Lying all the time is hard work
The problem with lying all the time, is it's hard. For most of us, we know from personal experience that when you try to sneak by with a little white lie, the danger is in remembering what the lie was. The truth we know. With the lie, well, we tend to forget what we said. Did I say I was late because my car broke down or because I had a doctor's appointment? How am I going to keep my stories straight?
But the Bush administrations problems aren't that simple. They know exactly what their lies are. The big one is the easiest to remember: that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. We all know there was not. Every piece of evidence says there was not. The 9/11 Commisssion said there was not. There is no link. Never was. Of course, the Bush administration still insists on pushing that lie. Watch the debate between Edwards and Cheney tonight. Cheney is one of the worst of the bunch. Betcha he pushes that doozy again tonight.
No, the Bush administration's problem is not in keeping their lie straight in their heads. Their problem is the much deeper one when it comes to lying. Their problem is that lying is such a soul-crushing thing to keep up. Lying for a long time about important things eats you from the inside. As human beings, we really want to be honest people and tell the truth.
Rumsfeld had that problem this week. On Monday, Rumsfeld said to the Council on Foreign Relations, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two [al Qaeda and Saddam]." That little piece of truth squeaked out. I bet it had been bottled up for so long, it was just about killing him. He had to say it.
But it wasn't the company line. So today, he backed down and went back to the lie. Today he said, " I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq." What is the evidence he cited? He said in a statement on the Defense Department website, "We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad." Okay. We also have even stronger evidence of the presence in the U.S of al Qaeda members. They crashed 4 airplanes a few years ago. Do we really believe the presence of al Qaeda in a country is evidence of a link to that country's government? What else did he say? More of the same. Try this: "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities." What are contacts in Iraq? I think Mohammed Atta sought and actually made contacts in the U.S. Again, are we supposed to believe this is evidence of a link?
Feel sorry for Rumsfeld. It is hard work keeping this up.
But the Bush administrations problems aren't that simple. They know exactly what their lies are. The big one is the easiest to remember: that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. We all know there was not. Every piece of evidence says there was not. The 9/11 Commisssion said there was not. There is no link. Never was. Of course, the Bush administration still insists on pushing that lie. Watch the debate between Edwards and Cheney tonight. Cheney is one of the worst of the bunch. Betcha he pushes that doozy again tonight.
No, the Bush administration's problem is not in keeping their lie straight in their heads. Their problem is the much deeper one when it comes to lying. Their problem is that lying is such a soul-crushing thing to keep up. Lying for a long time about important things eats you from the inside. As human beings, we really want to be honest people and tell the truth.
Rumsfeld had that problem this week. On Monday, Rumsfeld said to the Council on Foreign Relations, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two [al Qaeda and Saddam]." That little piece of truth squeaked out. I bet it had been bottled up for so long, it was just about killing him. He had to say it.
But it wasn't the company line. So today, he backed down and went back to the lie. Today he said, " I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq." What is the evidence he cited? He said in a statement on the Defense Department website, "We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad." Okay. We also have even stronger evidence of the presence in the U.S of al Qaeda members. They crashed 4 airplanes a few years ago. Do we really believe the presence of al Qaeda in a country is evidence of a link to that country's government? What else did he say? More of the same. Try this: "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities." What are contacts in Iraq? I think Mohammed Atta sought and actually made contacts in the U.S. Again, are we supposed to believe this is evidence of a link?
Feel sorry for Rumsfeld. It is hard work keeping this up.
posted by Charles S. Russell at 9:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home