I wrote an article on November 27 about how the Iraq war had endured longer than World War II and described the worsening conditions there, characterized by hundreds of Iraqis being killed in bombings over the previous weekend and a horrifying episode in which the Associated Press (AP) reported that six Sunnis were burned alive by Shiite militiamen.
What followed the AP's reporting on this story was a feeding frenzy on the part of right-wing bloggers in which they, in a nutshell, accused the AP of making up the story to make conditions in Iraq appear worse then they are. Specifically, they called into question the very existence of the reporters' corroborating source, an Iraqi police captain named Jamil Hussein.
Many conservative bloggers strongly implied or wrote directly that the Sunni immolation had never occurred and, when the AP released a follow-up story citing eyewitnesses to the incident, I wrote another piece in which I called on the blogs involved to apologize to the AP. These bastions of journalistic integrity include Michelle Malkin -- big surprise there, right? -- Powerline, Newsbusters, The Jawa Report and a small blog called Flopping Aces, which made its big break into the right-wing nutosphere by pushing this non-story to the hilt.
Iraqi officials and the U.S. military, wanting also to squash the AP's story, decided to spin the tale that Hussein did not even exist. This led to days of me being bombarded with e-mails and hounding comments from at least a hundred wingnuts who called my ethics into question and accused me of being complicit in spreading fabricated news.
Other Progressive bloggers were also in their faces, which I'm sure caused them to be the target of much the same treatment.
After it looked like the AP had substantiated its story as well as one can in an active war zone, I slammed the bloggers and their readers for, among many things, wasting so much time trying to prove just one of thousands of hideous stories coming out of Iraq was untrue while not seeming to give a damn about our almost 3,000 war dead -- at the time -- based on our country being lied into this pointless war by their main boy, George W. Bush.
Malkin was so rabid in chasing ghosts on this fictional story (about a fictional story) that she claims she was in the process of planning a trip to Iraq "to investigate the Associated Press/'Jamil Hussein' story."
No, I'm not kidding.
Which brings us to last night, when what should show up in my e-mail inbox but a note from Linda Wagner, from the AP's Corporate Communications Department, telling me that -- what the hell do ya know? -- the Iraqi Interior Ministry now admits that Captain Jamil Gholaiem Hussein is not only a real, live human being, but he's now facing arrest for speaking to the media. Here's an excerpt from the AP story yesterday:
Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.
The captain, whose full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, was one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people during a sectarian attack at a Sunni mosque.
The U.S. military and the Iraqi Interior Ministry raised the doubts about Hussein in questioning the veracity of the AP's initial reporting on the incident, and the Iraqi ministry suggested that many news organization were giving a distorted, exaggerated picture of the conflict in Iraq. Some Internet bloggers spread and amplified these doubts, accusing the AP of having made up Hussein's identity in order to disseminate false news about the war.
Khalaf offered no explanation Thursday for why the ministry had initially denied Hussein's existence, other than to state that its first search of records failed to turn up his full name. He also declined to say how long the ministry had known of its error and why it had made no attempt in the past six weeks to correct the public record.
Of course, now that they've been caught for the umpteenth time writing nonsense and smearing people using "facts" that turn out to be utter rubbish, most of the conservative bloggers are either shrugging their shoulders or continuing to spin outlandish excuses for why their bizarre quest is still righteous.
And I guess that's to be expected. I've often heard that the best liars are those who can deeply delude themselves into believing that they are actually telling the truth and I'm sure that, while a few of these characters may have a nugget of reality-laced guilt deep in their psyches, most of them will simply find a new justification to make everything hunky dory in their twisted world.
This is the last I will speak of this episode because, to a large extent, discovering that a bunch of conservative bloggers and their pathetic readers have been smearing a person or organization based on total fiction is hardly news. This is what these people do -- it's part of their lifestyle. To push that issue is like asking a Republican Congressman to use a computer with his pants on.
Next month, it will be something else and, once the presidential campaign heats up, get ready for a tsunami of unsubstantiated slime. I'm guessing it will be that Hillary Clinton is carrying Jamil Hussein's love child, but who knows what they'll come up with next time? John Edwards' mind controlled by space aliens, anyone?
