Bret Stephens at the Wall St. Journal:
Hillary and the Liberal Way of Lying
How the Clintons pioneered the methods by which Obama sold his Iran deal…
What the Clintons pioneered–the brazen lie, coyly delivered and knowingly accepted–has become something more than the M.O. of one power couple. It has become the liberal way of lying.
Consider this column’s favorite subject: the Iran deal. An honest president might sell the current deal roughly as follows.
“My fellow Americans, the deal we have negotiated will not, I am afraid, prevent Iran from getting a bomb, should its leaders decide to build one. And eventually they will. Fatwa or no fatwa, everything we know about their nuclear program tells us it is geared toward building a bomb. And frankly, if you lived in a neighborhood like theirs–70 million Shiites surrounded by hundreds of millions of Sunnis–you’d want a bomb, too.
“Yes, we could, in theory, stop Iran from getting the bomb. Sanctions won’t do it. Extreme privation didn’t stop Maoist China or Bhutto’s Pakistan or Kim’s North Korea from building a bomb. It won’t stop Iran, either.
“Airstrikes? They would set Iran back by a few years. But even in a best-case scenario, the Iranians would be back at it before long, and they’d keep trying until they got a bomb or we got regime change.
“Fellow Americans, how many of you want to raise your hands for more Mideast regime change?
“So here’s the deal with my deal: It never was about cutting off Iran’s pathways to a bomb. Let’s just say that was an aspiration. It’s about managing, and maybe slowing, the process by which they get one.
“I know that’s not what you thought I’ve been saying these past few years–all that stuff about all options being on the table and me not bluffing and no deal being better than a bad deal. I said this for political expedience, or as a way of palliating restive Saudis and Israelis. You feed the dogs their bone.
“But if you’d been listening attentively, you would have heard the qualifier ‘on my watch’ added to my promises that Iran would not get the bomb. And what happens after I leave office? Hopefully, the Supreme Leader will be replaced by a new leader cut from better cloth. Hopefully, too, this marathon diplomacy will open new patterns of U.S.-Iranian cooperation. But if neither thing happens we’d be no worse off than we are today.
“That’s why getting a deal, any deal, is more important than the deal’s particulars when it comes to sanctions relief, inspections protocols and so on. The details only matter insofar as they make the political medicine go down. What counts is that we’re sitting at the table together, speaking.”..
It’s very unfortunate that the political “Know better than you” class cannot find it within themselves to at the very least be straight with us about their aspirations and realistic about their expectations for this deal or for that matter for most of the things that they pursue.
My parents taught me that if you always tell the truth you may not always be popular with everyone, but you at least don’t have to remember what you said to different people.
This was a good piece>
“What counts is that we’re sitting at the table together, speaking.”..
Yeah, and their side is saying, “Death to America!!!”
Problem is, neither side is listening.
When someone tells you they are going to kill you, listen up and believe them.
Maybe they’ll use the Pelosi model:
“Let’s just sign the deal to find out what’s in it!”
The ‘Hitlery model’ will just result in more dead people,
and a lot exothermic blather about “What difference at this point does it make?”
Coming soon: “My Big ‘Fat Man’ Iranian Wedding”
You thought the Middle East was warming up, no she’s hot, hot, HOT.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group ‘True North’
Most people know that politicians always lie to us but most have no clue that what tries to pass as journalism ,the news media lies and deceives us just as much, if not more so.You can no longer trust either and in today’s world should be a default position whenever exposed to either.
I’ve been saying this in different forums but I’ll say it again: Who’s going to arrest the sheriff?
Putting it another way, if the highest levels of any government realize that nobody is able to enforce the law upon them, then they will behave any way they want for survival, self-serving purpose, and self-aggrandizement, with the ends justifying the means as their guiding principle.
Don’t forget, too, that every governing body reflects the morals and ethics of the citizenry perfectly and precisely.
In other words, we’re screwed.
Rick:
I feel your pain but, unfortunately, it’s just a fact of (political) life.
It was back in the 1990’s that I first heard that politicians and media people alike have it pounded into them to treat the public like children. As I recall, American politicians/media hacks are trained to speak as though they are speaking to 8th-graders. Their Canadian counterparts, (Canada being more advanced [smirk]), treat the public like 10th-graders.
Anyway, at the end-of-the-day, they’re taught to make their points to the public in a way that it does not take more than one or two sentences to explain it. If the explanation requires three or more sentences, then you have to lie in order to simplify it. Otherwise, the eyes of the average voter will glaze over and you’ll lose them.
And both sides do it. Like Obama with Iran, I knew Bush wasn’t being straight about the reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq. No, he didn’t “lie” inasmuch as he really did believe they would find WMD. But, that wasn’t the reason…it was the excuse. The real reason was, of course, about a bunch of factors that came together to form an overall strategy. But explaining all of that would have taken more than two sentences. Much easier to say, “It’s all about the WMD.” Meanwhile, his opponents also kept their argument to single sentences: “It’s all about oil.”
Just the way things are.
Certainly seems a pity that world security is being sold out for vanity and a few votes. Everyone seems afraid to upset Iran in case they develop and use their upcoming nuclear arsenal instead of turning the country into a radio active parking lot before they can retaliate in kind. Logic says it’s pay now or pay later. Give them 30 days notice to shut it down and destroy it, or watch the rubble bounce. No more talks. No more time. No more diversions and no compensation. If you surround the facilities with civilians we will only promise that their suffering will be short. That’s a line in the sand they might pay attention to. If not, too bad. That was their choice. The added benefit is that it will shut N korea up for a few years too. War is painful but the alternative is a total disregard for our own survival. We are trapped between pay now or pay later. Now is as good as it’s gonna get. Surrender or die still leaves a choice they can mull over. It’s more that we would get from them.
The power vacuum left by the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, British, Ottoman and Russian empires almost a century ago will be filled.
It seems that the west in general is unwilling to even try for a stake in the game, so it’ll be either Islam, the Chinese or the Russians.
Take your pick, folks.
So the deal with Cuba has no conditions and the deal with Iran has no conditions. Just Obama waving the white flag. To quote Yakov Smirnoff “What a country.”
Another accomplished pathological liar and megalomaniac , must be a fashion in the dissolute culture within the Washington beltway.
Perhaps the best course of action is a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a facility which would appear to be a “whoops” on the Iranians part……
Accidents happen doncha know?????…….
To really paraphrase….how do you know a politician of any political stripe is lying? They are breathing. But that’s what zchizo psychopaths do, so, no surprise.