Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire

by hilzoy

Once upon a time, our senior government officials used to pretend to tell the truth. Sometimes it was only a pretense. But, in general, they did not say things that were obviously, flatly false.

I guess that's just one more thing that changed on 9/11.

Today, Condoleeza Rice made a speech that was remarkable for its sheer bald-faced dishonesty. I have not tried to pick out all the false statements she made. But here are a few of the more obvious howlers:

"Rice: The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture."

Reality: To believe this, you'd have to believe that the United States transports detainees to countries like Syria and Uzbekistan without thinking that they will be tortured there. Consider Syria: are we on such good terms with Syria that we swap prisoners all the time, just for kicks? What, exactly, does Syrian intelligence have to recommend itself as an agency to transport prisoners to, other than its willingness to torture?

Besides, it's not as though there's no evidence that sending people off to be tortured is, indeed, our purpose:

"The renditions have also been described as illegal. They are not, our sources said, although they acknowledge the procedures are in an ethical gray area and are at times used for the convenience of extracting information under harsher conditions that the U.S. would allow."

Rice: "The U.S. does not seek to hold anyone for a period beyond what is necessary to evaluate the intelligence or other evidence against them, prevent further acts of terrorism, or hold them for legal proceedings."

Reality: According to Katherine, who has followed this as closely as any human being outside the government could:

"Of the 20-odd renditions that I do know of, a very small number of people have been freed: Maher Arar, Mamdouh Habib and Khaled el-Masri. That’s it. Muhammad al-Zery was reportedly released from an Egyptian prison but remains under surveillance and cannot leave the country or speak freely about what happened to him. The rest remain in prison—whether it’s Guantanamo, some CIA detention site, or foreign custody. We know from reading Priest’s description of el-Masri’s case that the discovery of a suspect’s innocence does not necessarily immediately lead to his release. And Khaled el-Masri is a German citizen. Mamdouh Habib is Australian. Maher Arar is Canadian. It is not a coincidence that the men released are citizens of wealthy, Western democracies that are U.S. allies.

Based on all of this, I would guess that most of the thirty-odd prisoners who were “erroneously rendered” are still in prison somewhere. I would also guess that some of them are still being subjected to torture right now."

And remember the Uighurs:

"Adel is innocent. I don't mean he claims to be. I mean the military says so. It held a secret tribunal and ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, not a terrorist. The whole thing was a mistake: The Pentagon paid $5,000 to a bounty hunter, and it got taken.

The military people reached this conclusion, and they wrote it down on a memo, and then they classified the memo and Adel went from the hearing room back to his prison cell. He is a prisoner today, eight months later. And these facts would still be a secret but for one thing: habeas corpus."

Rice: "With respect to detainees, the United States Government complies with its Constitution, its laws, and its treaty obligations. Acts of physical or mental torture are expressly prohibited. The United States Government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees."

Reality: There's lots of evidence that the US has explicitly authorized torture. Here's one, chosen at random:

"In July 2002, the president's counsel, Alberto Gonzales, convened his colleagues in his cozy, wood-paneled office in the White House. Present were top Justice Department and Defense Department lawyers. Significantly missing were lawyers from the State Department and uniformed military, whose views on interrogation were known to be a good deal more cautious. (The military worries what will happen to captured American POWs in return.) According to a participant at the meeting who declined to be identified discussing private deliberations, Gonzales emphasized that it would be wrong to go over the line, but that America was at war, and it was necessary to "lean forward." (Gonzales has declined to comment.)

One by one, the lawyers went through five or six pressure techniques proposed by the CIA. They approved "waterboarding," dripping water onto a wet cloth over the suspect's face, which feels like drowning. But they nixed mock burials as too harsh."

Alternately, just ask yourself why Dick Cheney is trying to hard to block the McCain amendment, or at least its application to the CIA, if we do not authorize or condone torture. The McCain amendment, after all, says that:

"(a) IN GENERAL.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."

And it defines such treatment as follows:

"(d) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED.--In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984."

If it is not now our policy to violate the Convention Against Torture, then why on earth is Cheney so eager to have the Senate not come out against it?

