The Semantics of Lying

[Guest guest]

Think about it this way.

 

A very similar situation is when big pharma says things like, vitamins are bad

for you and can damage you, drug side effects are mild or nonexistant while

hiding the real facts.

 

I don't care if they call it spin, stretching the truth or deception. That is

just trying to water down the truth, I know what they are doing, they know what

they are doing. They just want to confuse the issue so you will not know what

they are doing.

 

It is really nothng more than what happens with most liars, when about to be

caught, they try and lie to cover or get out of being discovered as a liar.

Frank

 

 

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/19131/

 

The Semantics of Lying

By David Corn, The Nation

 

Posted on July 1, 2004,

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/19131/

Once again, I've been sideswiped by a New York Times writer.

 

After my book, The Lies Of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception

was published last year, two Timesfolk – James Traub and Matt Bai – wrote

articles tut-tutting about writers such as myself, Al Franken and Joe Conason

who dared to tag Bush a liar. In these articles, they pointed to my book as

evidence of the further decline in political discourse. But they devoted little

attention to evaluating the case I make against Bush. Now, just as the expanded

paperback edition has been released, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof yesterday

took a similar swing at me and others who have questioned Bush's integrity.

 

His column begins:

 

So is President Bush a liar?

 

 

Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush

like " Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, " " Big Lies, " " Thieves in High

Places " and " The Lies of George W. Bush. "

 

A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest,

perhaps even evil – a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at

the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, " Fahrenheit 9/11. "

 

 

 

What irks Kristof is that such criticism reminds him of the GOP attacks on the

Clintons in the 1990s, when the First Couple were even accused of killing their

friend Vince Foster. I think most people, if they had to choose, would rather be

accused of lying than murder. But that's a slight criticism of the analogy. More

unfairly, Kristof blends the lying charge with various conspiracy theories

pushed by some Bush critics (Bush invaded Afghanistan to help cronies construct

an oil pipeline there; Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden but won't

reveal this until closer to the election). But not all of the Bush critics who

have attacked Bush for being dishonest are peddlers of these way-out notions.

For example, I have developed a modest reputation (or notoriety) for being

critical of 9/11-related conspiracy theories. Tying the Bush-is-a-liar charge to

farfetched speculation serves to discredit the former without seriously

examining the argument.

 

" I'm against the 'liar' label for two reasons, " Kristof writes. " First it

further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making

America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede

understanding. "

 

These are tactical points – which Kristof is certainly free to make. But they

are unrelated to the basic issue: is the charge true? More on that below. But

even if we accept Kristof's desire for a high-minded political discourse,

consider this: If the president of the United States is not telling the truth

about critical matters (war, taxes, global warming, stem cell research), isn't

he the one poisoning the cesspool and inhibiting effective governance? And if he

is being dishonest on these fronts, wouldn't illumination of that enhance rather

than detract from the debate? The president of the United States has a bully

pulpit; he has the largest megaphone in the room. If he is falsely describing

the terms of the discussion, he is rigging the national debate. And if that is

his M.O., why should it not be criticized?

 

After Kristof's column appeared, I called and asked him if he had read my book.

He replied, " I can't say I read every word. I did go through it. "

 

Let's put aside Iraq for a moment, I said. In 2001, Bush argued that the science

about global warming was too iffy – " incomplete, " he put it – and, thus, he was

justified in pulling the United States out of the Kyoto treaty. His press

secretary, Ari Fleischer, maintained the science was " inconclusive " on whether

the atmosphere was warming due to human-induced causes. But at the time there

was an overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity was causing global

warming (only a small number of contrarian scientists claimed otherwise). So why

was it not lying when Bush said the science was tentative?

 

Kristof said that this was " a good example " and that he considered Bush's

remarks on global warming " a classic truth-stretcher. " But with the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the international body of thousands

of scientists assembled by the UN and the World Meteorological Organization) and

the National Academy of Science saying the science was conclusive, how could the

Bush White House maintain it was not? Bush could have challenged the findings of

the IPCC and NAS, but then he would have had to explain why he (and Fleischer)

knew better than the climatologists. " A lie is an intentional deception, "

Kristof said. " Bush, like a lot of people, has the ability to say a lot of

things [that are not true] and live in their own world. "

 

Maybe, I suggested, I should have titled my book, The Delusions of George W.

