Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

One of the hot subjects in discussions swirling around the current President is whether he has lied to the American public about Iraq. Just entertaining this question is guaranteed to arouse emotion. No one wants to be called a liar, and anyone lied to hates it.

We don’t often bring the President of the United States into such discussions, but the question of honesty is evidenced as a low grade fever in all of us in everyday matters. Ever since I was caught as a youngster with stolen goods in my possession, I have tried, with mixed success, to stay clean. (I took money from my dad’s loose change box in his dresser drawer. I was caught when all those dimes and nickels spilled out of my shirt pocket onto the kitchen floor as I was playing with a toy. I explained that a lady on the street gave it to me. I haven’t gotten better at explaining away my sins, but I have studied the art.) It would be hypocritical of me to be too rough on George W. Bush, but because of the heightened location of his perch, I don’t consider it inappropriate to consider the wide impact of his pronouncements. Here are some thoughts that might help put the current political storm over Bush’s handling of terrorism in a less emotional, thus more enlightening, context.

Not long ago an incident caused me to think more directly about how one can tell when another person is lying. I had been cited for running a red light. At my court appearance, I was stunned to hear the police officer blatantly lie to the judge about the details of the moment. (You may not believe my story after my confession of youthful theft, but the light was green when I passed the sitting police car. The officer was confused about the timing of the light-change when the car in front of her at the intersection did not move immediately after the light turned green.) I happened to be teaching an ethics class at the time (yes I, of all people), and after being ruled guilty I wrote a letter to the judge, tongue in check, inviting him to come to my class as a guest speaker on how a judge discerns which witnesses are telling the truth. (Amazingly he accepted the invitation, but proved to have no words of wisdom--which I might have expected.)

I did learn one lesson from that traffic court event. People tend to believe lies because the person lying represents things the listener values and identifies with. I have been told by lawyers that police officers lie in court often (and I have been told by law officials that lawyers are notable for incompetence). In the face of contrasting testimony, and because a choice has to be made on the spot, the judge--in traffic court at least--will always rule in favor of the person wearing the law enforcement uniform.

As a human being myself with average experience at “face saving,” and high credentials at manipulative dissembling, I offer the following comments.

It may seem that one either tells lies or does not tell lies. But if George Bush is as human as the rest of us, I suppose sometimes he tells lies and sometimes he doesn't. Or he may lie and just not know it, though not knowing it doesn’t transform a lie into the truth. In the end it is a question of how we define a "lie." Lies can range widely from courteous white ones (e.g., “your new baby is so cute”) to malicious black ones. What it comes down to is where one wants to place Mr. Bush on the spectrum--where a particular statement of his shows on the chart or where his prevarications cluster. His admirers will see him closer to the white end and his critics find him near the black. The President is not so perfect as to be outside the force-field of deception. If lies send one to hell, Bush is in danger--or not. For the rest of us, we need only be concerned about the heaven or hell Bush creates for us by his pronouncements.

George W. Bush is not the first President to be given a pass because his believers want uncomplicated answers, and “he is the President.” The moment when the average citizen, diehard supporters of Richard Nixon abandoned him, was when they read the transcripts of the famous oval office tape recordings and discovered the President was a nasty swearer in personal conversations. Many Americans were willing to believe whatever Nixon told us until he showed that his statements were cynical and self-serving. Until, and if, we reach that point with George Bush, the debate over Iraq will not be enhanced by calling him a liar. He may be one, but there are more serious reasons for questioning his leadership and more effective ways to scrutinize his integrity.

After 9/11 the President said the World Trade Towers terrorist attack, and our response, "will define my Administration." Embracing military action, Bush eagerly donned the cloak of War President, expecting to win in battle. Prudence dictates that before we enter any kind of combative engagement we need to understand our opponent and what our purpose is for fighting. It is the President's job to define and articulate this. This is where the question of Bush's honesty comes into the picture. What did the President mean by the word “win”?

Mr. Bush has struggled to express his understanding of the definition of “winning.” But he has only given us synonyms. When we couldn't find Osama bin Laden, he widened the arena to include another "terrorist"--Saddam Hussein. So winning became conquering Iraq, as if Hussein was "synonymous" to bin Laden. When the mission proved not to be accomplished, the synonym became regime change--capturing and killing Hussein. When his death seemed to have little effect on our "war on terror," winning was redefined to mean the establishment of democracy in Iraq, which unfortunately meant assuring a stable self-government there first. When this became demonstrably difficult, Bush reluctantly (refer to his 2007 State of the Union Address and my blog, “A Play On Words”) tried substituting the synonym, success. With the recent mid-surge report, the concept of "success" took center stage--though backstage, in press conferences and interviews, the President still trots out the word "win." We must win; we will win; we are winning; hang in there.

The President is modelling for us the moral principle that if you want something, just claim it. The truth of your claim rests on how important it is for it to be true. If the claim doesn't hold up, reword it.

None of this synonymizing passes as "definition" of the word, win, nor does it reveal what is behind the haze of these dissembling remarks. And this is the problem. Fights are won by the use of the best weapons available. As a weapon, slushy (possibly suspicious) purposes and careening definitions are no match for the challenges on the ground in Iraq.

In his oral autobiography Harry Truman once said that those familiar with Nixon knew long before he was President that he was a habitual liar. One of Lyndon Johnson’s biographers called him a pathological liar. Lying is a character trait. But like the alcohol problem, some people are able to function despite the decrepitude. Lying is a cover for lack of other more sophisticated talents. Alleging that Bush lies certainly heats up the Iraq dispute. But we can not impeach a President for lying--it is not a “high” enough crime. We need to go beyond the question of whether Bush lies. I suggest we suspend judgment and ask tougher questions.

The question comes into better focus when we ask directly, can he do his job even if he may be harboring a character deficiency? If he doesn’t have the tools to lead without lying, specifically where has he failed? Question his deeds instead of his words. Go deeper. Don’t waste time on “he said, she said’s.” Dealing with liars is frustrating, but they flame out eventually on their own. The more effective approach is to go around them and render them irrelevant. We all knew Bill Clinton lied, but the Senate acquitted him of impeachment charges because they accepted his level of competence on the job. If Bush’s stance on Iraq is incompetent, Congress should be indicted for not taking charge of policy. The Constitution gives them the tools! At the level of warmaking the Commander-in-Chief only implements strategy. Policy is above strategy, and is in the Congressional domain (where the people speak). Congress has taken the lead before in our history when the President proved ineffective. Character assassination meanwhile is underkill.

The President, to me, holds no privileged position of believability. His "office" does not convince me. My judgment of him, whether I think he lies or not and by what definition, in the end will depend on the transparency of his statements and his ability to convince, taken in conjunction with knowledge of the facts from independent sources. The best practice is to weigh the words of all who have information along with their record of credibility.

So what do you think? Is George W. Bush a liar? I have my opinion. But even if I doubt his honesty, a liar can always plead good intentions or even ignorance. But if you get my point, what counts is whether he is rational and sensible. Personal slurs will fade with time. Bush may be a nice guy and may believe his own insincerities, but he will be well advised to get help with his memoirs, because I sense the historians are circling over his accumulating record like hungry vultures.

Doug Good