Rice: "In such cases the United States has vigorously investigated, and where appropriate, prosecuted and punished those responsible."

Reality And yet, oddly enough, Alberto Gonzales got to be Attorney General, and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have kept their jobs.

***

Rice's comments don't seem to be playing too well in Europe, at least when people are speaking off the record:

"The senior European diplomat could not have been clearer: “You don’t talk about torture in the morning and then say in the afternoon: ‘Democratise yourself’.”"

The Independent's editorial on her speech is headlined: "Please Stop Hectoring Us". And from the Guardian:

"Condoleezza Rice does not seem prepared to explain very much when she meets European leaders facing mounting pressure about the US policy of "extraordinary rendition" - flying terrorist suspects round the world to secret jails where they are allegedly tortured beyond the reach of any legal system. Broadly speaking, the message from the secretary of state as she embarked on her trip to Berlin, Brussels and points east yesterday was a blunt "trust and cooperate" on the basis that we are all in the same boat in the "war on terror". (...)

Dr Rice did not deny that rendition was taking place, only that the US does not knowingly send people to be tortured. So why are "enemy combatants" sent to countries like Egypt, Libya and Syria, with such bad records in this area? Rendition is damaging in other ways: innocent people have been detained and witnesses been unavailable for trials because the US will not admit it is holding them. Fighting terrorism isn't easy. But legality and morality have to go hand in hand. How can democracies upbraid China, Syria, Iran or Zimbabwe if "our" unacceptable human rights abuses are unchecked. Dr Rice should address these concerns and speak the truth. So must our own government."

The Washington Post doesn't like the speech either:

"IN AN ATTEMPT to quell a growing storm in Europe over the CIA's secret prisons, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday issued a defense based on the same legalistic jujitsu and morally obtuse double talk that led the Bush administration into a swamp of human rights abuses in the first place."

And the Observer reports this delightful and (apparently) non-ironic quote:

"Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern said Rice told him in Washington she expected allies to trust that America does not allow rights abuses."

On what grounds Condoleeza Rice thinks she has the right to expect that anyone will trust the Bush administration to uphold human rights is a complete mystery to me. We forfeited that right when we started on our journey to what Dick Cheney called "the dark side". It will take a long time to earn it back.

Comments

[Frank]

What puzzles me is; she couldn't possibly have thought she would be well recieved, could she?

[hilzoy]

Frank: every so often, I just give up on trying to understand this administration. This is one of those times. The only possibility I've been able to come up with at all is this:

Every so often, I think people switch into what I think of as 'dog mode'. (Any animal with dominance relations would do, and probably 'male chimp mode' would be more accurate.) In dog mode, you say (and do) things not because what you say is true, but just as a sort of more articulate version of a growl, or some other move in a dog's dominance struggle.

When people are in dog mode, it doesn't pay to try to understand why they say what they do by looking at the actual meaning; you just have to think: oh, he's basically putting his head on top of the other dog's head in a 'I am so dominant over you' way, and growling (or whatever.)

I think the administration may have gone into dog mode on this one, the translation being: growl. Back off.

To anyone who thinks this is unduly insulting to the administration, I'll just say that I honestly can't imagine why else Dr. Rice would be saying this stuff. As Frank said, it's hardly likely to be actually believed or anything.

[Alopex Lagopus]

They are sending people to Syria so they will have evidence of Syrian torture chambers to present before the UN Security Council. "Assad is a bad bad man!"

Time to send more money to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, ACLU and Human Rights First.

[Frank]

hilzoy- That does make sense. It was even in the headlines that way, actually. My concern is that under the circumstances, doesn't it encourage exactly the opposite of what we want?

Aren't the nations of Europe likely to look at this and say: "Time to start distancing ourselves from these lunitics, and start making deals with Russia, and China", who even if unsavory are at least usually rational?

[hilzoy]

Frank: in my experience, dog mode only works on other people who are also in dog mode. I used it quite effectively once on someone who was: he growled, I growled back; he growled again, I growled in a lower, more ominous tone; he slunk away. What made it so astonishing was that the person in question had done something genuinely awful, and his growls involved defending it, but after he slunk off, he stopped -- all this without a reason in sight.