Bush. That would have been better, Kristof responded. Yet somehow I do not

believe that had I argued Bush was purposefully detached from reality – in other

words, a psycho – that this would have met with the approval of Kristof and

others yearning for a civil debate (on their terms).

 

But let's cut to the chase: the war in Iraq. " Bush should be whacked for WMDs, "

Kristof told me. But, he added, this had been an instance of improper

" emphasizing, " not " lying. " In his column, Kristof notes that Bob Woodward's

book, Plan of Attack " underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam

did have WMD. " Kristof refers to a scene in the book when Bush, during a

December 21, 2002 meeting, said to CIA director George Tenet, " I've been told

all this intelligence about having WMD, and this is the best we've got? " (That

was when Tenet, according to Woodward, told Bush, " It's a slam dunk case. " ) And

Kristof points to instances in the book when Bush told Tenet, " Make sure no one

stretches to make our case. "

 

But then Kristof writes, " In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth.

The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed,

there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies. "

 

Kristof is being too charitable. Before the December 21 meeting, Bush was hardly

careful. He said that Iraq had a " massive stockpile " of biological weapons. He

declared that Iraq had a " growing fleet " of unmanned aerial vehicles that could

be used to attack the United States with biological and chemical weapons. But

the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq of October 2002 concluded that Iraq

had a biological weapons program, not a " massive stockpile, " and that Iraq was

developing UAVs not maintaining " a growing fleet. " As it turned out, the NIE had

dramatically overstated the biological weapons and UAV programs – as well as

Iraq's chemical weapons program – but Bush subsequently overstated the

overstatements. He also declared that Saddam Hussein was " a threat because he is

dealing with al Qaeda. " Note the verb tense. The Bush administration, which has

recently cited limited contacts between al Qaeda and Hussein's regime in the

early and mid-1990s, has yet to produce evidence

showing that Hussein was in league with al Qaeda in the years immediately

before or after September 11. (The 9/11 commission staff has reported that they

found no evidence of a " collaborative relationship " between Hussein and al

Qaeda.)

 

Were all these assertions merely stretches of the truth? If you stretch the

truth far enough, it breaks. Perhaps Bush did believe what he was saying. (His

aides acknowledged he never bothered to read the 90-page National Intelligence

Estimate on Iraq.) Still, he was acting in reckless disregard of the truth, and

that is the functional equivalent of lying.

 

My book does not limit the indictment of Bush to only his prewar assertions

about Iraq. Bush said he would not deploy an antiballistic missile system unless

it worked. But that is precisely what he is doing – according to the Pentagon's

own testing office. In promoting his supersized tax cuts during the 2000

campaign, he claimed, " The vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of

the spectrum. " By any analysis of the numbers, that was a false statement. When

he announced in 2001 his decision to ban federal funding for research using new

lines of stem cells, he said that 60 stem cell lines were already available and

that these lines could support an effective research program. But biotech

experts immediately declared there were closer to ten existing lines, which was

not nearly enough to support major research. Yet the Bush administration kept

insisting 60 or more lines were available. Three years later, Bush and his aides

(and even his wife) continue to maintain there are

enough stem cell lines for federally-funded researchers. The wide-ranging

consensus among experts in the field is that Bush is not telling the truth.

 

Can all of these statements – and many others – be dismissed only as hyperbole?

Repeatedly, Bush has issued untrue assertions to persuade Americans to think

something that is not true. That is deception.

 

How literal must we be? For the fastidious among us, let's turn to the

dictionary. I am using The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

Here is its definition of lie:

 

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2.

Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

 

 

How do Bush's statements about the supposed WMDs in Iraq, stem cells, global

warming, and tax cuts not qualify as lies under these terms? Kristof, raising

the issue of Bush's state of mind (does he or does he not know he's speaking

untruths), seems to suggest that one can tell lies without being a liar. But

this is how the people at American Heritage define the verb:

 

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving. 2. To convey a

false image or impression.

