November 8, 2002

2:42 PM

"President Bush is a liar. There, I said it, but most of the mainstream media won't."
From an article in The Nation...prompted by all the talk of lies in this thread.
posted by mapalm (57 comments total)

Before the thread gets flamed, read the article. It's short, and raises interesting points regarding the acceptance and/or rejection of "liars" in government positions.
posted by mapalm at 2:48 PM on November 8, 2002

mapalm, I can't believe I'm actually going to do this, but thank you.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:52 PM on November 8, 2002

mapalm, I can't believe I'm actually going to do this, but thank you.
Really? Wow. I was sort of anticipating buckets of blood ala "Carrie." Thanks right back.
posted by mapalm at 2:54 PM on November 8, 2002

I like this article because it's not just an anti-bush column, it's a column on the liars that have held office.
posted by angry modem at 2:57 PM on November 8, 2002

Here's a handy link to the liars who have ever held the office of president.

I'll bet they all occasionally picked their noses, and didn't wash their hands after taking a leak as well.

That said - if this is in reference to another thread, perhaps it was best posted there.
posted by revbrian at 3:08 PM on November 8, 2002

I wish I could go behind our politicians with a small stick, and tap them on their head all day, why you may ask do I want to do this? Because it is annoying, and when our politicians lie to us it's annoying so fair is fair, now where's my stick? BTW good link.
posted by jbou at 3:09 PM on November 8, 2002

The article is not inflammatory crap, despite the venue and the billing. It raises a good point (unfortunately, very superficially) about an attribute of Bush's that does partly define the contemporary media role-playing of our politicians. Anyone who watched the 2000 campaign astutely has already developed a repertoire of signs for understanding when Bush is lying—certain facial gestures and head/eye movements, vocal inflections, and (my personal favorite) repeating a statement twice. It is one of the delicious paradoxes of politics that bald-faced lying is an essential weapon in the politician's arsenal that can never be called by name. Not a partisan point or issue, but one to be studied by anyone interested in American political life. That's why I'm disappointed that Alterman, who mentions a dissertation on the subject, can't distill his results into something more compelling than this breezy musing.

Y'all may want to check out the front-page Post story mentioned by Alterman. (Cf. Ari Fleischer's lame rebuttal.)
posted by Zurishaddai at 3:10 PM on November 8, 2002

Working URL for the Washington Post story, which is essential background. (MeFi mangled the URL because it contained the sequence "&not".)
posted by Zurishaddai at 3:18 PM on November 8, 2002

Zurishaddai:

What was "lame" about the the rebuttal?

The accusations were addressed, clearly and concisely.

Were you hoping for something hyperbolic?
posted by nobody_knose at 3:26 PM on November 8, 2002

That's an easy one to answer—it addresses a couple of the Iraq statements but not the howlers that constantly flow from Bush about education spending, etc., etc.
posted by Zurishaddai at 3:29 PM on November 8, 2002

Even the IMF has called Bush a liar .
posted by euphorb at 3:50 PM on November 8, 2002

if this is in reference to another thread, perhaps it was best posted there.

Interesting idea.
posted by hama7 at 4:02 PM on November 8, 2002

as sober and rational and wonderful as this column is, it still doens't answer the age-old question which is, why is it that, for the obvious exception of Nixon, does the press continually allow Republican presidents to lie right to our faces and never call bs?

what is it about the so-called liberal media and their relationship with so-called conservative so-called leaders?
posted by tsarfan at 4:15 PM on November 8, 2002

I get the distinct impression that the piece was written in a 'breezily musing' fashion, it's so it wouldn't be instantly ignored by Bush advocates (those who might not think he's a liar, and therefore the target audience) and so it focuses on one point, his lying, ignoring the rationalizations as to *why*, which would also likely cause pro-war or staunch republicans to tune out and disregard the piece.

This article's a good wedge in the door that I hope is slowly opening.
posted by kfury at 4:22 PM on November 8, 2002

maybe it's the threat of losing access, tsarfan...i know the current administration has come down hard on journalists who get too nosy or annoying, etc....
posted by amberglow at 4:22 PM on November 8, 2002

I think eric alterman needs to get out more.
posted by republican at 4:28 PM on November 8, 2002

so it wouldn't be instantly ignored by Bush advocates (those who might not think he's a liar, and therefore the target audience)

I dunno, I think if you wanted to reach Bush advocates, The Nation is exactly the wrong choice of venue.
posted by jjg at 4:31 PM on November 8, 2002

So, Bush is a liar. So was Clinton. People lie to make a situation convenient. Clinton lied to avoid a sex scandal. Bush wants Saddam gone. Why is this suprising?
posted by tboz at 4:31 PM on November 8, 2002

As much as I do like Bush, there is no reason to deny that he lies...maybe I hold onto grudges too long, but the reason is namely because of the entire Clinton fiasco where he blatantly lied and I think that he made the American public out to be fools through his lies. I'm not trying to be inflamitory with that statement, its just how I feel (though I do think he did do a great job referring soley to a Presiden't duty). After Clinon's actions it will take years to get back my trust in any President telling the truth.
posted by jmd82 at 4:35 PM on November 8, 2002

I dunno, I think if you wanted to reach Bush advocates, The Nation is exactly the wrong choice of venue.

