Obama and Bush: when is a lie not a lie?
Tom Bevan analyzes Obama supporter Bob Herbert’s startling admission that “I have not spoken to anyone, either on Capitol Hill or elsewhere, who believes that [Obama’s pledge that his health care plan will not raise the deficit a dime] is doable.” Nevertheless, Herbert asserts that Obama believes that it is.
It’s worth reading Bevan’s whole piece, but the gist of it is that old question: what does Obama think? Herbert says Obama believes what he says about health care reform being deficit-neutral. But Herbert also observes that Obama is virtually alone in that belief. That would make Obama a fool, one who ignores the fact that the vast and almost unanimous preponderance of evidence is against what he’s asserting about the plan’s effects on the deficit.
But I suppose that it’s better for a supporter to believe Obama a fool than a liar. And remember, if Herbert had called Obama a liar, he’d be guilty of racism. That would be especially upsetting because Herbert himself is black. It’s all so very confusing, isn’t it?
Bevan helpfully points out that when George Bush believed that Saddam had WMDs, he was backed up by most of the experts in the world. But when Bush and those experts turned out to be wrong (and despite evidence that Saddam could have reconstituted his program, and planned to do so once sanctions were lifted), Bush’s opponents became unremitting in accusing the president of having lied. Having been mistaken wasn’t enough.
This double standard is part of the shrieking hypocrisy of politics. Like Humpty Dumpty, Obama’s supporters get to define “lie” exactly as they wish. They don’t think they need to worry about being consistent, if they are effective.
[ADDENDUM: On the other hand, Jim Miller offers the notion that Obama doesn’t even think about whether what he’s saying is true or not.]
I believe that we are missing something. Obama believes it will be deficit neutral because he and the congress intend to raise taxes a huge amount to match the spending. Forget about the fact that such nefarious actions ever turn out to be reality, it only matters if it looks good in the Powerpoint. He’ll be long gone before the bill comes due and the lies have come home to roost.
Jeb: good point. One always has to parse Obama’s words carefully. So maybe he’s neither an outright liar nor a fool, he just disingenuous (“depends what the meaning of “is” is), and thinks we’re all fools.
Neo wrote, “That would make ∅bama a fool,”
Racist ! 🙂
Contrariwise, more and more Americans are becoming convinced that the President is a scoundrel who invents his own reality to get his own way. Hardly anybody I’ve talked to thinks he’s a fool – nohow.
I suspect somehow they will initially tax the private health care system to pay for the public one- I have seen some evidence this is being considered. They will claim they are taxing corporations- not people- so in Marxist world they did not raise taxes. Once those industries are dead- it won’t matter. All that is left will be the government.
Its the same thing with the carbon tax. They will try to hide the tax from the average Democrat by taxing corporations- then attack those “greedy” corporations when they have to raise prices. Much of the Democratic base is to distracted /uninformed/ communist enough to not notice and/or care.
A few thoughts.
I found the Wikipedi article for “Hubris” interesting. Especially the fact that “Hubris” was “a legal term and was considered a crime in classical Athens,” and that it “was also considered the greatest sin of the ancient Greek world.” I seem to remember that as a Catholic, growing up, I was taught that pride was the first sin of Satan, when he believed himself to be greater and more deserving than God.
Also, another memory: When I was still in college, I encountered quite a few like Obama, liberal-left types who would say whatever would win them that moment’s argument, notwithstanding whether it was logical, or true, or even consistent with what they had said before. I remember finally having had enough and telling off one of these glib people. I remember saying to this person that he was either a complete a**h*** or a comple moron; and in either case (a**h*** or stupid) why would I ever want to be around such a worthless person, since, regardless of cause (being an a**h*** or being stupid) any conversation with lead nowhere? As you can imagine, that ended our “friendship,” if it even was that.. and good riddance.
It just so happens that, while googling, I found the facebook of this very same person. Same guy, so many years later. His favorite politician: Barack Obama.
jon baker: In fact, much of the Democratic base would applaud sticking it to the supposed rich, and to business people so nasty as to want to make a (gasp!) profit. And Obama has fanned the flames of that sort of anger, as well.
