emoticons to clarify e-mail made ambiguous with poor writing and punctuation. Add a smiley, [:-)], a facial glyph, to the end of a sentence so the reader realizes you are telling a joke. Truss laments:

“Anyone interested in punctuation has a dual reason to feel aggrieved about smileys, because not only are they a paltry substitute for expressing oneself properly; they are also designed by people who evidently thought the punctuation marks on the standard keyboard cried out for ornamental function.”

Truss awakens in the reader a sensitivity to the use of punctuation and language. With this new awareness, it becomes clear that much of the political difference between Democrats and Republicans might be rooted in minor punctuation differences.

For example, many Democrats suffer under the illusion that Bush is something of a bumbling fool and excessively dependent upon staff like National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. A Democrat might assert, “Condoleezza: without her, George is nothing.” Republicans, by contrast, understand that, “Condoleezza, without her George, is nothing.”

At one time, Democrats were friends of the working class, worried about supporting working class families. They could honestly say, “Democrats — we’re here to help you.” However, Democrats have degenerated into mouthpieces for Liberal special interests, often conspicuously dismissive of middle class values. We are forced to concede, “Democrats were here to help you.”

Seemingly trivial punctuation differences also separate Republicans and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Kerry has been caught more than a few times switching positions on political questions to follow perceived public sentiment. This fluidity is a measure of what John Kerry thinks of other Americans. “The voting public, believes John Kerry, is fickle.” In response to mercurial positions, however, Republicans might assert that, “The voting public believes John Kerry is fickle.”

No person or group is perfect. Occasionally, one can find a Republican who has fallen into temptation and engaged in an “extra-marital affair.” However, as the previous president has taught us, Democrats loose the hyphen along with moral inhibitions and add one more notch to their conquests by having an “extra marital affair.”

Yes, Lynn Truss has inadvertently opened our eyes to an entirely new mode of political analysis.

It is always amazing how those who ought to be educated and well-read enough to know better cannot seem to understand President George W. Bush. It is not simply a question of agreeing or disagreeing with him, many just can’t understand him well enough to appreciate what he is saying. Perhaps it is because many are a little too cynical, sophisticated, or “realistic” to understand. Bush is a traditional American, while many in the so-called chattering classes are post-modern Americans.

When the president delivers a speech, the elites can sometimes tenuously grasp at Bush’s thinking. Bush’s ideas are intrinsically American and harken back to the thinking of the Founders and these sentiments sometimes can be translated by speech writers for the learned classes. However, when Bush answers questions at a press conference, he speaks more directly from his heart. Sure, in his sometimes bubbling way he can garble his thoughts, but other times his words peal out with simple direct tones that should pierce even the intellectual fog that obscures much of Washington. The world views of Bush and the press and others are so different that communication is inhibited.

It is viewed as arrogance by some, but the United States was born with a conviction that the American Revolution represented a fundamental break in the history of mankind. It was not that America would become a new imperial power to replace the old, but that the American example, if Americans could make it successful, would become a beacon of hope for the rest of the world, a shining city upon a hill.

The United States was explicitly born with the conviction about the nature of man and government, embodied in the most cited phrases of the Declaration of Independence:

“they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

How then could the press and punditry not see an evocation of this theme when Bush claimed at his recent news conference, “I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country’s gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world.” How can so many be so blinkered as to not at least recognize the allusion to our founding documents?In response to a query by the press about whether there had been sufficient leadership from the White House, Bush explained that “…there’s an historic opportunity here to change the world … A free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism. It’ll change the world.” Why does this not recall to everyone’s mind Thomas Paine’s somewhat more poetic and direct assertion in the pamphlet Common Sense, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” The reference is not veiled or obscured, it is simply ignored and overlooked by those who are so focused on their views that the obvious blurs into the background unobserved.

It appears hard for many to recognize even more modern allusions in Bush’s rhetoric. George Bush reaffirmed American commitment to freedom when he avered “…as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.” In much the same way John F. Kennedy proclaimed American commitment to freedom. “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

For so many, Vietnam was the defining experience of their youth. Hence, everything is viewed through that prism. Now that there have been in Bush’s words “tough” weeks in Iraq, everyone is focused on that characterization because of its evocations of tough times in Vietnam. Press reports and commentary constantly cite Bush’s characterization “tough”, as they indeed should. At the press conference he used “tough” or variant eleven times and there was emphasis on the difficulties in Iraq.

However, he also used the words “free” or “freedom” 52 times. He even extemporaneously used the rhetorical device of amplification when he explained the constructive consequences of a free Iraq:

“A free Iraq is vital because 25 million Iraqis have as much right to live in freedom as we do.

A free Iraq will stand as an example to reformers across the Middle East.

A free Iraq will show that America is on the side of Muslims who wish to live in peace, as we’ve already shown in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America’s word, once given, can be relied upon, even in the toughest times.”

Now Bush may be foolish or wise in his emphasis on freedom. He may be hopelessly unrealistic or faithful to the founding vision of America. However, these questions are not considered because these words and words like them lay about largely unreported, ignored, and unnoticed.

During the press conference, Bush was asked if he had “failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?” Well sometimes to hear a case, we all have to listen and pay attention.