It tends not to work on people in people mode, so I think it's a pretty serious misjudgment here.

[Frank]

Hmm Yet we persist in trying to talk to Republicans as if they were human. ;)

Well I suppose Europe's diplomats will probably remain diplomatic in public, so Condi probably won't be as embarressed as badly as she deserves.

[DaveC]

OT, Gary sez:
I HATE YOUR GROUP BLOG.
or something.

He's probably just in 'male chimp mode'.

[rilkefan]

"she couldn't possibly have thought she would be well recieved, could she?"

Perhaps this is a case of "We have to go defend our policy because if we don't everybody will point out we don't even bother to try to defend it". It costs some of Rice's credibility but that's part of what she's paid for. Also, this way the admin makes some effort to appear as if it cares about what Europe thinks.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

To anyone who thinks this is unduly insulting to the administration, I'll just say that I honestly can't imagine why else Dr. Rice would be saying this stuff. As Frank said, it's hardly likely to be actually believed or anything.

It's designed for domestic consumption. The Europeans know she's lying, Rice knows she's lying - but you can;t say the truth without causing Bush's wingnut base to have their heads explode through sheer cognitive dissonance.

[bob mcmanus]

The Europeans will have to weigh the cost/benefits of confrontation vs the cost/benefits of submission. Actually looks like a fairly easy call.

Part of the problem is that the Europeans don't see a strong reliable group of allies for confrontation in America. I don't either.

[rilkefan]

bob, you seem to have gotten more, uhh, I guess vociferous of late. Is that right? Was there a precipitating event?

[James Casey]

DaveC - ObWings started off as a group blog. That's not what Gary's talking about.

Back on topic, what do you do about this? I mean, blog posts are one thing (and a good thing). But is anyone contacting their representatives or other government officials to protest? I hope so. It's frustrating at times not being a US citizen.

[Chris Laurel]

Rice is preaching the same line as Charles Krauthammer - "Things Are Different" (TAD).

It is a surprise our Constitution has held up this long with these folks running the show. If my apathetic generation has been waiting for someone to tell them they should be incensed: You should be incensed. I have never attended a march. I have been lax about voting. And now I reap the fruit of my laziness. Frankly, I'm frightened.

Anyone may post on my blog, and I invite anyone to debate this "Things Are Different" topic with me.

A couple of thoughts: First, the Constitution was a liberal - revolutionary - idea, and its principles are inherently liberal, as that political philosophy is defined.

Second, just like us the Founding Fathers experienced rapid progress [click here for the Timeline of Invention]. They studied history and the classics. Technology in war changed, but modern warfare begin the 15th Century and the strategies employed were ancient. They knew they were not fighting wars the same way as the Ancient Romans, or the Christians in the Bible. They knew war would change with progress, had it always had. Just like us they couldn't see into the future, but they knew the breadth of change afoot was to be vast.

They also knew things were going to increase rapidly. Franklin was a tremendous scientist:

Franklin was interested in science and technology, carrying out his famous electricityexperiments and invented the Franklin stove, medical catheter, lightning rod, swimfins, glass harmonica, and bifocals. He also played a major role in establishing both the University of Pennsylvania and the Franklin and Marshall College.

He well could imagine the possibilities. Rapid progress in science and physics discoveries enabled them to discover America. Just because they could not see the Industrial Revolution does not mean they left child labor laws out by accident.

Have you ever wondered why the same people who wrote the Constitution wrote the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment...etc...? Why aren't they incorporated or written into the main document? Click on any of the amendments to find out.

When it comes to our rights and governing principles, we must put firmly in the grave the conservative argument that "Things Are Different."

