More lies........Truth Be Told
By Richard Cohen , washington post
Thursday , August 10, 2000 ; Page A29
George W. Bush lies.
He lies when he says his vow to "uphold the honor and dignity" of the presidency is not a reference to Bill Clinton, when the reference could not be otherwise.
He lies when he says that the Clinton administration did nothing "to strengthen Social Security and repair Medicare," when a fair reading of the administration's record suggests it did.
He lies when he asserts that two of the Army's 10 active divisions are so ill-prepared for combat that, if called, they would have to report, "Not ready for duty, sir." The Army says Bush is flat-out wrong.
His team--now I am including Dick Cheney--lies when it says Clinton and Al Gore "have done nothing to help children" when children, it can be fairly said, have been an obsession of this administration. Among other things, the Clinton administration doubled the funding of Head Start. Bush himself now professes love for this program, which Cheney, while he was in the House, voted to abolish.
You may recoil from my use of the word "lie." I admit it's a bit strong--but purposely so. It's a word journalists are loath to use, and politicians know it. So for all the talk about how the press manipulates politicians, it is often the other way around. Politicians know they can say, assert, suggest, imply and declare almost anything without fear of being called liars. Joseph McCarthy, not to mention Richard Nixon, built a career on this.
I am not suggesting that either Bush or Cheney is in the McCarthy-Nixon league. I am merely suggesting that they are getting away with rhetorical murder. For instance, Bush's acceptance speech at the Philadelphia convention was critiqued as if it were only a theatrical performance. We graded him for poise, for humor, for simplicity of language and for his message. We neglected truth. Some of what Bush said wasn't true.
In contrast, poor Al Gore has not been able to make a single exaggeration or the slightest fib without the hall monitors of the press issuing multiple demerits. In fact, even Bush got in on the act. In Philadelphia he poked fun at Gore's purported claim to have invented the Internet.
Trouble is, Gore made no such claim. Instead, he spoke as a legislator who really had been among the first to grasp the importance of the Internet: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." He did. You can look it up.
Similarly, Gore did not say he had discovered the Love Canal toxic waste debacle, nor did he claim that the character in Erich Segal's "Love Story" was based entirely on him. Yet for these and other supposed statements--some, I grant you, sloppily worded--a brace of commentators has called Gore a liar. A full listing plus an account of what Gore really said was published in the April issue of the Washington Monthly.
But unlike Gore, Bush and Cheney for some reason get a free ride. Cheney could even say, "I don't think we've attacked the president at this stage," when, less than a week earlier, he had singled out Clinton by name--and not for praise, either. "We are all a little weary of the Clinton-Gore routine," he said in his convention speech. He went on to accuse them of having "done nothing to help children oppressed by bureaucracy, monopoly and mediocrity." Poor kids.
We are always admonished not to hold politicians to too high a standard of truthfulness. As with advertising men, prostitutes and airline CEOs, some lying is expected. So when Bush told the convention, "I do not need to take your pulse before I know my own mind," I had to chuckle.
Wasn't Bush the guy who would not say what he thought about the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina statehouse? Wasn't he the guy who would not criticize Kansas's decision to treat the teaching of evolution as purely optional, like having Burnt Sienna in your Crayola box? On those issues, it was his own pulse that was in question.
To say that two Army divisions are not combat ready, to maintain that all those references to integrity and honor are not directed at Bill Clinton (and what if they were?), to insist that the Clinton administration has ignored poor kids or has made no attempt to ensure the future of Social Security, crosses a certain line. You can call such statements anything you want--misrepresentations, exaggerations, politics as usual--but call them what you may, you cannot call them true. |
