“A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue.” Prov 17:4
The whole Joe Wilson incident has raised a series of questions about both the man and this country.
The first question that comes to mind is whether it is acceptable under any circumstances for an individual to confront the President in that forum, a nationally televised speech to both houses of Congress, and call him a liar?
The second question is what motivated the outburst?
Finally, what does it say about the man and the process?
For a thoughtful treatment of the first question we probably should look at a history of Presidential lies, the impact that those lies had on the country, and how the Congress reacted to those lies. Then we should examine this particular incident to determine whether the particular claim of Joe Wilson is supported. Then perhaps we can answer the first question.
The biggest recent presidential lies that come to mind are Bush’s claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and Clinton’s claim that he did not, “have sex with that woman”. In the first case, we invaded Iraq, toppled the government, destroyed their infrastructure, never found any weapons of mass destruction, opened the door to al Qaeda, and are still there eight years later. There were no immediate consequences for President Bush. The Republicans did suffer a fairly resounding defeat in 2008, but that could be attributed as much to the economy as the war in Iraq. President Clinton was brought up on impeachment charges, but ultimately not convicted. This investigation did significantly weaken the President and set the stage for a very close Republican win in 2000.
As far as Joe Wilson’s claim, it was in reaction to President Obama’s statement that the administration does not support extending benefits to illegal aliens. His specific objection was that the current house bill, though it requires proof to participate, doesn’t specify how. There was an amendment offered in committee and rejected to add enforcement language. What Wilson also knew was that there ARE enforcement procedures in place requiring proof of citizenship for many other federal programs and that these procedures would likely get added to any bill that was signed.
As an elected representative, Mr. Wilson has access to many effective public and private methods to express his skepticism at the President’s comments. He is NOT a powerless individual whose only recourse is to disrupt a public meeting to express his views.
Finally, as an experienced and successful politician, Mr. Wilson’s claim of losing control of his emotions also does not ring true. Only those people who are masters at calculating the impact of their actions win statewide elections to national office. We live in a culture were every verbal slip or inappropriate emotional response is preserved and circulated. Only those who have cultivated the ability to control their emotions survive. Joe has spent eight years (four elections) in the House and 17 years in the state legislature. This was not a rookie mistake.
So maybe we can gain some insight by learning more about the man.
We know that he is from South Carolina. From his website, he is a military man dedicated to public service. He has four sons (all eagle scouts) who are following in his footsteps.
What you won’t find on the website is that he belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans. This was a fairly benign historical organization until the last five years or so when a more aggressive white supremacist faction took control. Mr. Wilson was one of only seven members of the SC senate who voted in 2000 to keep the original Confederate Flag flying over the SC state house. He then mounted a vigorous defense of the original flag and was quoted as saying, “the Confederate heritage is very honorable”.
He also denounced as a “smear” the claim that Senator Strom Thurmond fathered an African American daughter. Senator Thurmond later admitted his affair and his long warm relationship with his daughter.
So perhaps Joe Wilson is a racist and his outburst was an emotional reaction to being lectured by an African American who also happens to be the most powerful man in the country.
It’s also possible, as some have suggested, that Joe is part of the conservative backlash to a popular democratic president. FDR had his Father Coughlin. Truman had Joe McCarthy. JFK had the John Birch Society. Bill Clinton had Ken Starr and Newt.
He also could be part of the larger populist movement that gains momentum during any time of rapid change. Sometimes it is a conservative movement. Sometimes it is a liberal movement, but it seems to show up whenever the little guy feels the big guys have rigged the system. In it’s current incarnation, it is fear of government expansion at the expense of the little guy. You can also throw in a little of the reaction of the uneducated to the educated elite.
Finally, it could have been a very simple cynical political calculation. Disrupt the meeting and distract from what was billed as the biggest speech of President Obama’s career. It worked. Wilson became famous and talk about the disruption overwhelmed discussion about healthcare.