My Constitutional Law professor made this argument and I called him on it. Justice Brandeis was one of the world's greatest jurists, and remains so (his opinions, along with Holmes and Cardozo, were used in the framing of South Africa's constitution, which many hail as a model for all). Brandeis wrote the definitive persuasive concurrence in defense of free speech rights in Whitney v. California. My Constitutional Law professor, who has taught the subject for 25 years, had the audacity to suggest that if Brandeis were alive today he would not write that opinion. He repeated this several times, to a class of 125 students at a top law school, who give his opinion great weight. These are the kind of people who will change things, for better or worse. They damn well need to be informed correctly. So after he repeated this argument several times I called out, "Why?" and he said, "Because of 9/11, he would not write Whitney the same way."

This is the problem with conservatives today: they think everything is different, as if the technological age has suddenly given only the currently living generations the ability to see that things change rapidly and in ways we can't expect.

That so many intelligent conservatives argue this shocks me. Conservatives are usually first in line to defend our Constitution's integrity. Has this changed, or is this just more of the opportunists in our government, talking the conservative talk, but not walking the conservative walk?

I challenge any self-professed conservative who supports this administration to argue Bush is a conservative. I include David Brooks in that challenge. I would like for you to define some of these conservative principles, or at least say how they are different from the Wikipedia definition.

This would not be so contemptible if these hypocrites and liars weren't in power, using the names of our forefathers to strike down the very rights and standards of decency those men fought to establish. You should read the words of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, etc. Or at least check out their Wikiquote pages by clicking on their names.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the most important participants at the Philadelphia Convention. As a scientist he knew progress was destined to happen rapidly and he helped draft our most sacred document. Franklin did not discover electricity and then say, "Hoo boy, I didn't see this coming when we were talking about that Constitution thing. Some of those things might not be good ideas anymore!" Electricity's destructive potential was know to our forefathers.

Mr. Krauthammer and Ms. Rice and the rest of our leaders are like the French Revolution, which ended in failure. That happened, because the French as a revolutionary nation thought "Things Are Different." They wanted to shed all their established principles and ideals, and completely redo the institutions of their government. The whole thing ended in the failure of the French Republic, requiring a coup by Napoleon.

When we think "Things Are Different" we ignore history; it is not bothered with because it is deemed inapplicable. It's lessons are wasted. The consequences are disastrous.

The American Revolution got it right. We kept the common law (judge-made law) principles of England (including birthright citizenship), and we updated and codified them. We wanted our rights known, just like the pigs in Animal Farm (we knew before the last election that they do everything in secret, yet we were not scared). We did notwant a nebulous mass of documents and opinions defining our rights, but in plain sight in one document.

They well knew progress, because without it they would never have reached this land to begin with. They, too, lived in fast-changing times. They even had science fiction. Yet throughout our history the trend has been to bestow more rights, not cap the ones we have at the knees.

But now Things Are Different? How? Why? Let's make historical comparisons. The beauty of blogs is you can link to things that lend credibility to your point. So how are things different, enough to betray American values?

Things are not different today. Our leaders are. These people who talk about how new and different things are today, but then they propose old, discredited solutions.
Rice Defends U.S. Tactics on Terrorism Suspects

by Michele Kelemen

All Things Considered, December 5, 2005 · Secretary of StateCondoleezaa Rice begins a weeklong trip to Europe, where she is expected to defend U.S. tactics regarding terrorism suspects. Before she left, Rice responded to allegations that the CIA has flown terror suspects through European airports and is holding detainees in secret.

Related NPR Stories

• Dec. 5, 2005Report: U.S. Covered Up Wrongful CIA Detention

[derrida derider]

How to kill a comments thread, by Chris

If you want to have a long rant, pal, get your own blog - don't do it on someone else's. What you said might be perfect sense or perfect nonsense, but no-one will ever know because no-one will read it. Learn concision.

[Jeremy Osner]

Is there some way Dr. Rice can be held in contempt of the people? I realize she was not speaking under oath; but it seems to me she swore some kind of oath when she was made Secretary of State, that would have application to speeches she makes in her official role.

[Doug M.]

He's right, you know. I read one sentence, then started hitting "scroll".

Domestic consumption, agreed.

Doug M.

[Tim]

To anyone who thinks this is unduly insulting to the administration, I'll just say that I honestly can't imagine why else Dr. Rice would be saying this stuff. As Frank said, it's hardly likely to be actually believed or anything.

