On Lies and Lying, Balancing the Unbalancable...

[rasputin1952]

Everybody lies, that is a given. I have yet to meet anyone who has been so honest as to have risen to Sainthood in an instant. It is not necessarily the untruth, mis-truth or outright lie that brings wrath, but the method the lie was used in and for what purposes hopefully attained is where the problem has it's roots.

Lies ar told because we want to be "more" than what we are, for the most part a mundane part of humanity that goes about it's business trying to be noticed, but generally failing to do so.

HRC's tale has been debunked, just as Reagan's reports of flying bomber missions over Europe were. One was already president, one is trying to be. The main difference, (other than the obvious stated above), is that Clinton should have known better; she is not a doddering old fool like Reagan was.

I don't know, this story might sink HRC's chances for good, it depends on how the public views the situation, (so far not very well), but this brings to mind a much larger and more onerous lie that someone got away with...that Hussein was a threat to world peace because of WMD's literally bursting out of Iraq's borders.

HRC wanted to look brave in the face of proposed danger, she chose the wrong route...Reagan wanted people to think he did wondrous things over the skies of war torn Europe, when most of his work was on cheap sets and VD films in Hollywood during the war, (he was commissioned a CPT in the Signal Corps)...and then there is bush, who has caused untold damage to this nation because all he can do is lie, and get away with it.

The proportions of the untruths told manifest themselves in ways that have had little to no consequence, to great consequence. While we see HRC being vilified, (justifiably to a degree), we see bush actively pushing for more death and destruction, but remain just a tad too quiet about it.

We are not balancing the actions of the two. One makes one a fool, while the other kills with abandon, and prepares for more destruction. I will not defend HRC's untruth...but it pales in comparison with what bush is doing.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Recommended - astute analysis, Ras.

:thumbsup:

[flor de jasmim]

2. Bush's lie is worse, but when challenged, their reaction is similar -- ESCALATE

For someone to say she "misspoke" about an event that was not a single instance but occurred at last count about 4 times (some of them scripted) is a misnomer. To not be able to recognize a mistake and apologize is more worrying.

[rasputin1952]

4. I agree wholeheartedly...and if she would have owned up to

the error in the first place, (actually, if she never made the error in the first place), this issue would be dead.

Without fail, the initial error is nothing in comparison to an attempt to "cover one's ass".

I can't count the # of times I've messed up in the past, (if fact, I don't want to...;) ), but in every occasion where I've stood up and taken the blame for something I've done, I've essentially come away unscathed...perhaps w/a little less honor, but that is the point isn't it? What is honor if you can't find it in oneself to be accountable?

Contrary to popular belief, we are not a noble people, although we certainly try to be. When presented with an opportunity to to take advantage of someone else's work, far too often we will take said advantage. Rare indeed is the individual that can decline accolades, whether deserved or not. Rather, the opposite is more to the norm, we seek out recognition, even when said recognition is undeserved.

This is what happened in the HRC "sniper" flap...she was being accused of many things, but one of them was not having the "guts" to face "danger". The way I see it, and this is a little out of the box so to speak, is that the current occupant of the WH is a far larger coward than anyone previously occupying said dwelling. Yet, somehow, he is seen as a "tough guy". Reality is...he's as yellow as they come.

We shall see where this leads...until the next "cycle", but damage has been done, and more so by an attempt to avoid the matter's facts....:(

[Shae]

3. I just posted this on another thread. Pardon the cut and paste...

but it seems applicable here...

"It's called "Theft of Valor"
and it denigrates the service of Americans who have actually put their lives on the line.
Hillary has been trying to position herself (along with John McCain)as the candidate with experience. Since she is lacking in that department, she fabricates." --end of cut and paste


Also, instead of taking responsibility for what was can only be called a lie, she said she "mispoke" and blamed it on sleep deprivation. The she adroitly turned and begin slamming Reverend Wright to divert attention from her issue. I find that dishonest in itself.
In addition, there are records of her meetings during her husband's term to push the NAFTA treaty which she now says she was always against. McGillis (didn't he win a Nobel?) is stunned that she is saying she had anything more than a ceremonial role in the Irish peace accords. I am seeing, not one lie, but a pattern of dishonesty in her.

Granted, her lie is not nearly as bad as Bush lying us into a war (very few lies could be.) But Hillary Clinton is essentially applying for the job he holds. Common sense says that for now, she should be on her best behavior.

The campaign she runs and the people she has chosen to help run it, leave much to be desired. Why would I think she'd do better running the country?

[rasputin1952]

5. A while back I wrote a piece about McCain not being a "hero"...

I got some flak, not much, but to me, McCain is no hero. I find his service admirable and honorable, but hero...no way.