Joe Wilson may be some or all of these things. What he isn’t, however, is a victim.
His was a risky move, but it also has paid off handsomely. With a very simple statement, he has become a lightening rod for all of these groups. He has burst upon the national scene as a poster child for all sorts of conservative causes. His fund-raising has skyrocketed to the tune of several million dollars. Would you call the President a liar for several million dollars?
At the end of the day, it is never acceptable to disrupt a President’s speech in the manner that Joe Wilson did for the following reasons.
Such an outburst by any conservative politician in today’s political climate will advance that career. That makes it unethical behavior. Since you can’t determine if the act is sincere or cynical, the end result is the same – advancing your own career at the expense of the respect for the office of the President.
Elected officials have to be held to a higher ethical standard because of the trust that they accept from the public. So they not only have to avoid outright issues where they sell their office and influence for money/fame, but they also have to avoid the appearance of such conflicts of interest.
This situation is no different.
It is his responsibility to avoid situations where there is any question about the motivations for his actions. This is clearly one of those situations and as a result, it is right up there with Bill Clinton and George Bush as a big lie.
This stands out to me the most.
“As an elected representative, Mr. Wilson has access to many effective public and private methods to express his skepticism at the President’s comments. He is NOT a powerless individual whose only recourse is to disrupt a public meeting to express his views.”
Here’s what stands out to me…………
“The biggest recent presidential lies that come to mind are Bush’s claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and Clinton’s claim that he did not, “have sex with that woman”. In the first case, we invaded Iraq, toppled the government, destroyed their infrastructure, never found any weapons of mass destruction, opened the door to al Qaeda, and are still there eight years later. There were no immediate consequences for President Bush. The Republicans did suffer a fairly resounding defeat in 2008, but that could be attributed as much to the economy as the war in Iraq. President Clinton was brought up on impeachment charges, but ultimately not convicted. This investigation did significantly weaken the President and set the stage for a very close Republican win in 2000.”
Jeff, comparing Bill Clintons self serving lie to GW’s comments on WMD are a dishonest at best on your part. Clintons was a bold faced lie in front of the entire country covering up a sexual scandle that he and he alone controled and was singulerly responsible for. GW’s was far from a lie, at worst is was misinformation. Remember, this was a belief held by EVERY MAJOR INTELIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD….. Hardly a lie to be compared with Clintons act.
Joe Wilson should NEVER have yelled you lied. The DEMS in an act preformed in unision BOOED President Bush at the state of the union. Please respond in agreement with me that is just as out of place as Joe Wilsons misguided comment.
As to his motive who knows, I am not in the camp that is was racially motivated…..I think we should ask Senator Bryd about that…..
What the Dems in Massacuttes have just don’t in filling the vacent Kennedy set is an abonimnation and gutter politicals at its finest. They have overutned teh law that that just passed a few years ago preventing the govoner from naming a temp senator while waiting fro the next special election……this is a disgrace and if you want to write about spiritual wickedness this would be a great place to start. It would fall under the catagory of not having beliefs or convictions….this is disgraceful and in full view.
The claim that Bush and Cheney were innocent victims of lazy intelligence has been roundly refuted by a number of books that have looked at the issue is detail.
The two agencies primarily involved were the British and US. Germany and France, if you remember, did support our invasion of Afghanistan but did not support our invasion of Iraq because their intelligence agencies did not support our conclusions.
Here’s an excerpt from an article by the authors of “Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War”
===============
During the Meet the Press interview, Cheney blamed the CIA for his and Bush’s prewar assertions that Iraq posed a WMD threat. That’s what the intelligence said, Cheney insisted. Our book shows that this explanation (or, defense) is a dodge. There were dissents within the intelligence community on key aspects of the WMD argument for war–especially the charge that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Cheney dwelled on that frightening possibility before the war, repeatedly declaring that the US government knew for sure that Iraq had revved up its nuclear program. Yet there was only one strong piece of evidence for this claim–that Iraq had purchased tens of thousands of aluminum tubes for use in a centrifuge that would produce enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. And that piece of evidence was hotly contested within the intelligence community.