They don’t seem to realize that business employs people. At least it still does so far—until the government takes over more and more of the employment
HALP US MITSOO WE R NUT SMART ENUFF 2 UNNERSTAND PREZDENT OBAMA
But a fool is a liar; and to call another a fool is precisely to make moral assertion about him and his chosen actions.
Ilion: fools are not necessarily liars. And liars are not necessarily fools. Sometimes the two co-exist, and sometimes not.
–George Costanza, on Seinfeld
Just for today I’m going to find all the craziness of the Obama administration humorous. Either they are crazy or I am crazy and I’ve thought about it a lot and I really don’t think I’m crazy.
Obama is chock full of hubris and Nemesis is coming for him. Here’s a cheerful column:
Why the Obama Administration Will Implode In Weeks
I was the first pundit to predict that Barack Obama would become president. Here’s what I think we can expect from this administration in the next six to eight weeks.
Never has an administration had more political firepower at their disposal yet been set to so totally fail in the next six to eight weeks. It is nearly a foregone conclusion. It is nearly unavoidable. And it defies all logic given the sizable majority the administration has in both houses of Congress.
Since I was the first pundit to predict Obama’s presidency (back in December 2006) it behooves me to tell you the course I believe the next few weeks will take. Just think, it was only a few months ago that the left looked unstoppable in bringing about their plan to radicalize, nationalize, and federalize America.
Read the rest here.
huxley said:
Just for today I’m going to find all the craziness of the Obama administration humorous. Either they are crazy or I am crazy and I’ve thought about it a lot and I really don’t think I’m crazy.
Obama is chock full of hubris and Nemesis is coming for him.
I try to live my life with as much humor as I possibly can. Without humor, life would be pretty dark and tragic.
One of the best sources of humor is that which derives from well deserved Schadenfreude directed at someone who damn well had it coming. Obama and his throng of worshippers are like drunken fools on top of slick, slanted roof… and I intend to laugh heartily while they slide down and fall all twenty stories.
I mean… I’m really not normally that mean spirited. I even gave this guy a chance (see my earlier postings just after his inauguration), but, yeah… they’ve got it coming.
It takes a special kind of person to not notice his own positions. That is why Obama can reverse himself by saying “I have always said….”, even though he has said the exact opposite before.
The only two explanations I can come up with are either Obama has no fixed set of principles or he believes the ends justify the means.
Rick
The media does not care if Obama lies. Look at how they are now reporting republican efforts to deny tax money to ACORN. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE58D6CW20090914
I mean they don’t even mention the tax advice was to a couple who were claiming to be bringing in 13 year old girls for prostitution! They just say they gave tax advice to a couple claiming to be a prostitute and pimp. They completely ignore the whole child prostitution angle!!!
the one good part is this little phrase : “The Senate measure, which passed 83 to 7 in the Democratic-led chamber, was included in a must-pass spending bill that funds housing and transportation programs for the fiscal year that starts October 1.”
So it was Conservatives and Republicans fault for denying funds to this “poverty group”, but Democrats for some reasons voted against ACORN also…..
ACORN is now so toxic that even a Democrat in hazmat suit won’t go near it.
Are we having fun yet?
Oh yeah…
I love it when a plan comes together. Rumor has it that another tape is due to surface tomorrow.
Hurry Tuesday!
OB: Yeah, baby!
You’ve got to celebrate your wins.
YES!
Obama calls Kanye “
“Bush Doesn’t Care About Black People” West a “jackass.”
YES!
Barack Obama Jumps the Shark.
YES!
We are having fun!
Sounds as though Mr. Herbert has a bad case of Obama Arrangement Syndrome.
One simple hypothesis that I shall state explicitly:
Barack H. Obama is STUPID and incapable of learning from either experience or prior knowledge.
Fits all the observables…
Neo, a fool, properly so-called, is always a liar; at minimum, the fool is lying to himself to justify his foolish choice or action.
‘Fool’ does not mean “stupid,” it does not mean “moron,” it does not mean “idiot.” [And, for that matter, people frequently use those terms when they mean ‘fool,’ as can easily be ascertained by the anger and/or moral opprobrium with which they make the accusation.]