In HRC's case, she made an error in judgment, a bad error in judgment IMO. She was attempting to be "tough" after being called a wimp. There were most likely a hundred other things she could have said, but she chose a dud.

As I posted above, Reagan was somewhat aloof with the truth as well, and bush is a downright bald-faced liar, (and coward to boot); I too wonder why she chose to do this, and who would have advised such a thing?

My issues w/HRC go a little deeper than this "fiasco" though. I have an inherent dislike of a bush-Clinton-bush-Clinton run of "rule". She could be a good to fine president, but the whole almost "royalist" thing deeply disturbs me.

[Scurrilous]

6. K & R

:thumbsup:

[2_CentsWorth]

7. Of course truthfullness matters...

That's why Obama's campaign harps on nearly every word Senator Clinton said while she was First Lady.

On the other hand, does Obama think Americans have not been listening to his words as well as to Senator Clintons?

Obama dissembles when he tells us Clinton lied about her position on NAFTA -- ask David Gergen, he was there when Clinton, as first lady, spoke against NAFTA in private but publicly had to support her husband.

Obama dissembles when he tells us he didn't "hear" or he didn't "know" that Rev. Wright spoke of horrendous acts that America had committed against blacks.

Obama dissembles when he told the voters his position on NAFTA and then told the Canadian government official that what he told the voters was just political rhetoric.

Obama dissembles when he tells us "Words Matter" as he quotes JFK, MLK, and FDR but when Rev. Wright shouts anti-America hate speech, Obama tells us "Rev. Wright's Words Don't Matter".

That's a double edged sword Obama weilds when it comes to "words".
Recall that Desmond Tutu said, "Language creates the reality it describes."

Obama is trying to "create" a picture of himself that does not fit at all with his decision to accept Wright's hate speech and continue to associate with Wright over a period of nearly 20 years. Obama, by his failure to challenge Rev. Wright gives his consent to that anti-American hate speech.

[rasputin1952]

8. What I see in Wright is the same I see in many faces

of every ethnicity, religion and both genders, etc.

It is the face of hatred and disdain. I believe that hatred ina all of it's forms should be challenged at every opportunity, by anyone with the morality to stand up to it.

Wright, from what I've seen of him, is nothing more than any other racist/hate monger, and I agree that Obama should denounce the hatred the man spews. If I were in Obama's shoes, I would denounce the man in heartbeat...but I am not. I can tell you though, he has lost a lot of respect from me because he will not stare down the evil.

Fear is born of ignorance, hatred is born of fear...it all ties together. Many fight because others are too timid or feel they are to weak, so we fight for them, we take up the battle and accept the challenge. The only way to fight it is to stand up to the darkness with a candle of truth while in a 50 mph gale....but the more of us that stand up and face the darkness, the more it recedes.

[Ino]

11. Oh please!

"Wright, from what I've seen of him"

How much have you seen of him? Three little soundbites from his lifetime?

Learn about the man
http://www.answers.com/topic/jeremiah-wright

Like you said, "fear is born of ignorance" and you're showing yours in every mealy self-righteous mouthful.

[rasputin1952]

12. What gives you the impression that Wright is not a bigot?

I've certainly never read everything the man has spoken or written, just as I'm sure you haven't as well.

However, I had heard of him before this, and did some research....I find this man to be a bigot. You may have different views, that is your option.

As for your allusion to my "self righteousness"...I earned the right to be self righteous long ago. That is, if your notion of self righteous is fighting for the rights and freedoms of all, for equality for all and the right for all to live in harmony...yes, I am self righteous. I've been on the front lines for many a year.

[anonymous171]

9. That I why I'm not voting for Wright.

[Ino]

10. I listened to Gergen

He said, "I'm not sure that she objected to all the provisions of it. She just didn't see why her husband, why that White House had to go do that fight. She was very unhappy about, wanted to move on to health care."
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/27/234248/348

Sounds to me like she just wanted to fight the healthcare battle rather than NAFTA.

Quotes from Hilliary supporting NAFTA, with links:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/23/hillary_clintons_support_of_na.php

The Canada NAFTA story is very confusing and no one knows the truth of it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lecia-shorter/clintons-nafta-attack-ag_b_89973.html

Obama never said "Rev. Wright's Words Don't Matter" -- but you knew that, didn't you? He understood them in context, and his speech tried to impart that context to those who also want to understand.

But there will always be some who would rather parrot the lame talking points of the RW and Hilliary, to make simple-minded assertions without corroboration.

[Coexist]

13. you are right, of course.

[Kahuna]

14. Sounds like an OPED to me...

:applause: