Wednesday, June 30, 2004
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Calling Bush a Liar
"They deceived themselves along with the public — a more common problem in government than flat-out lying," Kristoff writes, saying that this doesn't make bush a liar.
But that IS lying. Did Clinton lie about Lewinsky? Yes. That is also lying.
But they are not equivalent lies. Lying to defend yourself and your family against investigation into sexual misconduct is a serious offense and worthy of disbarment. Lying about intelligence to stage an invasion of a country is an impeachable offense.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, Kristoff is flat out wrong about this. He conveniently ignores the fact that the Bush administration DID KNOW all along that the CIA REPORTS WERE FALSE. Maybe Bush didn't know (I'm sure he doesn't know anything about a peanut), but Rumsfeld and Cheny did and they run the country. How did they know? 1) Rumsfled directed that they be manufactured. 2) Powell (the only moral person in this whole crowd - I really do feel sorry for him) warned Bush publically that the reports were false and 3)Rumsfeld and Cheney's "stovepiping" of CIA intelligence further allowed them to slant all the reports in the direction they wanted.
Kristoff may be saying that the administration BELIEVED Saddamm really did have weapons and they manufactured the intelligence to support that belief. But if that is not the definition of a lie, what is? If I believe that you are a gold watch and manufacture a report that says you are a gold watch, but in fact you are not and you are demonstrably not, is that not lying? Yes - it is not JUST lying, it is ALSO libel! So I don't know why Kristoff is letting the administration off the hook because they have the gaul to create false intelligence to support an ideological belief in addition to propagating falsehoods. Is that not purely evil?
Again - as I have ALWAYS said - that does not mean I don't think that Saddam should not have been removed from power. Just not on the basis of LIES.
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Calling Bush a Liar
But that IS lying. Did Clinton lie about Lewinsky? Yes. That is also lying.
But they are not equivalent lies. Lying to defend yourself and your family against investigation into sexual misconduct is a serious offense and worthy of disbarment. Lying about intelligence to stage an invasion of a country is an impeachable offense.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, Kristoff is flat out wrong about this. He conveniently ignores the fact that the Bush administration DID KNOW all along that the CIA REPORTS WERE FALSE. Maybe Bush didn't know (I'm sure he doesn't know anything about a peanut), but Rumsfeld and Cheny did and they run the country. How did they know? 1) Rumsfled directed that they be manufactured. 2) Powell (the only moral person in this whole crowd - I really do feel sorry for him) warned Bush publically that the reports were false and 3)Rumsfeld and Cheney's "stovepiping" of CIA intelligence further allowed them to slant all the reports in the direction they wanted.
Kristoff may be saying that the administration BELIEVED Saddamm really did have weapons and they manufactured the intelligence to support that belief. But if that is not the definition of a lie, what is? If I believe that you are a gold watch and manufacture a report that says you are a gold watch, but in fact you are not and you are demonstrably not, is that not lying? Yes - it is not JUST lying, it is ALSO libel! So I don't know why Kristoff is letting the administration off the hook because they have the gaul to create false intelligence to support an ideological belief in addition to propagating falsehoods. Is that not purely evil?
Again - as I have ALWAYS said - that does not mean I don't think that Saddam should not have been removed from power. Just not on the basis of LIES.
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Calling Bush a Liar
Comments:
Post a Comment