Actually I suppose that many of them read the Nation, just as many lefites read National Review to keep track of what the enemy is up to, and in the process occasionally come across some compelling reasoning that might sway them one way or the other on a particular issue.
posted by Ty Webb at 4:47 PM on November 8, 2002

I've always hated the name of Slate's Whopper of the Week. Whopper seems so cutesy-poo and harmless compared to lie, I guess. And Spinsanity far too often falls back on words like "evasion" and "dissemble". But they're better than nothing.
posted by Guy Smiley at 5:12 PM on November 8, 2002

This just in...

IKE LIED!!!
posted by pejamo at 5:16 PM on November 8, 2002

The fear of access thing is what has galled me the most in recent years. Reporters are so frightened about not be allowed to be in the room when the press conference takes place. But having been a small town reporter for several years and covering far too many press conferences as a capitol hill reporter at the state capitol, I must say this: There is no news to be found at a press conference! The questions you have won't be answered. Anything the conference organizers want you to know, they have already carefully placed in a press release. The access issue is moot. A good reporter has feelers out all over town and can get to the bottom of a story, track down a lie, follow the money, whatever, if they have the gumption. But the CNN-ized world of instant-on access and gratification has lessened that ambition. Pete Hamill wrote a book - "News is a Verb" that talks about this to some degree - namely that news isn't some white guy in a suit at a podium regurgitating a press release. News is something that has happened and is written about. Nothing happens at press conferences.
posted by majikwah at 5:26 PM on November 8, 2002

I often wonder if people ever really do change political opinions. Of course Reagan did, but perhaps Alzheimers had set in early. It shocks me that Bush lies, and I agree with the article's author that Clinton's lies were irrelevant in comparison, but it's so interesting how people react to the facts according to their long-established beliefs. How can change really happen? Or is it all just rhetorical?
posted by divrsional at 5:36 PM on November 8, 2002

I find it interesting that in threads like this - where the evidence against Bush is compelling - most of the well-known Republican Mefites decline to engage on the substance, or to enter the arena at all.

Why would that be, I wonder?
posted by dash_slot- at 6:30 PM on November 8, 2002

Why would that be, I wonder?

Maybe because it would be as fruitful as discussing Clinton's lies with a Democrat. I have better things to do with my time.
posted by RevGreg at 6:33 PM on November 8, 2002

I often wonder if people ever really do change political opinions.

FWIW, I was pretty rabidly conservative (and religious, for that matter) all the way through college, but three things: 1) discovering that almost all of my College Republican buddies aspired to white-collar crime (no, really...at least got busted in '99) 2) working for a faceless corporation 3) working in Bible-belt Arkansas (which incidentally cured me of any belief in religion) really changed my political outlook. It also make family gatherings much more interesting. [g]

Just a personal datapoint to the affirmative.
posted by notsnot at 6:35 PM on November 8, 2002

What was "lame" about the the rebuttal? The accusations were addressed, clearly and concisely.

Most of accusations were not addressed, and the two that were addressed were still not actually refuted. He did not turn false statements into true ones, nor did he explain why the false statements were made.

Furthermore, he ends with this sentence: "Each point in The Post's story is refuted by the facts. " This is not only lame, it's another lie; he only introduced one fact, if a fact it is: that a certain International Institute of Strategic Studies produced a report similar to the one Bush claims was produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That's all; absolutely no other facts are introduced that "refute each point in the Post's story". That's why it's lame.
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:38 PM on November 8, 2002

'Clinton lied to avoid a sex scandal. Bush wants Saddam gone. Why is this surprising?'


It's not surprising, but clearly one is more dangerous than the other. With Clinton's lies he pissed off his wife and some rabid voyeuristic republicans. With Bush's lies he gets support from the American people to send people to die!