One CIA analyst (whom we name for the first time in Hubris) was fiercely pushing the tube case. Yet practically every other top nuclear expert in the US government (including the centrifuge specialists at the Department of Energy) disagreed. This dispute was even mentioned in The Washington Post in September 2002. But neither Cheney nor Bush (nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rce) took an interest in this important argument. Instead, they kept insisting the tube purchases were proof Saddam was building a bomb. They were wrong. And the nuclear scientists at the Department of Energy (again, as our book notes) were ordered not to say anything publicly about the tubes.
===========
The CIA and British Intelligence to bear some blame for not taking a stronger stand. This defense is weak, however, when you look at the other real smoking gun, Cheney’s claim that there was a relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda.
===============
Before the war, Bush said that Saddam “was dealing” with al Qaeda. He even charged that Saddam had “financed” al Qaeda. The Senate intelligence report notes clearly that the prewar intelligence on this critical issue said no such thing.
The report quotes a CIA review of the prewar intelligence: “The data reveal few indications of an established relationship between al-Qa’ida and Saddam Hussein’s regime.” The lead Defense Intelligence Analyst on this issue told the Senate intelligence committee that “there was no partnership between the two organizations.” And post-invasion debriefings of former Iraqi regime officials indicated that Saddam had no interest in working with al Qaeda and had refused to meet with an al Qaeda emissary in 1998.
==================
The only claim that there was any relationship was information from a captured al Qaeda leader who was “interrogated” in Egypt. That person later recanted his testimony and the CIA removed all reference to in their documents, yet Cheney continued to promote this relationship well after even Bush admitted that there was none.
So in quick summary, Bush’s big lie was to take intelligence information that they knew was flimsy and craft a case for war based on the claim that it was irrefutable. That’s because they knew if they did represent the information as contradictory, inreliable, or inconclusive, they would have failed to gain the necessary support to invade.
Here are just a couple of quotes to refresh your memory.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
What we have also learned by various books and documents that have since been published is that the Bush administration was looking for an opportunity to invade Iraq before there was intelligence to support it. The Neocons who were in power early in the Bush administration felt that Iraq could be easily toppled and replaced with a democratic government which would be friendly to the west and sell us their oil.
We know now that they were wrong, but this answers the question of why Bush would lie to take us to war. He felt that the end would justify the means. He was wrong.
it will be interting to see if all the intellegince we and the rest of the world gather on Iran will ever be used against Obama as a lie………i’m trusting everyone is doing their best.
If President Obama misuses his intelligence agencies to promote a particular course of action in the same way the President Bush did, he should also be held accountable.
here’s a comment from my the most synical side……….
Obama can only be held accountable if he makes a decision…..something I am growing more convinced he is not comfortable doing…..”he does like to vote “present.”
What issues do you feel he has been moving too slowly on?
health care….the stimulas (might sound like a contridiction as i complined they passed it too quickly, which they did, but the spending of those dollars is much too slow. this of course if you agree they should be a stimulas at all….where are all the shovel ready projects?)…gays in the military…
As I mentioned in another post, the reason health care is taking so long is because of the fierce opposition mounted by the Republicans and talking-head conservatives.
The majority of the stimulus money was given to the states to spend. Much of the federal money required programs to be setup to make sure the money was spent wisely. My wife is a retired museum director. She volunteers for a small labor history museum in our town. They received $150K in stimulus funds, but had to put together a grant proposal to detail how they were going to spend the money. That proposal had to be approved. They then had to find matching funds and document the jobs that the grant was creating.
One of the big fears about the Obama stimulus funds was that they would be spent foolishly for things that didn’t create jobs.
From at least my wife’s experience, that’s not the case. But it takes time to create and review all of the necessary paper work.
Gays in the military will likely get done shortly after healthcare.
