Tag Archives: WMD

Uncategorized

Liar, liar …

Let’s talk briefly one more time about lies and lying.

President Obama’s critics accuse him of “lying” about the Affordable Care Act, specifically about the pledge he made that Americans can “keep their doctor if they so wish.” It turns out, with the unveiling of the ACA, that wasn’t necessarily the case.

Republicans jumped all over Obama for “lying” to Americans.

The dictionary defines “lying” as the intentional telling of an untruth. To suggest someone is lying is to know beyond a doubt the person made a statement knowing it is untrue.

Did the president knowingly assert the “keep-your-doctor” pledge knowing it wasn’t necessarily true? I don’t know, and neither do his critics.

I also need to revisit one more time the so-called “lies” President Bush told us about whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The president used WMD as a reason for going to war.

We invaded Iraq in March 2003, looked high and low for those WMD. We found none.

Intelligence analysts all over the world said Saddam had the WMD. Secretary of State Colin Powell said so in a statement to the United Nations. Were they lying? Did they purposely tell a falsehood? I don’t know that any more than I know that Barack Obama “lied” about the ACA.

I just have grown weary of the casual use of this particular “L” word.

How about cooling it until someone can produce incontrovertible proof that he or she is a true-blue mind reader?

Uncategorized

Politics means ‘lying’ takes on broader context

My American Heritage dictionary defines the term “lie” thusly: “a false statement deliberately presented as true.”

That’s a commonly accepted description of a lie. Someone has to knowingly say something that is false.

Well, in politics, lying takes on a different sort of meaning.

Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick “Prince of Darkness” Cheney, said just the other day that President Barack Obama lied when he made grand promises about the Affordable Care Act.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/190496-liz-cheney-no-question-obama-lied-about-o-care

“No question” that he lied, said Cheney. What’s more, the former VP’s daughter has accused Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming — whose seat Cheney wants to take from the incumbent — of enabling the president to lie about the ACA.

I won’t get into whether Enzi enabled anything.

I am puzzled, though, why we allow politicians to use terms like “liar” and “lie” when the universe could contain all kinds of reasons for untruthful statements.

Yes, the president said anyone could keep their health plans if they wanted to do so once the ACA kicked in. It didn’t happen; millions of Americans had their policies canceled, forcing the president to announce this past week that insurers could keep policies in force for another year.

Pardon the verbal parsing, but for Cheney — who’s an underdog in her campaign to beat Enzi — to suggest that Obama “lied” is to become a mind-reader. She knows without a doubt, she says, that the president lied — which is to say he deliberately stood before the nation and said something he knew to be untrue.

Just maybe the president believed what he said at the time to be true. If someone says something in good faith — believing they are telling the truth — does that make them bad-faced liars?

Here’s an example that might hit Liz Cheney right in the gut.

Her dad told us that the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Those WMD became the basis for us launching a full-scale war against Iraq in March 2003. Our troops stormed into Baghdad, captured Saddam, scoured the country from top to bottom looking for those WMD.

They weren’t there.

Did Daddy Cheney tell a lie? I’m guessing his daughter Liz would say “no.” Some of us likely would beg to differ. Hey, that’s politics.

Uncategorized

A certain irony in this Peace Prize

Congratulations certainly are due the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the winner of the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.

OPCW won the award for its work in trying to rid Syria of the huge stockpile of chemicals, some of which it used Aug. 21 on its citizens.

The world should applaud the Nobel committee — although I personally was pulling for Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teenager who was shot by Taliban terrorists simply because she was attending school; Malala has taken her cause worldwide in promoting education and persuading the civilized world of the evil being perpetrated by the Taliban against women and girls.

But back to the OPCW.

There’s a certain irony in this organization getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/11/world/europe/nobel-opcw-dangers/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

The Nobel Prize is named after Alfred Nobel, a Swedish inventor. What do you suppose is his most famous invention? Nitroglycerin, which he combined with other chemicals to make an explosive more powerful than dynamite.

Nobel in effect is one of the fathers of weapons of mass destruction. Now the Peace Prize that carries his name is going to an organization dedicated to the eradication of a particularly heinous brand of WMD.

Of course, Nobel’s personal history matters not one bit and takes nothing at all from the honor that has gone to OPCW.

May the group take the $1.2 million it will receive and put it to good work to finish the job it has started.