[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

Why presidents lie

Thursday, February 15 at 4:27 PM

This Speakout has not been edited

By J.D. Simbeck, Mancos

This month “Atlantic” magazine analyzes “Why Presidents Lie.”

Whoppers flew from the mouths of Nixon, Reagan and Clinton, as well as Eisenhower and Truman. Each believed fervently what they were doing. Each saw the “wisdom” of avoiding the brazen truth at critical junctures in their presidency. “Lies” take many shades and circumstances justify half-truths.

Diplomats dodge and weave; candidates sidestep loaded questions; doctors and lawyers hold back on facts. In serving their higher good, dissembling is less a vice than art. Consider a recent State of the Union address (Cheney over one shoulder and Pelosi over the other). Some folks shook their heads at every word. Journalists scrambled to interpret what this or that really means.

“Truth” is not the objective, nor is objectivity the goal. Speech-writers serve up talking points, like talking heads dishing sound-bites – not facts.

That’s why Molly Ivins left real journalism decades ago and Jon Stewart outshines the networks. Script-writers can’t paint in 30 minutes a true picture of America – much less Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the mouthpiece has to sell it. With a certain leadership style, that’s a tall order. Remember the cliché “Those who can’t … teach” ? George Bush personifies the opposite. No eloquence, diplomacy or academic method to employ, his forte is action.

Those who can…don’t have to explain. Question his judgment, question his vision, question his intelligence if you like, but calling him a liar is facile and …counter-productive. None of us know the full story either. Moreover, running a troublesome country (or three) is far from easy. Rome knew that when it sent Pontius Pilate to the Middle East. Torture and execution there—then and now— is a common fate for trouble-makers. Recall the eternal question Pilate asked: “What is truth?” All he got was silence.

No one was silent in the runup to the war four years ago. Colin Powell warned the Pilot how messy things would get if we invaded.

Wolfowitz, the Banker, predicted the mission would pay for itself. Rumsfeld and Feith are also out of the kitchen, leaving whom at the cookstove?

Robert Gates declares himself willing to “speak truth to power,” but a capacity to hear truth is fundamental. Can Cheney and the Architect listen?

Is Dubya the decider?

Last week, a friend told me this war may be a lot different from Vietnam, but what concerns him more is that the cost of losing, this time, seems much greater. Energy stocks, trillion dollar debt and world terrorism all “up the ante” over the quagmire of the Sixties.

In Vietnam, James Stockdale spent 8 years in enemy hands and lived to tell about it. In 2000 he helped Jim Collins coin the term “Stockdale Paradox.”

Expectation of success is critical, but only to a point: refusal to acknowledge cold facts sends one teetering toward optimism. POWs who gave in to optimism “all died of broken hearts.” Despite all the rhetoric and signs to the contrary, I hope our leaders will find a proper balance between perseverance and facing reality. God-awful mistakes and tragedies have turned to the good in surprising ways before.

Here is a prime case where the good intentions we have for Iraq can still win out. Not only is there a higher power at work: I believe also in the “lower powers” of our soldiers and citizens. With their faith and suffering, America will prevail despite the false prophets and the war profiteers.

READER COMMENTS

"...the good intentions we have for Iraq can still win out. Not only is there a higher power at work: I believe also in the “lower powers” of our soldiers and citizens. With their faith and suffering, America will prevail despite the false prophets and the war profiteers."
How?
Incidentally, compared to anyplace else on earth, our faith and suffering falls short.

Posted by Janus Daniels on February 23, 2007 11:13 AM