Does a falsehood only cause harm
if the speaker knows he is lying?
What if he honestly believes he is
speaking the truth? Does the "reasonableness"
of his belief matter? Does the subject
of his lie-or its consequences-matter?
I believe that all people are, and
should be treated as, equals. But
I support discrimination between,
as well as against, lies. And I'm
not just talking about excusing the
kinds of lies people tell to avoid
insulting each other ("that pie
was delicious" "you look
marvelous" "no, those pants
don't make you look fat"). I'm
talking about differentiating between
lies even when they are both whoppers,
and even when they both involve serious,
moral, weighty, issues.
Specifically, I'm thinking about
the differences-and the similarities-between
the falsehoods told America by President
Clinton, and the falsehoods told us
by President Bush. Ultimately, I believe
it is phenomenally worse to mislead
a country about the nature of a threat
posed by another sovereign nation,
than to mislead a country about the
nature of a personal (albeit inappropriate)
relationship.
When President Clinton first denied
having sex with Monica Lewinsky, he
may have believed he was telling the
truth, because he thought "sex"
didn't describe what he did with her.
According to recent research, the
definition of sex he employed is common
among young people in our country,
many of who do not count oral intercourse
as "sex." However tortured-or
adolescent-his analysis, the story
he told his family and the American
public was false, and his presidency
barely survived impeachment hearings
in Congress. President Clinton was
caught in a great big ugly lie, and
the outrage it inspired nearly toppled
his administration.
Like most people, I am troubled by
adultery, as well as by relationships
between superiors and subordinates
in job settings. And like most Americans,
I was tremendously upset by the President's
affair with a woman barely older than
his daughter. When the allegations
about the Lewinsky affair first surfaced,
the word "outrage" barely
described my reaction. But beyond
the "offense" he caused
with his undeniably gross behavior,
I'm not sure that he really harmed
anyone beyond his wife, his daughter,
and his intern.
In contrast to President Clinton,
who uttered falsehoods about his private
life, President Bush employed falsehoods
to justify making war in Iraq. Now,
I am not denying that Saddam Hussein
was a cruel leader, a corrupt official,
and a downright bad man. But there
are many corrupt, cruel, bad men leading
nations all over the globe, and President
Bush never suggested that this was
enough reason to preemptively engage
in war. Rather, he repeatedly told
us that Iraq was this/close to controlling
weapons of mass destruction, he repeatedly
asserted that Iraq was this/close
to al Qaeda, and he continually argued
that invading Iraq was a critical
and necessary step in responding to
the terrorist war that struck our
shores on September 11, 2001.
But according to the published accounts
of various and bi-partisan fact-finding
commissions, high-ranking Administration
officials who had the President's
ear (but not his heart), and evidence
exposed through the invasion and overthrow
of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, there was
never any credible evidence that Iraq
posed an imminent threat to the United
States. Specifically discredited have
been Bush Administration allegations
of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda,
assertions about Iraqi control over
weapons of mass destruction, and implications
of a connection between Saddam Hussein
and September 11.
So, just as with Clinton before him,
President Bush has been caught in
a great big ugly lie. And just like
Clinton, it has become clear that
President Bush employed a tortured
and adolescent method of analyzing
reality in order to justify his continued
belief in the story he told the American
people. Where Clinton employed ridiculous
definitions of "sex" and
parsed the meaning of the word "is"
into absurdity, Bush and his inner
circle ignored information and advice
that was contrary to their ideology,
elevated to truth every bit of information-however
flawed-that supported their pre-determined
conclusions, and silenced real debate
on war against Iraq by defining contrary
positions as un-patriotic.
But unlike the deceit engaged in
by President Clinton, which likely
broke a number of hearts, and which
definitely caused many people to become
very angry, President Bush's fraud
led directly to the deaths of more
than 900 Americans, countless Iraqis,
and untold others. As a majority of
Americans join most of the rest of
the world in believing the United
States was wrong to invade Iraq, countless
families here and around the globe
are struggling to make their way following
the shattering loss of sons and daughters,
husbands and wives, brothers and sisters.
So where is the outrage? Where are
the calls for the impeachment of a
President who so clearly and so powerfully
spoke words that didn't have a basis
in fact? Perhaps the mothers and fathers
of those killed in Iraq are too exhausted
by grief to fight a president who
sent their children into harms' way
under false pretenses. Perhaps too
many people are hamstrung by the myth
that challenging a commander in chief
is the same as betraying our soldiers.
Perhaps our passion for fighting terrorism
muddies our commitment to doing it
in a just and reasonable manner. Perhaps
this situation is just more complicated,
and involves greater complicity on
our part, than another man's act of
adultery.
Fighting terrorism is definitely
more complicated than refraining from
adultery. But no one ever said that
being President is easy, and we have
a right to expect truthfulness from
our Presidents on the complex issues,
as well as the simple ones. Fundamentally,
President Bush chose to adhere to
a viewpoint that was immune to evidence
and reason, and his justifications
for attacking Iraq now look as credible
as the red-faced denials of a husband
with someone else's lipstick on his
neck. President Bush lied to us, just
like President Clinton did, but the
consequences of Bush's lies are far
graver than the harms caused by Clinton's
philandering. And ultimately, President
Bush deserves to be regarded by the
American public as a man whose lies
were far worse for our country than
those of any lying, cheating, spouse.
Kaethe Morris Hoffer
[email protected]