Rice had to. If she told the truth, she would have been directly contradicting Bush ("We do not torture.">

She has a bad tell, by the way. When she's in Condoliar mode, and knows the falsehoods aren't going over, she can't control her voice. It starts quavering. Powell was much better at it.

[Dantheman]

I also agree with our Phoenician -- it is for domestic consumption, not to persuade the Europeans it is spoken to. The only questions I see are:

1. why on earth do the Europeans stand still for this, rather than finding an ally who won't insult their intelligence? While American defense umbrella is of significant concern now, it should be all the more reason for the Europeans to get their act together on defense policy, so they can stand on their feet and not take this sh!t any longer.

2. why are there so many Kool-Aid drinkers in this country who keep their minds so closed as to believe this?

[blogbudsman]

Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid, tastes great
Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid, can't wait.

Yeah, go to your congress person, there's a trusted group of leaders. At least the proletariat is smart enough to trust the President far more than our elected law makers.

I find Dr. Rice to be always technically correct and concise. Quavering? Not hardly. This is officially executive anger at media distortion week.

And besides, red Kool-Aid has always tasted better than blue Kool-Aid.

Hilzoy, you are the Princess Bride (here)and the peasant lady is screaming at you in your dreams.

[NeoDude]

It’s not a lie, if you BELIEVE it is not a lie.

[bob mcmanus]

"bob, you seem to have gotten more, uhh, I guess vociferous of late. Is that right? Was there a precipitating event?"

Vociferous? Is that loquacious or pugnacious?

Possible explanations are a cold spell in Texas, iglooing me & my dogs, cooling the computer so I have afternoon hours available;
Blind luck in arriving at Drum's threads within the first 25 comments; mmy annual last big push for a Wampum award. :}

All lies. I don't know. Don't feel any change. Maybe Yuletide spirit makes me want to maim and pillage.

[Jay C]

I'll add my opinion to bolster the point made by Phoenician and others, above: I think it's far more likely that Secretary Rice is spouting the stock Administration line about torture and rendition to the Europeans, so that they (the Admin) can have something "positive" to point to in the press (i.e., a public denial of abuses on the record). The domestic US press, that is: I don't think Bush & Co. care in the least what the European Press (or anyone else) think about them or their policies.
I think overt evidence of this unconcern can be found in this article in which our esteemed Secretary of State basically says to critics of US policy: "We're doing this for your benefit. Shut up."
Very "diplomatic".

[Barry]

"What puzzles me is; she couldn't possibly have thought she would be well recieved, could she?"

Posted by: Frank

Two thoughts - first, don't judge her statements by the standards of a democracy, or a republican democracy. Judge them by the standards of a one-party state, where nothing is too ridiculous to say, if it supports the party line.

Second, it's clear by now that everybody who holds any significant position in this administration is a stone liar, who'd probably lie even if the truth helped, just from principle.

[Barry]

"I find Dr. Rice to be always technically correct and concise. Quavering? Not hardly. This is officially executive anger at media distortion week. "

Posted by: blogbudsman

blogbudsman, I've never seen 'technically' used to mean 'not', before. Is this an official change, or just for this administration?

[Dantheman]

ABC has an updated version of the article cited in the post:

cite

"Of the 12 high-value targets housed by the CIA, only one did not require water boarding before he talked. Ramzi bin al-Shibh broke down in tears after he was walked past the cell of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the operational planner for Sept. 11. Visibly shaken, he started to cry and became as cooperative as if he had been tied down to a water board, sources said."

[NeoDude]

I meant to write:

It’s not a lie, if you CHOSE to BELIEVE it is not a lie.

You know...subjective truths are right-wingers' best friends.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm not sure that this is the best place to note this, but Rick Perlstein's speech at the conference "The Conservative Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future" is a must read.

