The Truth about Lies
Recent events on the political landscape have brought to light the larger issue of truth and lies and politicians. Cynics like to say that politicians and lying go together like peanut butter and jelly. They lie for a living.
But what makes me crazy these days is the lies told to try to make us believe someone else lied. Let me see if I can untangle the web of deceit just a bit.
Anti-war activists and the Democrats who pander to them have been pounding the daily message to the great unwashed that President Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. The reasoning goes, Democrats voted approval for the war based on reports of WMD, which we have subsequently been unable to find. Ergo, Bush lied about the WMD and there was no reason to go into Iraq in the first place.
So let's analyze this piece of spin by going back in time. Facts: Saddam was openly defying all the UN's sanctions. He was known to have WMD, which he used both in the war with Iran and against Iraqi Kurds in the past. He harbored terrorist fugitives and supported terrorist training camps within his borders. He also financed terrorist activities against the west. He spent millions, or perhaps billions of dollars through the UN's own "Oil for Food" program to pay off highly placed officials in the UN, France, Germany, and possibly other influential countries to support the removal of sanctions against Iraq, not to mention any resolution that might authorize force to remove his regime.
After 9-11, the United States people were outraged and wanted action. We wanted to stop the terrorists once and for all. Clearly the home base for Al Quaeda was Afghanistan, where they were supported and protected by the Taliban. No-brainer. We went to Afghanistan, destroyed the Taliban, thinned the ranks of Al Quaeda, and forced bin Laden into hiding.
Then Iraq was admittedly not as clear-cut. Reasonable people could and did disagree about the necessity of using force to remove Saddam from power. But in the end, the authorization for war was passed with a significant majority in congress, which committed us to see it through. And no WMD were found after Saddam was ousted, but when the whole world believed he had them prior to the invasion, it's infair to accuse Bush of lying without also accusing everyone else - Republicans, Democrats, the British, French, Germans - of lying about the same thing.
So, here we are today, with the big story about whether or not Valerie Plame was "outed" by high white house officials in an attempt to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, who claimed the administration lied about a story that Saddam tried to purchase Uranium from Africa.
The facts as to whether the white house aides, focusing on Carl Rove and "Scooter" Libby, purposely disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA operative, Plame, are not yet known. But from what is known, but well covered-up by our so-called "watchdog" media are some other related facts.
First, Joseph Wilson lied about nearly every point related to his trip to Niger to investigate the stories of Saddam attempting to buy uranium. It turns out he did get confirmation on that point, but lied about that, about who sent him to Niger, and about the form and substance of his report upon his return.
Second, Valerie Plame had been a covert operative for the CIA in the past, but had not served in that role for several years. So the point of the original investigation into the "leak" was moot.
But for some reason, the investigation continued and expanded beyond the original question. And now the press is eagerly reporting that the involved white house officials might be indicted as early as this week, not for releasing Valerie Plame's name to the press, but for lying about leaking it to the press.
So let me try to get this straight: Political enemies of Bush have been trying for years to convince everyone that he lied about the Iraq war. Joseph Wilson actually did lie about his mission to Niger in order to try to help the effort to paint Bush as a liar. When some staffers at the white house try to give reporters some background on Wilson to help them understand that he was lying about his story, they become the subjects of a tw0-year investigation that ends up (possibly) with indictments alleging they lied about where the press got Wilson's wife's name.
Did Rove, Libby, or anybody else at the white house lie? Did they just forget a detail or two after 3 years? Did they try to cover themselves from accusations of being the original source for the "leak"? I have no idea. But if they are to be indicted for lying, wouldn't it necessarily follow that Wilson be indicted as well? If they did lie about the "leak", which was the bigger lie, theirs or Wilson's?
It seems this entire non-incident is being played for a solely political purpose. And for me, it makes those Democrats behind the whole scheme appear to lack any ethical foundation, with an end-justifies-the-means and win-at-all-costs mentality that should give us all pause.
But what makes me crazy these days is the lies told to try to make us believe someone else lied. Let me see if I can untangle the web of deceit just a bit.
Anti-war activists and the Democrats who pander to them have been pounding the daily message to the great unwashed that President Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. The reasoning goes, Democrats voted approval for the war based on reports of WMD, which we have subsequently been unable to find. Ergo, Bush lied about the WMD and there was no reason to go into Iraq in the first place.
So let's analyze this piece of spin by going back in time. Facts: Saddam was openly defying all the UN's sanctions. He was known to have WMD, which he used both in the war with Iran and against Iraqi Kurds in the past. He harbored terrorist fugitives and supported terrorist training camps within his borders. He also financed terrorist activities against the west. He spent millions, or perhaps billions of dollars through the UN's own "Oil for Food" program to pay off highly placed officials in the UN, France, Germany, and possibly other influential countries to support the removal of sanctions against Iraq, not to mention any resolution that might authorize force to remove his regime.
After 9-11, the United States people were outraged and wanted action. We wanted to stop the terrorists once and for all. Clearly the home base for Al Quaeda was Afghanistan, where they were supported and protected by the Taliban. No-brainer. We went to Afghanistan, destroyed the Taliban, thinned the ranks of Al Quaeda, and forced bin Laden into hiding.
Then Iraq was admittedly not as clear-cut. Reasonable people could and did disagree about the necessity of using force to remove Saddam from power. But in the end, the authorization for war was passed with a significant majority in congress, which committed us to see it through. And no WMD were found after Saddam was ousted, but when the whole world believed he had them prior to the invasion, it's infair to accuse Bush of lying without also accusing everyone else - Republicans, Democrats, the British, French, Germans - of lying about the same thing.
So, here we are today, with the big story about whether or not Valerie Plame was "outed" by high white house officials in an attempt to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, who claimed the administration lied about a story that Saddam tried to purchase Uranium from Africa.
The facts as to whether the white house aides, focusing on Carl Rove and "Scooter" Libby, purposely disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA operative, Plame, are not yet known. But from what is known, but well covered-up by our so-called "watchdog" media are some other related facts.
First, Joseph Wilson lied about nearly every point related to his trip to Niger to investigate the stories of Saddam attempting to buy uranium. It turns out he did get confirmation on that point, but lied about that, about who sent him to Niger, and about the form and substance of his report upon his return.
Second, Valerie Plame had been a covert operative for the CIA in the past, but had not served in that role for several years. So the point of the original investigation into the "leak" was moot.
But for some reason, the investigation continued and expanded beyond the original question. And now the press is eagerly reporting that the involved white house officials might be indicted as early as this week, not for releasing Valerie Plame's name to the press, but for lying about leaking it to the press.
So let me try to get this straight: Political enemies of Bush have been trying for years to convince everyone that he lied about the Iraq war. Joseph Wilson actually did lie about his mission to Niger in order to try to help the effort to paint Bush as a liar. When some staffers at the white house try to give reporters some background on Wilson to help them understand that he was lying about his story, they become the subjects of a tw0-year investigation that ends up (possibly) with indictments alleging they lied about where the press got Wilson's wife's name.
Did Rove, Libby, or anybody else at the white house lie? Did they just forget a detail or two after 3 years? Did they try to cover themselves from accusations of being the original source for the "leak"? I have no idea. But if they are to be indicted for lying, wouldn't it necessarily follow that Wilson be indicted as well? If they did lie about the "leak", which was the bigger lie, theirs or Wilson's?
It seems this entire non-incident is being played for a solely political purpose. And for me, it makes those Democrats behind the whole scheme appear to lack any ethical foundation, with an end-justifies-the-means and win-at-all-costs mentality that should give us all pause.
posted by Dan S. at 7:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home