The key there is to make sure the administration doesn’t take their eye off the healthcare and Afghanistan balls.
health care being held up has nothing to do with the republicans. the dems have the votes and can do as they wish. the dems are having problems with the dems……the very far left have the postions of leadership in their party. the majority of the party is not lib/progressive/far left. rather center or left. dont know if you saw the recent gallup poll where 40% of the country considers themselves to be conservative. the highest of any group. this includes democrats. the country does not live in the polosi reid obama kerry librilisium….not even close. what ever those guys want those guys can have…just pass it. whoever the bigger fight will be whith their own party, not the republicans.
Nothing to do with the republicans?
What rock have you been living under?
Here, let me refresh your memory just a little.
“Forcing Americans off of their current health coverage and onto a government-run plan isn’t the answer, but that’s exactly what the Democrats’ plan would do.” John Boehner – LIE
“Forty-five percent of doctors “say they’ll quit” if health care reform passes.” Glenn Beck – LIE
“Under the Baucus bill … federal funds would subsidize coverage of elective abortions.” National Right to Life Committee – LIE
“President Obama . . . wants to mandate circumcision.” Rush – LIE
“The health bill’s plan for comparative effectiveness research “would be used by the government to ration care.”" John Boehner – LIE
“I’m 59. In either Canada or Great Britain, if I broke my hip, I couldn’t get it replaced.” Roy Blunt – LIE
A provision in the health care reform bill for end-of-life counseling for seniors is not “entirely voluntary.” Sarah Palin – LIE
“Ezekiel Emanuel, one of President Obama’s key health care advisers, “says medical care should be reserved for the nondisabled. So watch out if you’re disabled.”" Michelle Bachman – LIE
Seniors and the disabled “will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.” – Sarah Palin – LIE
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Why do you think these folks would lie like this?
It’s because they don’t have an alterative proposal.
So their only tactic is to decieve the voting public, scare seniors, and delay the process long enough to rally sufficient support to defeat it.
If you have some other reason for educated people to LIE, please share it with me.
Hey Jeff,
Nice try. The dems have the votes and don’t need any republicans. Period end of story. The dems can do this ontheir own. Period end of story. ANy objection a rebulican makes isn’t even a factor. I’ll say it again. Period end of story. The dems can have whatever they want right now. If Your libral leadership wants this they can have it. Just go vote. PERIOD. nice chatter you’ve made above but it is excuse making and irrelivent to the outcome.
So, it appears you missed my point entirely.
As to abortion from above many dems would disagree with you.
Please read the below link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33597521/ns/politics-washington_post
As to sara’s Palins “death Panel” Obama said. “maybee instead of doing whatever possible to save gramma, maybee we just give her a pill” (Paraprashing) and that was a discussion with “concil.” now just what does that mean? this is what she was referring to.
Rush you’ve taken out of context like everyone else. If you’re not going to listen to him then don’t quote him.
The rest i did hear.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BO6PQO1&show_article=1
So this addresses a republican bill…..Maybee
also adds to the fire of imagrinets getting access and abortion being provided. if these are “lies,” as you’ve called them, then what are the dems “addressing?”
I believe that the Democrats will ultimately have the votes, but it isn’t yet clear whether they have the plan that is going to give them the votes that they need.
The issue wasn’t whether the Democrats could ultimately pass a bill.
The question was why it has taken so long.
If you are unwilling to concede that the town hall disruptions, tea parties, and all of the misrepresentations that have come from Fox News and the Republican Party didn’t materially contribute the time it has taken to get to his point, you are much further gone that I thought.
You accuse me of misquoting Rush and then pick one of Rush’s favorite misrepresentations.
Here’s the link to the town hall meeting where that comment occurred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
What President Obama was saying is that our health care system (not the government) should determine what the most effective treatment should be for this person’s 105 year old mother which could be simple medication rather than an expensive and invasive surgery that might not materially improve her quality of life.
You can also see from this clip that Sarah Palin invented the death panels on her own.