If an idiot/moron (properly so-called) does something stupid, he cannot help it and he cannot do better (not without careful supervision): it is pointless, and in fact, immoral, to be ragefully angry or morally disapproving of an idiot.
On the other hand, if a fool (properly so-called) does something stupid, he has willfully chosen to do it; he could have done otherwise: he is capable of understanding what he is doing and its consequences, but he *chooses* either to ignore what he does know or chooses willfully to remain ignorant (that he may maintain “plausible deniability”). It is fitting and proper to morally censure a fool.
Intellectual dishonesty — which is at the heart of being a true fool — *is* lying. And it is, in fact, worse that mere lying in the same way that hypocrisy [another overused and misused term] is worse than mere lying.
A mere liar is lying episodically; whereas an intellectually dishonest person, as with a hypocrite, is lying systemically. The mere liar lies about a fact; the intellectually dishonest person lies about the very nature of truth and reason.
Ilion: What dictionary are you using to define “fool”?
Do you believe *everything* in some dictionary is absolute … or do you reason?
How do conservatives expect to prevail over “liberals” when most of them think (and behave) as well-trained “liberals?”
I have given you *reasons* (and reasoning) for what I have said, and I have given you objective examples, which we all have experienced, of the usage I have told you is actually correct … and you demand an “authority” give you permission to think correctly about the word(s).
“Barack H. Obama is STUPID and incapable of learning from either experience or prior knowledge.”
Not so, B.O. learned his lessons well from one particular mentor famous for the line, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”. But this was a character who turned out, after all, to be not at all unimpeachable. When are the lies tantamount to perjury, then, when do they become perjury? Impeaching B.O. should be high on the future agenda for so many more serious reasons well exceeding the gravity of Bubba’s errors of arrogance and judgement mostly only in his personal conduct and life. Interestingly, Hillary was an enabler then, and she’s again an enabler, but this time the stakes, case in point Honduras, are so much more critical with Hugo Chavez having morphed into a serious enemy, and the potential for becoming a South American Saddam or Castro.
If Obama (and the “liberals” in general) is an idiot, then you have no moral right to be angry with him, and them, over the damage to the nation they are inflicting and intend to continue to inflict. Try to remove them from office, yes; but it is immoral to be angered at the actions of an idiot, for he cannot help himself.
On the other hand, if Obama (and the “liberals” in general) is an fool, then you have no moral right — and indeed, the moral obligation — to be angry with him, and them, over the damage to the nation they are inflicting and intend to continue to inflict.
The distinction is a matter of reason and morality.
Enjoyed your clarifying nuances Ilion, in my opinion right on the mark. Indirectly related: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-administration-calling-all-nuclear-criminals/
Of course, Good Ole Charlie, I don’t disagree with what you were actually trying to get at, indeed it “Fits all the observables…” However, Obama is stupid like a fox, the evidence continues to mount that he is a moslem communist posing as a Christian Democrat. But we are arriving at a threshold where the democrats will pull back enough to placate the press and popular opinion, they’ll not jeapordize their political power, even if it means throwing some scraps to the rabble, ie. firing Acorn, and forcing a full-blown, uncloseted communist’s resignation…
Also, as far as the “authority” for this distinction I have said is correct … the authority which initially led me to see the distinction is that of 400+ years of English usage. Specifically, the KJV (and earlier, of course) translations of the Bible.
In the English translations of the Bible, the English word ‘fool’ always conveys moral censure, it never means simply “a stupid person,” but always a person who willfully acts in wicked and/or destructive (to self or to others) ways. A ‘fool’ knows what he’s doing, yet does it anyway.
What if Obama is an idiotic fool? Or a foolish idiot?
Disingenuous certainly fits the bill. As far as a loyal following, useful idiots certainly do.
Enablers….
To say that someone is ‘disingenuous’ is a $10 way of saying, “You’re lying!”
And “useful idiots” is (originally) Lenin’s term for the fools in Western nations who were ignoring and denying and lying to their own peoples about what he was doing in Russia, with the purpose of advancing Communism in those nations (and generally with the foolish notion that they themselves would be allowed to be top-dog “come the Revolution”).
