Lies by politicians and why we should care about politics as veterans focused on military issues.
Here’s VoV again, opining on the veracity, and the lack of, our elected officials.
The CinC is arguably the most important role in government, they wield the power and weight of the greatest fighting force of the entire world in their hands. Our military goes where the CinC tells them to go, they do what they are ordered to do when they get there, everything our president does has a direct or indirect effect on the military and their families.
Why then are so many of them liars? A quick check on statements made by Obama yield over 4 pages of lies as rated by Politifact, which is not exactly a conservativel organization. Trump fares no better at Politifact, nor does Ms. Clinton or her husband. What do so many lies by the people we elect to hold the highest position in the land mean to the American people? In real terms not much actually as the Clintons and Obama have millions of adoring fans as does President Trump. Historically these are simply the most recent examples, there are many examples of previous administrations and the multitude of lies that have been told, far too many to discuss in a short blog post.
So what are we to make of this? How is it that our politicians routinely lie about almost everything and anything and those lies don’t make a bit of difference to their base of supporters?
Is it indicative of a systemic rot to the core of our Republic or is it merely a symptom of another issue? These issues surrounding truth and lies are always fascinating to me as an often outside observer to much of human activity. I’m always curious how the lies start and at what level of government, and I’m also always interested in the hypocrisy of supporters who ignore the lies from their officials while vehemently protesting the lies of the other side.
As a classic example of that hypocrisy I’m going to choose the left this time, not because the right isn’t also rabidly hypocritical at times but because I think this example speaks to core morality along with hypocrisy. During the Bush 43 presidency and the start of the GWOT there was a fairly loud anti-war crowd that reached a peak I believe in 2003 with somewhere near a half million people covering almost 40 blocks of New York’s First Avenue…less than 6 years later with the election of Obama they couldn’t get 1000 people to the same protests.
So what did that mean? Why were those people suddenly no longer opposed to the war?
Their Nobel Peace Prize President didn’t end the war in fact he stated, after promising to end it, that he felt we would be indefinitely occupied in the Middle East. Obama added three nations to our bombing campaign, he found his love of drones and increased the program by a factor of ten. Where were the anti-war protesters? What happened to them? Clearly these big lies don’t matter to politicians or their supporters, as long as they get to occupy the seats of power.
The outrage against the horrors of war that they claimed were driving their protests turned out to be a lie, what they were actually opposed to was Bush and the Republicans. They were no more anti-war than I am anti-steak and potatoes. So they were lying from the start of their protests right up to the moment they decided the horrors of war were in reality totally acceptable once the Cool Black Guy was running the show. It was clear that dead Middle Easterners no longer concerned them as long as Obama was directing the killing of those Middle Easterners.
The nature of these lies and the hypocritical support by constituents allow the military to be used as a playing piece in a game less about national security and more about the politics of perception and power. That is why these lies should matter to us, these lies place good men and women in harm’s way around the world and without any actual concern by the public in spite of the rhetoric to the contrary.
And that my friends is why politics belong on a site about Stolen Valor and military issues, especially a site where many have been placed in harm’s way by our political representatives. There are always going to be those moments where military force is required and military force will be necessary to resolve a diplomatically unsolvable issue.
Where we fit into this debate is using our voices to support those moments that unfortunately require the use of violence to resolve and to voice our dissent when that force is not needed or is no longer achieving the stated goal. That’s how we safeguard the future of this Republic and safeguard the lives of our younger brothers and sisters in arms.
Of course that’s just my curmudgeonly old white guy opinion, your mileage will most certainly vary as well it should.
Veritas Omnia Vincit
Thanks, VoV.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Military issues, Politics, Terror War
Cindy Sheehan disappeared almost overnight from the public media consciousness in Feb 2009. Wonder what happened…???…
No longer needed
Cindy Sheehag was at the first GOE and a pal of mine grabbed me by the scruff of my neck to hold me back–because I truly wanted to get in her face. She was disgustingly disrespectful of our troops. Worse, she did not understand her son’s willingness to sacrifice for our country.
She probably still does not today and never will.
I think you already know the answer to this – it should be obvious.
Our politicians are a reflection of us. If our politicians are corrupt it’s because we, as an electorate, are corrupt.
“Why do politicians lie?” Because we allow them to. In fact, not only do we allow them to lie, we expect them to lie, demand that they lie, reward them when they lie and punish them when they tell the truth.
The biggest lie we tell ourselves is that we want “honest politicians.”
No we don’t. We want politicians who will do the things we want done and say the things we want said. “Truth”, to the extent that there is such a thing as subjective truth, is not a factor.
When the guy on the other side of the aisle tells a fib we point to him and hoot “LIAR! LIAR!” But when “our guy” does the same thing, we just ignore it.
Politics has always been about telling people what they want to hear, not the “truth.”
Expecting “honest politicians” when we, ourselves, are not honest with each other (or honest with ourselves) is unrealistic.