If you want to see the details for each of the quotes I provided and why they are lies, just go to politifact.com. They are all there.
As far as federal funding for abortion and excluding illegal aliens, what is going on are fine tuning the enforcement provisions to make sure that the commitments that the Obama administration made are reflected in the bill.
This is just another example of the “alice in wonderland” logic that conservatives have used during this debate. They complain that the bill doesn’t have effective enforcement for areas that they care about and accuse the administration of decieving the public about their intent to keep their promise. Then when the legislators get around to working on those details in the plan, the same group says AHA! we were right. The only reason they are working on these provisions is because we called them out on it, and that proves that they never really wanted to put them in thee.
As far as the Republicans putting up a plan, it will be interesting to see if the plan gets a CBO score. If it does, I suspect it won’t be pretty.
The real question is why now? Why not six months ago when both could have been debated head to head? Did it take the Republicans this long to get the thing written?
As it is, this is the most encouraging development that I’ve seen in the process. What this tells me is that all of the other delaying tactics have failed and the Republicans know that they are going to lose. So their last desparate measure to provide at least a little political cover for them in upcoming elections is to toss out this weak plan that completely ignores the major reform issue on the table – the uninsured.
It will be good to have this behind us.
Hey Jeff,
So you asked the question. “why has it taken so long to get health care done?”
You haven’t addressed my statement….The dems heave the votes go get it done. This has NOTHING to do with the republicans. All they can do is say no….the dems don’t need them.
I think this is where its headed. Polosi is now trying to have the vote on the weekend. no 72 hours of the bill posted on the net. in fact major changes are expected just before the vote. the weekend makes sence becaus there will be no major news coverage. skipping out on both hers and Obama pledge for openness makes sence because they won’t ever get it done if the public knows what they want to pass, as they simply do not have the courage of their convictions in the face of questioning. So if in the dark, no questions and they can proceed.
In your most recent post you wondered if Obama would be Linlcon or Roosevelt…or something in the middle…as you know I am still STUNNED by his lack of leadership on this issue. Its a statement issue for him and he PUNTED to polosi and reid. That my good progressive friend is not leadership. You MUST AGREE with this….forget your minucia of detail and look at the big picture, he failed to lead…I don’t care if they get this done or not he simply blew this. PERIOD.
also can you tell me why still the debate about abortion in this bill from the good congressmen from the great state of michigan? a dem I might add. will you retract your LIE comment regrading that?
Jeff,
Now all ANYONE is talking about is abortion and the health care bill…..still want to call it a LIE? You should post a retraction…..
One for one….Nancy did this over the weekend as predicted.
still no bill that will pass. i wonder what Obama wants…..it’s been
a year since he was elected. still in iraq, still in afgan, still in gitmo, jobs getting worse, though i give him a pass on this as the banks being addressed and getting healthy should and is the top prioity and that is happeneing.
Stim money not spent and should be recalled. forget this as we’re stabilized the econ and didn’t spend it so….lets not spend it.
rumor has it he is considering droping cap and trade…that would be his best decision so far. Ft Hood is making him look bad in my eyes as he’s asking for tolorance and not to jump to conclusions. this from the same guy who without thinking said the cops at harvard acted “stupidly.” Is Obama racist??? Bush would be hung by now.
Obama said on the campain trail he was against mandates on health insurence. He agrued strongly against them, and I mean STRONGLY. In fact in one debate it was him against Hillary & Edwards others He is now for them. Is he a lier. I don’t think so, I think he’s changed posistion, which is ok….but when Bush changed postion or something turned out to be not true or provable, i.e. WMD, he’s a lier. So, using the same test is Obama a lier? Can you see what your side did to reduce world opinion of Him by constantly calling him a lier. (Note; I don’t like it when some of the repub’s are reducing themselves to this currently. i.e. not legitimate due to birtcertificate. However, what interests me is that NO Govt agency has juristiction regarding a birth certificate.)