I just read the article which Perfected democrat linked to – which was very good. There was a Joe Wilson contribution link there and I decided to send Wilson a tangible sign of support in the form of $25. I’ll never miss it.
Ilion I take your point on the distinction of someone who is foolish rather than nescient or stupid. It’s a useful distinction to make intellectually. You are getting bogged down in what you consider to be precise meanings of “fool,” “idiot,” etc. None of those words are that precise. Historical meanings, including KJV meanings, are not the standard for what a word means now. (Check the history of the word “silly,” for example.) Additionally, the word “fool” never had that precise historical meaning anyway. Don’t play at popular linguistics on the basis of meanings convenient for homiletics. Your concept – asking how much of Obama’s thought is self-delusion and how much is intentional deceit – is a worthy one. Don’t spoil it by making pronouncements about language that aren’t sustainable.
To the main discussion – we have argued in many different ways this underlying question: which type of evil does Obama and his Team of Divas come closest to? Is he a committed leftist who will sacrifice himself for the cause, or is he a scheming power-hungry politician who will throw over the cause to reward his friends? Is he a narcissist who cannot see reality, or a sociopath who sees clearly but has no conscience. We have debated the various possibilities, and folks have marshalled good evidence for both sides. Many have also pointed out that the two are not mutually exclusive, and chosen to discuss which is the major theme of his personality and which the minor.
In the last few weeks another possibility has occurred to me. It is yet to be revealed because Obama himself does not know. Up to this point, the actions which served the one goal served the other. His lack of experience has left him in a situation which he has not faced before: when push comes to shove, who am I? He has been able to have it both ways in every situation since childhood. Over the next few months, the rent may come due and he will have to choose.
As moral questions go, we seldom are conscious of such choices. In myth, movie, and drama, the protagonist at some point sees what the choice is and makes it. That is a convention of art, to illustrate the larger story. But in everyday life, the decision passes us by unnoticed. We make the decision without realizing we have chosen, following our long built-up moral habits. We do not so much choose as reveal the fruit of the moral decisions we have been making for decades.
I think the evidence whether Obama turns out to be a Man of The Cause or a Man For Himself is now starting to come in, as there is now a conflict between the two. I am prejudiced in favor of one of those answers, so I refrain from judging for now, knowing I am not objective. But I think the returns are coming in.
Well said, AVI.
Interesting analysis, AVI. I’m wondering, though, if Obama’s choice between Cause and Self will make much difference to us on the ground…we have too little information from his past to be able to hazard a guess as to what he might do in the future, and what he might do to preserve himself could be more pernicious than what he does to preserve the Cause…
For my own part, I believe he is neither fool nor idiot (though not nearly as bright as his admirers want to believe), but a scoundrel. The weasel-worded healthcare speech is proof enough of that for me…
Will the world not be a paradise when everyone puts up the battle to resist the idea he declines to believe *after* he has made an honest effort to understand it, rather than before?
Ilion: “In the English translations of the Bible, the English word ‘fool’ always conveys moral censure, it never means simply “a stupid person,” but always a person who willfully acts in wicked and/or destructive (to self or to others) ways. A ‘fool’ knows what he’s doing, yet does it anyway.”
I did misstate, though, when I said “always;” I should have said “almost always” — there is at least one instance in the historical English translations where the English word ‘fool’ is used differently. That is Matthew 5:22 where ‘fool’ is used to represent ‘raca,’ which was a Hebrew/Aramaic term of contempt, meaning “vain/empty” or “worthless” or “good-for-nothing.”
While it appears that ‘raca‘ expressed anger and contempt (i.e. it makes a moral assertion), it seems to have simultaneously been used to assert “you’re stupid.”
In other words, ‘raca‘ appears to have been the very sort of irrational — and immoral — usage I am trying to get you to recognize in English and stop doing yourselves.
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2009-09-PP24-HCoutcomes-ey.pdf
It is because I care that I oppose the proposals in Congress to reform Health Care.
I wish Congress were talking about good reforms not the bad ones that would make the system worse.
Brian Swisher: “For my own part, I believe he is neither fool nor idiot (though not nearly as bright as his admirers want to believe), but a scoundrel. The weasel-worded healthcare speech is proof enough of that for me…”
Whatever Obama is, he is not an idiot (nor is he anywhere near as intelligent as he and his worshippers want to believe) — and that is one of the points I want to be understood. The distinctions I have been drawing between ‘fool” and ‘idiot‘ are pointed toward a more clear appraisal of him: he’s not an idiot, he’s not stupid.
He may be ignorant about the quite predictable and destructive results of his decisions and actions — but if so, it’s a self-chosen and willfull ignorance; which is to say, more evidence that he’s a intellectually dishonest, that is, that he’s a fool.
“Obama and Bush:”when is a lie not a lie?”
It’s the same dynamic as the popular country music artist not possibly deserving to be the artist of the year over someone who’s come from the oppressed class.
Bush’s Texas drawl and swagger forever linked him to white, racist, southern oppressors, therefore he lied.
Oppressor=hickish, less intelligent, bad, evil liars
Oppressed, (or champion of),=enlightened, sophisticated, superior
A lie is not a lie when it comes from a champion of the downtrodden or from the downtrodden themselves. A lie is a lie, even if it is a mistake, if it comes from one who fits the profile of the oppressor class.
Sure, it’s a double standard, and reverse discrimination.
Ilion: Yes, come to think of it, I do remember from a Bible studies class that the “fool” in the Gospel stories didn’t mean “just a fool” but a “damn fool who is a menace to himself and the community.”
Nonetheless, we are speaking 21st century English here and the Bible is not a dictionary for that language.
Of course Obama is lying and he knows he is lying and everyone — everyone — knows it too.
However, we give and politicians certainly take a license for the political equivalent of white lies that are told for form’s sake and not to be taken seriously otherwise.
More often these political white lies are told during campaigns, but then, Obama has never stopped campaigning.
Now his supporters are dealing with the cognitive dissonance of “Hey, a Joint Session Address is not a campaign stump speech where you can whisper sweet-nothing white lies into the nation’s ears.”
∅bama is …. a liar.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/09/024522.php
But, I grant that he might just actually believe in the things that are given to him.
For this reason, he is also incurious in finding out the truth.
He has created or saved one million jobs, add that to the growing list of lies.
I know my job was saved by Obama right?
My 21 year career was going to end until Obama saved my job.
Huxley: “Nonetheless, we are speaking 21st century English here …”
Well then, why don’t we just use “duh” for every word: duh duh duh duh diuh duh duh!
Huxley: “Nonetheless, we are speaking 21st century English here and the Bible is not a dictionary for that language.”
Would it be possible for you to behave any more ignorantly? Or are you behaving dishonestly? I didn’t claim that the Bible is a dictionary; I specifically stated that the historical English translations demonstrate that I have not made up this usage and distinction.
Give it a rest, Ilion. I respect your efforts as a philologist, and I find them interesting. But this is not a good forum for chopping logic and fine distinctions. The goal here is to make your point as clearly as possible and to make sure that it addresses the central argument.
Oblio: “… But this is not a good forum for chopping logic and fine distinctions. The goal here is to make your point as clearly as possible and …”
LOL
Translation: I don’t want to think, and I resent *your* attempt to think openly and publicly.
Ilion, I’m inclined to give you a lot less credit for your linguistic abilities if you can mistranslate me so badly.
Let me put it this way: if your goal is to influence the thinking of anyone in this forum, you are doing it wrong. Your last comments to huxley were asinine.
Ilion, I was going to let it drop and let you bow out gracefully, but your kicking oblio prevents it.
As an evangelical dating back to the Jesus Freak 70’s, I knew exactly where you were going with “fool,” and raca before you mentioned it. No one accused you of making it up – you were accused of taking slender evidence and making pronouncements from it. Your example is actually evidence against your point. “Fool” did not have the “persistent rebel” meaning in the early 17thC, or any other time. The Greek word carries that meaning, but the KJV translators apparently missed it or settled for second best.
If you really want to have a go at why some scholars think raca is a transliteration of Hebrew “moreh,” the historical meaning of fool in English and Midlle English (none of which include yours) back through 11th C Old French, then Latin, and eventually to the PIE root from which we also get the word “bellows,” then I would ordinarily be your guy. I love this stuff. But it has grown tiring already.