But I think the point of the article is that the media had no problem saying that Clinton lied. They said it over and over again so that everybody heard it whether they wanted to or not. The media doesn't call Bush on his shit and when an occasional story makes it out that implies that he stretched the truth the reporter is shunned and given no further access. The heads of the major media need access so they don't want the piss the Administration off. Therefore the American people don't get the information that they need.
posted by bas67 at 6:58 PM on November 8, 2002

maybe it's the threat of losing access, tsarfan...

Exactomundo--as in Journeys With George : After keeping the press at arms length, reporters were invited to ride along with G.W. after they saw the way McCain was getting good press on his Straight Talk Express. Bush was charming, personal and friendly. But when he was asked a tough question, he wouldn't call on that person again. It happened to Alexadra Pelosi when she asked him if he was sure that everyone executed under his watch in Texas was guilty. He cut her off after that. So, the reporters who traveled with him tended to avoid asking him tough questions. It was called Drinking the Kool Aid--after Jonestown, y'know--on the bus.

Speaking of recent whoppers, here's Mark Shields on the biggest of late with Why Newt Gingrich Isn't Missed. OK, that's it--I'm outa here!
posted by y2karl at 7:02 PM on November 8, 2002

Republicans Unite !!! Man i can't believe I finally get the opportunity to post this link...
posted by GT_RULES at 7:29 PM on November 8, 2002

Is 'access' really that bad a thing to lose? There are plenty of British hacks who are basically despised by the Alistair Campbell spin express, and are admired all the more for doing their work without lobby briefings and Whitehall whispers. Or is the American press that craven to the fripperies of 'access', which in itself is a shorthand for 'free ticket to receive disinformation'...
posted by riviera at 7:35 PM on November 8, 2002

Thanks for the link. . .

Why are people surprised when politicians of any stripe turn out to be self-interested liars? Can anybody name a single successful politician who's not? I'm sure that there was once somebody who ran for office because he truly wanted to make a difference and give back to the community. That man lost the election.

The reason that Bush sucks isn't because he lies or drives drunk or caters to his cronies, it's because his policies are ridiculous.

I think that the left should avoid the Clinton-era right-wing "the-president-is-a-role-model-character-is-everything" bullshit. It detracts from the real issues. We're electing a political leader, not a saint.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 8:01 PM on November 8, 2002

I'm of the opinion that not only is it good to have a liar in office, it's necessary to have a liar in office.

That being said, I think it's important to examine the lies rationally, and determine their effects. Is the country hurt if an elected official arranges a break-in of the opposing party's headquarters? certainly. Is the country hurt if an elected official lies about a blowjob? not really. Is the country hurt if an elected official creates false justifications to assassinate a foreign leader? hell yes.

I'm not saying that assassinating Hussein, I mean regime change, is necessarily a bad thing, but I find the combination of war rhetoric made of lies, and an administration who quite literally would profit from the war to be a dangerous place for lies.
posted by mosch at 8:20 PM on November 8, 2002

Yeah GT_RULES (georgia tech?), you republicans come up with some of the most inane things to buy and sell to each other.

It's like, not only do you not get irony but you've simultaneously been lobotomized by it.

It's also as though pop-culture's many fine embroidered polo shirts has transmogrified into the modern American analogue of the (gasp) swastika.
posted by crasspastor at 8:20 PM on November 8, 2002

Was that a Godwin, crasspastor?
posted by LittleMissCranky at 8:24 PM on November 8, 2002

Only being ironic.
posted by crasspastor at 8:28 PM on November 8, 2002

I find it interesting that in threads like this - where the evidence against Bush is compelling - most of the well-known Republican Mefites decline to engage on the substance, or to enter the arena at all.

Not for speaking everyone on the right, but I, am one, am sick and tired at the "bash dubya" thread of the day. there are a lot more interesting posts to read.
posted by gyc at 8:59 PM on November 8, 2002

mosch: I agree with your first point inasmuch as most everyone lies some of the time -- it's hard to avoid electing someone who's going to lie. On the other hand, some people try really hard to lie as little as possible and not be misleading. I'm talking people, not politicians.

In any case, I very much agree that some lies are much worse than others. I heard a number of people say that they weren't upset about Clinton having an affair, they were upset that he lied under oath. Now, Bush may not be under oath when he makes statements, but I don't see how you can say with a straight face that it doesn't matter if he lies about major policies. Those sorts of lies are hardly harmless.
posted by caveday at 9:03 PM on November 8, 2002

GOP golf balls? this has to be a joke. anyways, some of this republican gear is expensive as hell! who could afford to blow their money on this stuff?
posted by mcsweetie at 9:23 PM on November 8, 2002

Thankfully, Clinton never lied.
posted by paleocon at 9:58 PM on November 8, 2002

It really bugs me that nobody cares that Clinton had an affair. The man who represents our country has an affair, breaking a commandment, if anybody cares about those anymore, and nobody cares. Are affairs just a common thing now? Or does nobody care because it doesn't effect their lives? Anyone travel the moral high ground anymore? Would it have been different if he was caught smoking weed?