[Francis / BRGORD]

h -- what would you have her say? what alternatives does she have?

when i'm working out whether to argue for a radical new interpretation of some legal theory, i always apply the "red face" test -- could i make this argument in public to a judge without getting so embarrassed as to get a red face.

but the SecDef (insurgency is the wrong word) and the SecState (the US does not torture) don't have that option. they must lie. they cannot stay silent (thank heavens for the press we have); they will not resign. So they must lie, lie and lie some more.

it appears to me that the single most important criterion for working as a senior administration official is to have no shame.

the long-term consequences of this policy will be explored over the next 20 years. i expect that the rest of the West will look to build their own independent ties with Russia, China and India, and try to bypass the US.

it's not that we're dangerous; it's that we're dangerous and stupid.

[John Thullen]

Dog-mode. Yes, this is on the money.

Best to keep a pen of poorly-fed rhetorical pit-bulls on hand for when the other tough dogs bark.

The kitty in the upper left-hand corner has the right idea, too. Find a high perch. Drive them crazy with pot shots.

Or, you could sit at dinner parties with the other humans in dog-mode and look like a real human, and just when the other dogs get to the part of the conversation which goes something like "why doesn't Cindy Sheehan leave the country", give a quick warning pull back of the ears and begin some serious ankle-biting.

Try to avoid letting the other dogs see your wife putting you on your leash and trotting you off to get your weekly distemper shot.

Years ago, a boxer doggy lived on the other side of the fence. He barked menacingly (probably about rampant chihauhau immigration) and incessantly. One day, inside the house, I kept hearing an odd intermittent noise for hours; I thought it was the house settling or the refrigerator wheezing. I finally looked outside and there was the boxer hanging over my side of the fence by his leash, paws just off the ground. His windpipe must have been just barely open for several hours and he let out a little wheezy gag every few minutes.

His rolling eyes implored me, like a Republican who found out yesterday that Medicare had been canceled and this morning his doctor had let him know that the biopsy revealed a large expensive mass in his gut.

I petted him and gently lifted the pressure off the leash. He remained calm. He was too heavy to lift over the fence from my side, so I let him dangle for a moment and climbed over the fence to stand on a cement block on the other side and lifted him back over to his side. He stood there, weakly heaving in some fresh air. He's was O.K.

But he never barked much after that. I could hear him on the other side, meekly snuffling around when I was in the yard.

I don't think he ever found affordable medical insurance.

Then one day he was gone.

[Paul]

At least the proletariat is smart enough to trust the President far more than our elected law makers.

Your impressions of V.I. Lenin are always spot on, blogbudsman. The Party is lucky to have you.

what do you do about this?

Cry, cry, mast*rb*t*, cry

Seriously. Having marched, rallied, given money, voted, argued, and begged, I'm devoting a lot of quality time to drinking right now.

[Donald Johnson]

Concision is over-rated. I'll read long comments if I have time, just like I'll read long posts if I have time.

Good post, hilzoy, except I don't think there was ever a time when you could expect the US government to be honest about its connection with atrocities. "Once upon a time" is about right, if you meant to imply it only happens in fairy tales.

[ral]

lj, thank you for the pointer to the Rick Perlstein speech.

The postscript is wonderful:

The response to my address was, understandably, defensive. My co-panelist Stan Evans retorted that my invocation of Richard Nixon was inappropriate because Nixon had never been a genuine conservative. He added: "I didn't like Nixon until Watergate." I responded: "Thanks for making my point."

[blogbudsman]

To my comrades here I offer this http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/lie/lie.html>nugget . Of course, to me it's a glove like fit for the Democratic leadership and their flock (and all that might imply). Some of you, however, may apply it differently.

[The Heretik]

Am I mistaken or did I stumble across another blog on the way to the bottom of the comments pile? Kudos to all posters for their energy and conviction here. Good thoughts will require good acts, so phone calls and e mails to decision makers and law makers are key here. This administration can say black is white from dawn to dusk and back again, but the full color reality is more sordid.

Torture is an affront to the dignity of all, including those who perpetrate it. Black sites are the black hole into which the unfortunate new desaparecidos have fallen..

If our leaders refuse to, we must lift this country back up to face the sun we all share because we have all had our faces down in the gutter for too long.

