/* ---- overrides for post page ---- */ .post { padding: 0; border: none; }

Away From Home

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Some lies are apparently more OK than others

From David Sirota:

Atrios posts a 1998 story about the Washington, D.C. Establishment's outrage at Bill Clinton for his lying about the Monica Lewinsky scandal. What is truly nauseating is not the corrupt and cliquey insiderism - it is the outrage over lying about sex, and the subsequent silence we've all experienced from the media/political Establishment when it has come to the current administration's lying about war.

Here are some choice comments from the 1998 article:

"There has to be a functional trust by reporters of the person they're covering. Clinton lies knowing that you know he's lying. It's brutal and it subjugates the person who's being lied to. I resent deeply being constantly lied to." – Hardball's Chris Matthews

"The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them." – Reagan/Clinton adviser David Gergen

"What is troubling is the deceit, the failure to own up to it. Before this is over the truth must be told." – Sen. Joe Lieberman (who hasn't owned up to his own pre-war role pushing Bush administration lies about Iraq)

"The judgment is harsher in Washington. We don't like being lied to." - Washington Post columnist David Broder

"When you lie to the country, you are using your authority to undermine the presidency." – Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin (who, by the way, had no problem subsequently plagiarizing work and then lying about it).

Where is the outrage from these Beltway Establishment figures over the Bush administration's blatant lies about Iraq? Oh sure, you can find a scant example here and there, but generally, it's nowhere, especially considering the purported anger that D.C. elites claim to feel about being lied to.

I have nothing to add. This pretty much speaks for itself.


Post a Comment

<< Home