Letters to the Editor
Matty D.
Published Letters: 104 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Disgusted and Anonymous:
[Read the article: Rove, proven liar]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I want to thank the two of you for keeping it civil, coherent, logical, and interesting. Were the majority of posters to exchange in the manner that you two are demonstrating here, Salon and indeed the rest of online content would be a much better place. So thanks.
Matty D.
-
Lies, beliefs, and opinions
[Read the article: Rove, proven liar]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]NNG, I don't think that sophistry around what's a lie and what's a crime here, as well as trying to maneuver only within the context of the article, is gaining much traction.
Everybody lies, that's true. Yet everyone is not a liar. Also true.
One could define this highly subjective term in different ways (poster bryan's definition differs from mine right here in this very thread), but as it applies here, I think it works to say that somebody's only a liar when it's a lie in a domain that affects you.
If your accountant lies to you about how he's managing your money, he's a liar. If he's perfectly straight to you about your finances but is cheating on his wife, then for you he's a fine citizen but his wife would probably take a dim view of that.
This definition applies well to the Clinton thing, easily the most common comparison. The majority of Americans viewed the Clinton blowjob as a matter between Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, which it WAS until it became part of the public domain (as bryan also points out), and then he too was abusing the public trust.
Which is bad. Bad on a Democrat and bad on a Republican. Doesn't matter at that point! Just bad! But even then, to most people it just didn't seem that big of a deal, because it wasn't in a domain that affected them.
What we're talking about here is that these are lies and liars that affect all Americans, as we are the public and these are our elected servants. We gave them a trust, and that trust is being abused, and the consequences are incalculably more serious than a sexual escapade. The war and other matters are not irrelevant things that are being tacked on here; it was these guys and these lies which enabled that shit. There's a causal connection. That's the gravity. That's the magnitude. That's the significance. This all seems far too obvious for me to put further words to it, frankly.
This article does not exist in a vacuum, so it's disingenuous of you to treat it as though it does. If you want more information on the matters that are taken in this piece as previously having been demonstrated (the veracity of Rove on any given day, the pivotal role that this person plays in the machinations of this government and how it came to power), then your search for truth and answers lies elsewhere first, before taking umbrage at something that's several steps up the chain from where you appear to be at research-wise. Conason's article wasn't designed as a complete history from A to Z, which is why he's just touching on this latest incident and not giving a thorough history.
I consider myself an open-minded and rational individual, and I believe the evidence is out there to find, and that you don't have to be a political insider/pundit like Conason to perceive it correctly. I encourage you to do so as well. This guy IS the eminence grise of the Bush administration, and I think even a cursory examination will reveal that. Conason could well have taken it further, he simply didn't. Conason's piece is, hello, an OPINION piece and labelled as such right on Salon's front page. Yes we are the choir and yes we do enjoy this kind of sermon from time to time.
But this kind of abstract argument is not serving you well here. I find a skeptical principle is a solid one to follow in matters like this. If you believe a thing and you consider it proved to your satisfaction, you should always consider what specific proof, were it to be shown you, that would cause you to consider it disproved.
And if you can neither state what that proof would be, or if you imagine that you were presented with it and yet it doesn't change how you feel or think, then you are in the possession of either an irrational belief or one that you have to rationally admit is not supported by the evidence. And this is a different standard for different people. Some lefties and righties are satisfied by very little, as you yourself indicate.
I post this not to be an apologist for Conason or anybody else. I simply wish to point out to you that the line you're pursuing is pretty much a dead end--unlikely to lead to further good discussion of any substance.