DISAGREE–I am so damned weary of this, “Both sides do it,” argument. It’s to be expected from liberals who have no other valid arguments but here at TAH? Well, maybe from Lars or LC. Conservatives are far more inclined to police their own ranks than are liberals which is precisely why Democrats attempt to smear conservative candidates with phony accusations of immoral behavior–they know that many conscientious conservatives will be just suspicious enough to abandon their support of the persons being attacked and hand the Dems their victories. Look at what’s going on with Steve King right now–he’s being openly condemned by his pious Republican fellows for defending his race when that race is under continual attack by other races for every sort of evil, real or imagined. Do you seriously believe that a political party that cozies up to the likes of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan would attack one of their members for supporting those two snakes? The Democrats tried to foist on this nation a certifiable Stolen Valor fraud as their presidential nominee in 2004 along with a sleazy, personal injury lawyer, running mate who was cheating on his dying wife. Democrats turned a blind eye to the alley cat morals of John Kennedy and his corrupt VP Lyndon Johnson. Ditto for the thoroughly corrupt Clinton’s, whom, you seem to have forgotten, the Democrats fought to protect from any legitimate investigation and recently tried to reinstall in the White House, regardless of their demonstrable criminality. And I haven’t even mentioned that Democrat deity, Saint Barack, who is a living, walking, talking fraud of the lowest order. Rather than try to find the truth about this president with a largely hidden background, the Democrats and their compliant media did their very best to thwart any investigations into his history. I believe that an egregious Stolen Valor fraud like Dickie Blumenthal would be a pariah in the Republican Party as would Liawatha. A Ted Kennedy would never have been a “Lion of the Senate” had he been a conservative and a Republican. How about that pedophile Senator Menendez who… Read more »
And by the way:
“Expecting “honest politicians” when we, ourselves, are not honest with each other (or honest with ourselves) is unrealistic.”
While I may vote for a politician I don’t personally like or agree with on every issue, I will not do so for a crook or a moral deviant. Nor will I vote for a politician who has lied to the nation. That does not include campaign promises because those may not be realistically achievable or may be blocked by political opposition such as with the Wall.
Amen. I have long voted for my principles over the party, since Obama’s first election. No incumbents if I can help it.
Respectfully W2, you may want to read up a little more on LBJ before you make that comment. And we won’t even talk about Blow Job Willie and his wife’s feputed crime syndicate.
Hey W2, aren’t you the same W2 that told me I was “just running my suck” when I commented about John Kerry? It may be that your partisanship shows up too. But, maybe that was another W2.
Strongly agree.
But you have to admit there are too many in the electorate that just want their free shit, and any politician that says no, or that it’s unsustainable (think SS, for example) have just committed political suicide.
The Free Shit Army will vote for the person/group that promises them the most free shit… and won’t take away the free shit that they are already getting from Uncle Sugar.
Look who raises the most stink when the subject of Welfare reform comes up – those that get it and don’t want to “rock the boat” about it (Donks/Socialists). Gotta guarantee those votes…
There were anti war crowds during the Viet Nam era. I think they subsided somewhat when the draft ended. So it would seem some times we accept things as long as we get what we want.
Spot on VoV and BZ to martinjmpr too. Been a very, very long time since I’ve told a falsehood. And I don’t mean the unsaid/unfinished one either. “Do these pants make my butt look fat?” “No Dear” (but all those donuts you’ve shoved in your face do!)
Mama and Papa (b4 he passed) had strict, swift and very severe punishment for lying. We learned at an early age that the truth would come out, and it is better to be punished for the wrongdoing than to be punished for lying about it. As I got older I watched people dig themselves a very deep hole trying to remember what lie they told to who. We see the classic example in all of these posers rocking their lies for years and don’t know how to stop.
The lack of any real punishment is why the politicians and,yes, most people will lie. If that swift and sure punishment came down upon them like the proverbial wrath of God (ie; not getting re-elected) you may see a sweeping change.
I’ll not hold my breath waiting on that.
Not holding my breath, either.
I learned very early in life that the truth, however harsh it is, will always be better than a lie.
I am continually astonished at how uncommon that view is. Alas …
“I twist the truth, I rule the world
My crown is called deceit
I am the emperor of lies
You grovel at my feet
I rob you and I slaughter you
Your downfall is my gain
And still you play the sycophant
And revel in your pain
And all my promises are lies
All my love is hate
I am the politician
And I decide your fate”
Orgasmatron by Motorhead, 1986
Meanwhile, American Thinker put out a racist article and they had to turn off the comment section.
And you guys say there are no racisssss piple over there.
The Crucifixion of James Watson
By Andrew Benjamin
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/the_crucifixion_of_james_watson.html
What’s racist about the article?
It stated uncomfortable truths-doubleplusungood!!!
The eye of the beholder … as usual.
Seriously doubt it would be considered racist in China, Japan or Korea.
Or Israel…
Hey slow joe, Mason and I among others are waiting for your reply.
I’m like to here him explain it, too…
The article isn’t racist, even if the content is uncomfortable for those who wish that life was fair.
Personally, I believe the disparity is more due to cultural differences (as opposed to race), with some cultural bias in the design of the tests. That is simply my view, though; the evidence shows a correlation between race and IQ scores… not, necessarily, a causation – but I can’t blame anyone for applying Occam’s Razor in the absence of contradictions.
Cue “Nature vs. Nurture” in 5…4…3…
I think old school Simpsons can answer:
IQ is predominately a factor of genetics. Not that you “inherit” high or low IQ, but that you inherit the evolutionary history of your ancestry and the consequences of same.
This largely coincides with geography and climate. Longer winters with short but hot summers placed different survival demands upon people than areas with less seasonal difference.
Those differences show up on standard testing (which have no similarity to the SAT type of test, BTW).
Differences in IQ among groups means very little at the individual level. This is where people get their heads stuck in buckets. There is a vast difference between saying the median in group A is 98 and group B is 90, and saying that everyone is group B is less intelligent.
The conflation of median scores with individual intelligence is the problem for both the racists and the screamers.
So, group IQ medians are not shorthand for individual IQ scores. So simple, but so incomprehensible for so many.
My response to the AT article is that, during the Middle Ages when the Church of Rome engaged in pogroms against anyone who was not willing to convert to Catholicism, especially the various Jewish sects, as a friend of mine observed, in order to survive all of that, you had to be a helluva a lot smarter than the average citizen or you were doomed, period.