Anyway, all presidents lie. Some lies are for good reasons, others aren't. Some can lie good, others can't. I lie. I lied just now. Ok, that was a lie.
posted by Ron at 10:40 PM on November 8, 2002

Are affairs just a common thing now?

Is this a serious question and you are from what planet? Here's a concept: human frailty. I mean this is a thread about lying, for Christ's sake. Fidelity is an ideal. Infidelity is the practice. Exhibit A: The divorce rate. Oh, that's terrible, you say? Yeah, well, in the pre-19th Century when people lived to the ripe old age of 30, one could buy that line. Um, and you checked the Newt Gingrich link up there where you find Mr. Moral Married Paragon was shtupping an aide while he was moaning about Clinton's blow jobs and blaming even Susan Smith's drowning her own kids on the liberals. Here's another concept: Get Real.

Exhibit B: Dan Savage - Skipping Towards Gomorrah: The Seven Deadly Sins and the Pursuit of Happiness in America.
posted by y2karl at 11:01 PM on November 8, 2002

Newt Gingrich... grumble grumble... Moral high ground... grumble grumble... Total fucking willfully ignorant hypocrite... grumble grumble...
posted by y2karl at 11:06 PM on November 8, 2002

And if you can't bring yourself to click on it:

"How a mother can kill her two children,14 months and 3 years, in hopes that her boyfriend would like her is just a sign of how sick the system is," observed Gingrich, "and I think people want to change. The only way you get change is to vote Republican."

Four years later, Speaker Gingrich led a "family values" House Republican lynch mob bent on stringing up and impeaching the faithless and lying husband who was the president of the United States and a Democrat.

It later became public that for more than five years, the married Gingrich had been carrying on a torrid affair with a younger, unmarried Capitol Hill staffer. And to think that Gingrich used to charge his political adversaries were "the enemy of normal Americans."

He has distorted facts and damaged reputations, none more than his own. In his wake Gingrich has left lies, smears and distrust.

What a tragic, hurtful and empty legacy for such a smart man.
posted by y2karl at 11:13 PM on November 8, 2002

It really bugs me that nobody cares that Clinton had an affair. The man who represents our country has an affair, breaking a commandment, if anybody cares about those anymore, and nobody cares.

Really? Nobody cares? Where have you been living? What was that whole congressional investigation about then? Why were the newspapers and editorials full of nothing else for the better part of a year? Why did it make headlines around the world? What in hell else has Jay Leno's monologue been about ever since? What has every conservative columnist and politician talked about more than any other single thing in the years that have passed since?

There's one enormous, stupefying amount of caring about Clinton's affair going on. Half the public literally never shuts up about it. And when Jesse Jackson was on his way to Florida to talk about the disenfranchisement of Black voters in 2000, the Bushies released the info they'd been holding on the affair he'd been having. And whenever anyone mentions Dr Martin Luther King, conservatives say "oh, well, he had affairs". As if who he had sex with invalidates the very concept of civil rights. That's the right for you: dare to question, oppose or investigate their public behavior in office, they immediately respond by sneaking in your bedroom window.

Now let me ask you, Ron. Why does a telling the truth about an incident of consensual sex between adults five years ago matter more than tellling the truth about a war that will involve millions, and mean the death of many of them?
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:03 AM on November 9, 2002

Glad to see I got some people riled up. What I mean by nobody cares about the affair that sure they talked about it, sure Republicans made a big deal about, why wouldn't they. But I felt the American public did not think this was a big sin on the part of Clinton. I thought we should hold our president to a higher moral ground than the rest of Americans. And of course he lied about it to begin with. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Or something like that. Take Nixon and Watergate. How is how Nixon behaved that much different than Clinton? They both did something very wrong and end result is Nixon resigns and Clinton remains. I believe back in the Nixon days the president was held to a higher moral standing than other people. And what's wrong with that. But please don't bash me on this. I'm just giving my opinion. I just ask for your thoughts.
posted by Ron at 1:29 AM on November 9, 2002

The reason that Clinton having an affair didn't bother me is because things of that nature are personal, and as such should be dealt with between the married couple and whatever god they pray to. In the end, they could be having orgies in the White House, and so long as everyone still bothers themselves with running the country, I don't care. It doesn't effect me personally.

When a president lies about world issues, global policies and foreign relations, that does effect me in the form of a potential war that is being supported by a large number of Americans who don't have the true facts and so can't choose wisely.
posted by Orb at 2:05 AM on November 9, 2002

George_Spiggott 'Why were the newspapers and editorials full of nothing else for the better part of a year? Why did it make headlines around the world?'

i was under the impression that this was due to a well financed campaign by republican sympathisers. i certainly found the whole proceedure lacking in interest, and wondered at it's inclusion in uk news bulletins. no such campaign is being pursued by well financed democrat sympathisers regarding bush's lies though.
posted by asok at 4:07 AM on November 9, 2002

George_Spiggott Why were the newspapers and editorials full of nothing else for the better part of a year? Why did it make headlines around the world?

Stay focused, George, what were we talking about? Lies, right? The papers were full of it because Clinton lied about it, got his cabinet and friends to lie about, lied to his family about it, for the better part of a year. He only came clean when confronted with DNA evidence.

Which was the same reason the papers were full of the Watergate scandals for years. Because Nixon lied. Not because of the original 'third rate burglary', but because of the cover-up. If either Nixon or Clinton had come clean immediately, both would have been embarrassed, but neither would have been impeached. Certainly not Clinton.

Why should we care about a president's infidelity to his wife? I'm not much of a Ross Perot fan, but one thing he said sticks in my mind. When he was asked why he wouldn't hire a man known to have had an extramarital affair, he replied, "If a man's wife can't trust him, how can I trust him?"

I can't come up with an answer to that. If a man can betray his marriage, will he betray his boss? If a president will betray his wife, will he betray his country's citizens? Is dishonesty in one sphere of life a marker for dishonesty in other spheres of life?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 5:40 AM on November 9, 2002

When he was asked why he wouldn't hire a man known to have had an extramarital affair, he replied, "If a man's wife can't trust him, how can I trust him?"

PerotCorp: Employees, 1.
posted by riviera at 5:52 AM on November 9, 2002

I can't come up with an answer to that. If a man can betray his marriage, will he betray his boss? If a president will betray his wife, will he betray his country's citizens? Is dishonesty in one sphere of life a marker for dishonesty in other spheres of life?

This is quite a stretch, which republicans are not only happy to make, they're passionate about making it. Bear in mind, the stained dress was the culmination of a witchhunt that cost the taxpayers millions. The republicans weren't outraged when they found it: they were triumphant. It's what they wanted, were hoping for, were paying for, and they finally found it, and they crowed it to the world. They impeached a sitting president over a blow job. They must have been very proud of themselves and of America at that time.

And just to refresh your memory, here is the morally stainless, upstanding Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee whose decision it was to send the case to the House for impeachment.

"If a man's wife can't trust him, how can I trust him?"

If the American people cannot trust a President to tell the truth about matters relating to war and his pursuit of it, he doesn't belong in the White House.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:26 AM on November 9, 2002

Here is a good example of why I am more concerned with Bush's lies about Iraq than Clinton's lies about Monica.

A war in Iraq could provoke international terrorist cells within the United States to attack American citizens at home, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham said Friday.

Somehow I don't think a blowjob is as likely to provoke another terrorist attack, for which we are totally unprepared.
posted by homunculus at 10:52 AM on November 9, 2002

Oh and one other thing on the matter of whether Clinton can be "trusted". His two terms are complete, so the only reason to bring this up is to deflect from Bush's lies, and that's the only reason you're doing it. The question of Clinton's trustworthiness is settled after a two-term presidency that was hugely prosperous and by modern American standards, peaceful.

The question of Bush's trustworthiness is another matter: he's president now, he refused to listen to the outgoing administration's warnings and briefings about al Qaeda, and now he lies to us about Iraq. Lives are at stake here, and you people can't think about anything but the previous president's dong.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:55 AM on November 9, 2002

"If a man's wife can't trust him, how can I trust him?"

Well, if you plan on sleeping with him, perhaps this would be something to worry about. I didn't realize most of Perot's relationships with his subordinates involved sexual intercourse, though. Talk about the corporate overlords fucking you over...
posted by kindall at 11:28 AM on November 9, 2002

It really bugs me that nobody cares that Clinton had an affair. The man who represents our country has an affair, breaking a commandment

Dear Mullah Falwell,
America is Ready.

Love,
Your Devoted, Sheep-like Minions
posted by owillis at 5:53 PM on November 9, 2002

I find it frustrating that the best Republicans can do is "Not as bad as Clinton" (and of course the standard was laid pretty low by John Poindexter, Oliver North and Co.). I felt that Clinton should have either stonewalled when the investigation went fishing for a sex scandal or resigned.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:42 AM on November 10, 2002