 

 

Maybe one can lie unintentionally – that is, by repeating bad information. But

shouldn't the president of the United States have an obligation to ascertain

that the information he is sharing with the public (and the world) is reliable?

Moreover, if he does slip and says something untrue by accident, he is

responsible for acknowledging that after the fact. But Bush – as in the case of

the stem cell lines – sticks to his untruths long after they have been

disproved.

 

" Mr. Bush's central problem, " Kristof writes, " is not that he was lying about

Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with

like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal

threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public – a more common

problem in government than flat-out lying. "

 

Yes, but. It remains unclear whether Bush's lieutenants truly believed Hussein

was the immediate threat they claimed he was due to his supposed possession of

WMDs. As Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, Hussein's WMDs was the

argument for war upon which different people within the administration could

agree. This suggests some were moved by other reasons. And even if Bush and the

rest did deceive themselves, they still bear responsibility for having deceived

the public – and for having done very little to assess prudently the available

evidence.

 

In the penultimate paragraph of his column, Kristof laments liberals adopting a

simplistic form of Bush criticism:

 

It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton

years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But

liberals live subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays – yet many

have now dropped all nuance about this president.

 

 

But if the man is not telling the truth, if he is deceiving the public about

life-and-death matters, why not say so? Why not express anger?

 

Kristof concludes by – insults of insults! – equating Bush's critics with the

devil himself, Bush:

 

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and

self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots.

How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistake.

 

 

Truth, then, is no defense for the liberals, who should stick to subtle,

nuanced, restrained pokes at Bush, even if he did, as Kristof admits, deceive

the public. Kristof is, at least, taking his own advice. Talk about subtle

distinctions: claiming Bush lied the nation into war is wrong and inappropriate;

saying Bush deceived the nation into war is fine and fair.

 

My hunch is Kristof is talking less about principle and more about politics.

During our chat – and it was pleasant – he argued that using the word " 'lying'

is inflammatory and reduces persuasive power. Middle of the road people are

turned off by it. It really is important to avoid getting swept up in anger.

That reduces analytic power. " He added, " Not that we should not criticize any of

these things. " But he advocated focusing on specifics and eschewing overarching

name-calling. For example, he is all for blasting Bush for falsely claiming his

tax cuts would benefit the poor more than the rich. But he advises anti-Bush

forces not to cite such a statement as a lie. This is " a more effective way, " he

asserted, " to convince swing voters. "

 

" It is a question of tone, " he said. " It is fair to pick on each of these

things. And it is reasonable to point out there is a pattern. But when the focus

becomes the connection [of untrue statements], that [accusatory] tone, it

becomes more insulting than each of the individual points. " His bottom line, I

suppose is, bash the lies, not the liar.

 

Whether this would be a more productive political strategy, I do not know. I did

not write the book to win over the 37 swing voters in Ohio that will decide the

election. My aim was to produce a straightforward examination of a pattern of

deception that Kristof and many other recognize. Why not call a lie a lie?

Politeness has its place in public discourse. But so does straight talk. And if

the standard of political speech is whether it wins over the undecided, Kristof

should look at a Washington Post-ABC News poll that came out a few weeks ago.

Asked who could be labeled " honest and trustworthy, " 52 percent of the

respondents chose John Kerry; only 39 percent picked Bush. A January poll found

that 57 percent thought Bush was " honest and ethical. " Ever since then, on

questions regarding his honesty, Bush had generally been in the mid-50s. If that

Post-ABC News poll is accurate, the public impression of Bush has shifted

dramatically. I am not saying that The Lies of George W. Bush is

responsible for this. (Who knows?) But Bush's ability to honestly address the

critical issues facing the nation has become an issue in this campaign.

 

The important question is not whether Bush's false and exaggerated assertions

are " lies " or " deceptions, " as if the outcome of this word game were important.

What matters most is that Bush has misled the public. If Kristof wants to

pussyfoot around the topic of " lies " in order to convince people of the dangers

of four more years of Bush, more power to him. Others of us are willing to

engage in plain speaking. In this regard, perhaps we have been inspired by the

president.

 

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/19131/