Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Since the issue of presidential veracity is back in the news again, I want to make a couple of quick points.

Clearly todays big news (here) is that the President lied to the American people when he claimed evidence for 'Weapons Labs' had been found.

But lets flesh that out a bit shall we? Is this part of a pattern and is it 'in the past' or is it ongoing? Back up to this last weekend. Remember when the president said "I wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on, so I wanted people to see the truth." (here) Though I don't recall seeing anyone mention it, the fact is that the president was lying when he said that, and lying in a particularly twisty, any-way-you-look-at-it kind of way.

How so? First, not only do we all now know, but he knows that we all know, that in fact the 'truth' he wanted people to see, was not true. It was in fact false. So to use the word 'truth' about what was stated then is to lie now. Second, we also know that not only had the President been informed in the NIE that these tales were likely false, but indeed what Joe Wilson was saying in public, and what he had told the CIA, was that they were false (which in fact was true). So the president knew *then* that the information he was leaking was false, or in the language of the common man President Bush so wants us to think of him as, a lie. A big fat one. It was a lie then, and it was a lie this weekend when he lied about lying about it. In fact what really happened, as the president has now told us, exept for his disengenuous use of the word 'truth', was that the president used the seeming authority of his office, and the office of those associated with him (Cheney and Libby) to inject a lie into the national debate in a surruptitious way in an attempt to discredit Joe Wilson. Precisely what Fitzgerald stated in his court filings.

So, what do we know? We know not only that the President lied, we also know something far worse now. We know that the president is a habitual, serial, and inveterate liar. He may well be a pathological liar. He lies to cover up for old lies. That is very definitely the mark of a pathological liar.

Anybody who believes anything Bush says, or indeed his office says, is a fool. There have been way too many lies, on way too many critical national security issues for any other position to be taken by a sane and reasonable person interested in their own self-preservation.

Okay, so, now that we all know. Can we worry about other issues? Like how we are going to stop the war on terrorism when this country is being run by liars, con-artists, and people with 'For Sale' tattooed on the back of their necks?


Post a Comment

<< Home