Guest Post by Morbo
When I heard President George W. Bush announce recently that “federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted,” I could only sigh.
I started to play a little game in my head that I often play these days: How many days would lapse before this administration claim would be exposed as a lie of titanic proportions? I figured five, maybe seven.
Exactly three days later The Washington Post ran the first of a two-part series headlined, “U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges.”
Calling the Bush numbers “misleading at best,” The Post reported, “An analysis of the Justice Department’s own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people — not 200, as officials have implied — were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.”
So where did the 400 and 200 figures come from? The administration pretty much made them up out of thin air by lumping in convictions against anyone initially suspected of terrorism who was later convicted of any offense, even if that offense had nothing to do with terrorism.
The administration also engaged in some racial profiling. Men of Arab nationality were fair game to be lumped in with the terrorists, even if what they did had nothing to do with terrorism. The Post tells a story about two Arab grocers in Newark caught stealing huge amounts of cereal more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks. After the attacks, the men and an accomplice were questioned after someone told the FBI one of them had tried to buy a grenade launcher. The tip never panned out and the three were never charged with any terrorism-related offense; however, they were charged and pled guilty to stealing cereal. To this day, they are listed as successful terrorism prosecutions when the only entity they terrorized was General Mills.
The Post analysis filled me with great sadness, and not just because it demonstrates the Bush administration’s complete and utter failure at protecting our nation from terrorists. Rather, it underscores once again what a bunch of liars they are. That fills me with shame and disgust at my government.
It has come to this: When I hear any statistic coming out of this administration, whether it’s related to the economy, jobs, the deficit, health care, etc., I just assume it’s a lie. It’s no secret I’m no fan of the Bush regime, but if its track record for honesty weren’t so horrible, I’d cut it some slack on occasion. Bush and Co. have proven to be so untrustworthy that no slack is given. Their first inclination, under all circumstances, is to reach for a lie. I sometimes think it has become a reflexive action. They would go to the lie even if the truth weren’t so bad.
I’m not so naive as to think Democratic administrations always tell the truth. It’s natural to spin bad news your way. All politicians do it. With Bush, there are two major differences that put his lies in a league of their own:
1. The astounding scope of the lies. Bush doesn’t just lie a little bit; he tells enormous whoppers that would make Pinocchio blush. Saying your administration has wrapped up 50 terrorism convictions when in fact the number is 39 is fudging of the facts, a little white lie that can probably be forgiven or written off to over exuberance. Saying the number is 200 when it’s only 39 is a big, sloppy, honking, bald-faced, stinking lie and an insult to the American people.
2. The potential damage of the lies. Some lies are worse than others. Yes, Bill Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. That was unfortunate, but it didn’t put anyone’s life at risk. Leading the American people to believe that your administration has been hugely successful in fighting terrorism when in reality you have achieved very little creates a false sense of security that does a disservice to the people you pledged to protect.
What’s especially infuriating about this is that this administration, after five steady years of lies, lies, lies and more lies (as well as some lies) has the nerve to pose as the party of moral values and portray the Democrats as a bunch of liars. Remember what GOP leaders said about Al Gore in 2000 — that Gore lied about having created the Internet, that Gore lied about he and Tipper being the inspiration for “Love Story” and that Gore lied about his mother singing union songs to him when he was little? As it turns out, Gore hadn’t even said any of that stuff, but even if he had, so what? Tall tales like that aren’t going to get anyone killed or harmed by luring them into a false sense of security.
People often remark that the Richard Nixon White House set a new low for unethical behavior and rampant lying. Nixon at least had an excuse for his devious behavior. He had done something bad and didn’t want to get caught, so he lied. Bush, as far as I can tell, just lies out of force of habit and because “win at any cost” has become the standard operating principle of his party.
Consider this as well: Even though he was a liar, Nixon had some decent ideas. He toyed with introducing a national health care plan, and, get this, a guaranteed minimum income plan. With Bush, we just get lie after lie without any good policy initiatives.
You know we’ve come to quite a pass when you can honestly say that Dick Nixon is looking better by the day.