a Fella Won't Let Ya Look, He Must Be Hiding Something
July 20, 2002
By Doug Pibel
in March, George W. Bush held a brief press conference with
his good friend Vicente Fox, President of Mexico. A reporter
asked him to hold forth on Saddam Hussein; he happily took
the opportunity to discourse on that evildoer.
Among other things, he said, "And this is a man who refuses
to allow us to determine whether or not he still has weapons
of mass destruction, which leads me to believe he does."
That's the sort of down-home, pithy logic that so many seem
to find endearing. Put another way, "If a fella won't let
ya look, he must be hiding something."
Who could argue with that, other than, say, some bleeding-heart
criminal defense attorney trying to convince the jury that
his client's failure to testify shouldn't be taken as an indication
of guilt? As if.
Oh. Also, I guess, Dick Cheney. Who, after all, told the
General Accounting Office to take a hike when it asked him
to produce the records of his energy task force. "How's a
guy to have good deliberations," he asked (and I do paraphrase
slightly), "if people are going to be looking over his shoulder?"
The GAO allowed as how, for starters, it would just like to
know who Cheney met with, and not what they said. Cheney responded
with the equivalent of, "What part of no' don't you understand?"
But that, you see, was a matter of principle. The Office
of President has been gravely weakened who might have done
that weakening (for instance, a group of partisan hacks seeking
to railroad a president out of office) didn't come up for
discussion and Cheney was just trying to get a little spine
back in the office. Apparently, the spines of the presidency
and vice-presidency are conjoined, so that Cheney's defense
of principle on behalf of his actions as vice would just naturally
put some calcium back in the principal office as well.
He certainly wasn't hiding anything.
Kenny Boy Lay and Bernie Ebberts might tend to disagree with
that bit of Bush logic as well. They've both rested their
mighty haunches before Congress and neither could think of
a peep to say beyond invoking the Fifth Amendment.
What must George think? Well, obviously, he thinks they've
got something to hide.
Let's not forget George W. Bush, while we're at it. Since,
as he has told us repeatedly, to the best of his understanding
(which, he lately admits, is not perfectly clear), he has
nothing to hide, why not throw open the full records of his
Harken Oil dealings? How would that go? "And this is a man
who refuses to let us determine whether there was anything
shady about his business dealings, which leads me to believe
Then there's the United States of America, which, for all
of its fear of biological weapons streaming in from all sides,
declared the Biological Weapons Convention dead, never to
be resurrected. But that was another matter of principle.
For one thing, we think all these other countries cheat, and
we're not going to sign on to a set of rules if other people
are going to cheat. For another (and one does wonder where
this falls in the heirarchy of considerations), we're afraid
that all these other countries would come in here and steal
our proprietary information. Which is a great deal like saying
we're building biological weapons, and we don't want anybody
else finding out how much or what kind.
Perhaps before we sally forth to war based on George's deductive
logic, we should ask him to apply it with equal force to Dick
and Kenny Boy and Bernie. We could even ask him to apply the
words of his favorite philosopher and see if he's really ready
to fling the first stone.