[Francis]

blogbudsman: what's your point - that members of the Democratic party lie especially well because they meet the criteria of some website on the art of lying persuasively?

if so, you best apologize quickly to me. you have no basis whatsoever to assert that I, as a member of the "flock" of Democratic leadership, lie much less lie persuasively.

this tu quoque style of argumentation is getting pretty tiresome. Even if the Democratic leadership lies with the skill of Satan, it does not justify the leadership of this country acting as if the truth were a tiresome construct to be shed whenever the greater good requires.

[CharleyCarp]

My favorite lie of the day was Sec Rice saying, wrt Masri, that when the US finds it has made a mistake it does what it can to set it right. One would think that Mr. Masri was flown first class back to Germany, compensated for his lost belongings, and something for his time.

[CharleyCarp]

The going rate for hostage taking, by the way, is $10,000 per day. (See Terry Anderson et al.)

[hilzoy]

Amazing: not only does Fafblog have an awesome interview with Condoleeza Rice, it/they/he/whoever also has a post on Slavoj Zizek.

Fafblog is incredible.

From the Rice interview:

"RICE: I'd also like to point out that whenever we send a prisoner to a country that routinely tortures prisoners, that country promises us NOT to torture them.

FB: And then they get tortured anyway!

RICE: Yes, they do! It's very strange.

FB: Over and over again, every time! That's gotta be so frustrating.

RICE: Oh it is, it is.

FB: So the first time you kidnap a prisoner an send him to Saudi Arabia you're like "don't torture this guy" an they're all "we totally won't" an then they go an torture him an you're all "ooh Saudi Arabia I told you not to torture him!" an they're all "oh we're sorry, we promise next time" an then you go "well you better" an you send em the next guy an they torture him too an you go "oh man Saudi Arabia you did it AGAIN!""

[Anarch]

Phoenician: It's designed for domestic consumption.

In all seriousness, can anyone give an example of a speech or policy declaration by Bush that was not primarily intended for domestic consumption? I'm sure there are examples but nothing's occurring to me at the moment.

[blogbudsman]

"However, as a diversionary tactic, http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html>Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation."

[Francis]

blogbudsman:

i deliberately accused of the tu quoque fallacy. now that you understand what it means, you can (a) finally get around to apologizing for calling me a liar; and (b) stop arguing that the sins of the Democrats justify the sins of the republicans.

[blogbudsman]

So, Francis, using a bit of hizoy's logic - if Democratic Party politicians lie, and you've rendered yourself into their flock, doesn't that make you a liar. Or if you allow those lies to fester and achieve their intent; or even yourself arguing the sins of the Republicans justify the sins of the flock, I don't see that I owe you much of anything. Fanaticism seems to rationalize the ends justifies the means. Me thinks thou protesteth too much. Really.

[hilzoy]

blogbudsman: if you didn't mean to call all Democrats, Francis included, liars, it would be a nice temperature-lowering gesture to say so and move on.

If you did, it would probably be a good idea to say why. Like: which lies on the part oF Dem. politicians you're talking about, and why that makes any of us liars (as opposed to, say, dupes.)

[blogbudsman]

Hilzoy, I meant what I said, and said what I meant. If one considers themselves part of the Democratic leadership's flock, then they approve of lying as a tactic, endorse that lying, enable that lying and probably embrace that lying - at least to the means/end argument. If Francis considers herself a dedicated disciple of Reid, Pelosi and Dean, then she must accept the guilt by association. I didn't call her out, she leapt.

[hilzoy]

Blogbuds: could you start by telling us which statements of theirs you take to be lies? Also, why you think that countenancing a lie is the same as lying?

Also, what about people who are Democrats either because they take them to be the least dishonest party, or because they are worried about something that's (arguably) worse (e.g., to use a totally imaginary example just to separate ourselves from quibbles about the details of real cases, suppose there are two main parties, one of which has a leader who has told a lie, and the other of which has a leader who wants to abrogate the Constitution and make him- or herself absolute dictator for life. I would support the first.)

In either of the cases in the second para., does it make a difference whether one works within the party to stop the lies?

