Lying, in its simplest form, is the act of providing information known by the provider to be different from the fact(s) he/she believes to be true. A more subtle form is to provide information based upon the knowledge that one is aware of few or no facts to support their information. The information, in this case, is not the lie. The presentation is.
While one might assume an actor is lying as he/she performs the role of a fictional character, or a parent is lying while reading a bedtime story to their offspring; there is a difference. The purpose of lying is subterfuge.
Politicians are professional liars who employ myriad forms of distracting and supportive energies as they prevaricate. Grandiosity, condescension, smiles and laughter, snide remarks and asides, jokes and, of course, accusations.
The value of veracity is subjective to the individual. To some, its importance is easily adjusted according to their agenda or convenience. There are those who only tell the truth by accident.
Trump, from what I gather, tends to generalize by claiming what may be true of one or several apples in the barrel is probably true of more than he can reasonably prove. He avoids openly lying by refusing to confront questions.
Hillary, on the other hand, takes the tack of blaming Mom for catching her with her hand in the verbal cookie jar. She doesn’t avoid openly lying, but turns the tables by simply changing the subject and accusing others of something else.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz places no value on veracity at all. I don’t really hold her at fault for that because I don’t believe she has the ability to conceptualize the difference between right and wrong. The same is true with Pelosi (but for a different reason). She’s simply a raving lunatic.
This brings us to Bashar al-Assad. If he is a liar, he’s the best I’ve seen . His articulate, relatively unemotional manner of speaking, combined with his Socratic method of dealing with the questions posed to him are a pleasure to behold.
Sitting for a recent interview with AFP, he addressed the issue of the apparent chemical (Sarin) attack on civilians in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun, in which many children died horrible, torturous deaths. His approach to the questions was dialectic.
Assad questioned the validity of the pictures circulated on the internet and TV, noting that al-Qaeda and ISIS are known to produce professionally doctored images for mass-media consumption and distribution; and that Al-Nusra Front (a branch of al-Qaeda) is in control of that area and, at the moment, is the only source of on site news. He noted the pictures of dead children and asked whether the images were legitimate. He mentioned how terrorists had shaved their beards and worn white hats to appear as “humanitarian heroes” in earlier videos. It’s curious to me why he would use the word “humanitarian” if he knows the definition of the word and was guilty of these atrocities. Only a heartless monster could do that.
He said (referring to the nerve agent, Sarin), “We don’t have an arsenal and, if we did, we’re not going to use it.” The later portion of the sentence seemed a bit suspect and might have been a give-away. NOTE: “…not going to…” isn’t the same as, “wouldn’t”. Elsewhere he did use the term “wouldn’t”.
Many times during the interview, he pointed to there being no evidence of a chemical attack by his forces. He contended that Syria gave up its chemical weapons arsenal several years ago and that Syria had never used those weapons in the past. Okay, but new reports indicate Britain just identified samples from the area that it says tested positive for Sarin or a Sarin-like substance.
Assad did bring up a curious point… He asked why would he use chemicals to attack civilians in a town with little or no strategic military importance to him when, just a short time before, no such attack was employed against terrorist forces (in his case “terrorist” can mean rebel forces wishing his removal), when the Syrian military was in retreat during what Assad called a ” difficult situation”.
All in all, he addressed every question logically and without hesitation. This is not to say he did so honestly.
It’s difficult for me to draw any real conclusions as to what to believe. As Sgt. Shultz (of “Hogan’s Heroes” fame), would say, “I know nothing!”
Quoting Stephen Leary, “The annual U.S. Intelligence budgets declined greatly after the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.” Quoting former C.I.A Director George Tenet in April 2004, regarding the 1990s, “The infrastructure to recruit, train and sustain officers for our clandestine services – the nation’s human intelligence capability – was in disarray.” So, how can anyone in the West know what’s going on?
Bill Clinton actually did have some intel capabilities. As early as 1998, he was able to pinpoint times and places / when and where Osama bin Laden could have been killed. Would 911 have been prevented? But he did exactly what Barack Hussein Obama would later do regarding his “red line” threat. He balked.
George W. Bush didn’t balk. He attacked Iraq using faulty WMD intelligence. Frankly, he had other justifiable reasons, like Saddam’s genocidal gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq… rarely mentioned by Democrats busy bashing Bush’s tenure.
Donald Trump attacked a Syrian airfield. Question: Was Trump’s intelligence faulty, too?
UPDATE: According to reports, a MOAB (largest non-nuclear bomb the U.S. possesses) was just dropped in Afghanistan near the border with Pakistan. This is designed to go after folks and supplies hidden in caves. It’s the same general area in which bin Laden hid for a while. Why didn’t we drop it then? Gee, doubya, why not?
WOW! That was a long one! I wonder who had the ambition or interest to read all of it? Not I. That’s for sure.