[Francis]

first, get my sex right. M, not F. the female spelling is Frances.

second, i don't need to accept guilt by association anymore than von, charles bird or slarti (or for that matter you) are guilty of torture due to your associations with the government currently in power.

third, there are a number of factual assumptions in your last post that are, at best, unproven. As hilzoy has shown, bush and rice have provably lied. You, blogbudsman, have a long way to go to demonstrate that the statements of Reid and Pelosi are even close to being the same level of deceptive.

[hilzoy]

Blogbudsman: to put it another way: you show up, announcing that the Democratic leaadership and those who follow them are liars, but you don't say why, nor is it in any obvious way on topic. Francis says: put up or apologize, which is in my view a reasonable response to a serious insult. You go on saying we're liars, but still don't say why. And that's -- well, I would not have expected that from you.

And to be clearer: I said that Rice and Bush had lied. I told you what statements of theirs I thought were lies, and provided evidence that those statements were false. Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that Nancy Pelosi has told at least one untruth in her life, wouldn't that mean that in choosing a political party to support, we have to choose among liars? If someone chooses to support one party or another because s/he thinks that that party is the less deceptive of the two, is it in any way right to say: oh, that person is just willing to tolerate lies?

Also: I never called all Republicans, or all supporters of Bush, liars. I do not think they are. Had I done so, you would (I think) have been right to be angry at me. But I did a lot more to substantiate my claims about Bush and Rice than you have so far done to substantiate your claims about Democrats. I think, therefore, that I'd be on much firmer ground if I wanted to say that all Republicans were liars.

But I think that would be false, and a gratuitous insult. It would also ignore all the complexities of people's motivations in choosing a political party. So I don't.

[dmbeaster]

Will Charles still keep telling us what fine leadership material he finds in Dr. Rice? I note that he seems to have a perpetual blindspot for her frequent dishonest discourse.

[blogbudsman]

So Francis is the male spelling? You know, I didn't know that. My apologies.

[Gary Farber]

"Hilzoy, I meant what I said, and said what I meant. If one considers themselves part of the Democratic leadership's flock, then they approve of lying as a tactic, endorse that lying, enable that lying and probably embrace that lying - at least to the means/end argument. If Francis considers herself a dedicated disciple of Reid, Pelosi and Dean, then she must accept the guilt by association. I didn't call her out, she leapt."

I'm not particularly interested in trying to get people banned, but my question here is what Moe Lane's response to this, and the series it is in, would have been were it posted by someone using the word "Republicans" instead of "Democrats"?

As a secondary point, besides tu quoque, the above passages displays no valid logic at all in going from one sentence to the next. The second sentence, for instance, is an assertion, not an argument. So is the third. What's the actual argument you have, blogsbudperson, that proves your assertion?

I suspect it will be hard to find one, though, because it wouldn't describe a true condition: it's simple fact that, at the least, it's false that "[i]f one considers themselves part of the Democratic leadership's flock, then they approve of lying as a tactic...." Plenty of clear counterfactuals are obvious.

I suppose they're all lying, though.

This isn't even an interesting way of slurring people, alas. It's just a slightly more elaborate version of "you bad!" (In fairness, let me note that something like 2 out of 3 comments on ObWings engage in similarly boring [to me, of course] tu quoques at Republicans.)

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, but I thought that I read someone claiming that Rick Perlstein's claim about the White House blocking google was uncited and therefore dubious. I believe that he is talking about things like this . Hope that cite suffices.

[blogbudsman]

Actually Gary, "you bad!" - is good!

[Gary Farber]

"Hope that cite suffices."

Well, to clarify that Pearlstein's quote is wrong, sure. Thanks.

[liberal japonicus]

Pearlstein's

Perlstein, Perlstein, Perlstein, Perlstein.

[rilkefan]

lj - oh, never mind.

[Gary Farber]

"Perlstein, Perlstein, Perlstein, Perlstein."

Many thanks! Google is more unforgiving, and a love I care far more about, than folks who claim Spelling Doesn't Matter.

It was a fine piece by Perlstein, as most generally are; I likely didn't make clear that opinion of mine, as usual.