And no word from Malkin yet on whether or not her deeply-serious investigative road show to Iraq -- which I'm sure would have been played out from the confines of the Green Zone Ritz Carlton -- is canceled or if she's simply going to make her next big story a trip to Capitol Hill to see if these so-called "Nancy Pelosi" and "Harry Reid" people do indeed exist.
It is in the nature of the party of George W. Bush to lie. Reality doesn't quite fulfill their need for symbology, so they make a little up at the margins. And a little lie usually requires a bigger lie to cover it up, and eventually the bigger lie is found out and a still larger lie has to be created to cover it. And so on, until your whole life is spent trying to maintain the inflation on the lies you've told and you have no mental energy to go and deal with reality. Most of the right wing blogs are engaged in this tail-swallowing snake sort of logic, ignoring the truth no matter how compelling or urgent because the important thing (to their point of view) is that you called them a liar, that what they said isn't really a lie, that lies are all right because even democrats lie, and besides, it wasn't really a lie because it was true in spirit, if you got a few facts wrong, and even if they got every fact wrong, it's indicative of something or other and that's the important point, though they can't quite explain what that thing is. And later, when they come out with their next lie, you point out that they lied before and they deny they said anything like that.
But Americans have grown used to this little game, now that we've seen it run on us several times. We know the shape of it, we dismiss the very foundations unless we find our own compelling truth of it. The 25% who continue to believe the lie in spite of all evidence to the contrary are the same 25% who approve of Bush's performance as Hannibal.
Americans are funny about being lied to. We get angry when you lie to us, and feel insulted when you think you can get away with lying to us again. Because the first lie might be dishonest, but the second is disrespectful.
by
gabby hayes (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 11:45:24 AM
Yet another victim of the neoliberal (corporate/fascist) agenda where no good deed goes unpunished.
Didn't anybody tell him that he wasn't supposed to speak out about the atrocity he witnessed, but was just supposed to keep silent and think positive thoughts?
The targeting of journalists in Iraq is continuing. I think I read something about 240 journalists having been killed so far. Speaking truth to power is a dangerous profession. But only the truth will set us free.
Not only is your writing superb and directly on point as always, but the graphic of the kid with the dunce cap sitting in the corner next to a blackboard that says, "I will not read right-wing blogs," is hilarious. I never have, do not now, and never will read right-wing blogs. I don't want anybody to lie to me, but if I did I'd hire a real sex worker, not a media whore.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 11:56:25 AM
I worked in a prison for 21 years, as a correctional officer, counselor and classification officer. I had a difficult time understanding these people who would lie, steal, rape and murder. I am having the same problem with the neonuts. I just cannot understand them!
What is their profound need to lie, rather than tell the truth? Why have they built this bubble to live in? Why is their sense of reality so diffrerent from mine?
by
LEO BOYLE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments)
on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 1:00:05 PM
...but as a public service, let me offer some theories as answers to your questions.
What is their profound need to lie, rather than tell the truth?
That is the nature of denial. Just like the battered wife of the alcoholic, humans can't stand the truth of their situation when it's more or less a living hell. Their brains come up with rationalizations as to why illogical, irrational, and often brutal things happen in their immediate reality.
In the same way the wife of the drunk makes excuses to deal with and accept her physical abuse, these "nut jobs" don't want to look at the reality that the man they support is a downright evil tyrant. He is, in fact, no better than the so-called evil dictator Saddam Hussein; the man just hanged for war crimes. The neo-cons manufacture their Pollyanna world to keep their brains from having to deal with the bleakness of their acceptance of a war built on lies, and all that has attached to this illegal bloodfest.
Why have they built this bubble to live in?
The world of reality; that is the one in which we normal folk live, wants no part of the bloodletting that DUBYA and his minions are promoting. These war mongers know this truth. They have to live somewhere. Therefore they build the insular bubble that surrounds themselves, DUBYA, and the rest of their evil minions.
The unfortunate part of this is they are the ones in power, at the moment anyway. We are stuck with being forced to live in the fallout and waste coming from their bubble. What's even worse is it seems that the gravity from their bubble is pulling others in like a ravenous black hole. The only bright spot in this reality is there are some who will resist the gravitational pull.
Why is their sense of reality so diffrerent from mine?
In what I can only call a moment of clarity, I think I can at last answer this part. They are simply born that way. They weren't made to be what they are by reality. It wasn't mental poisoning. They were simply programmed by their DNA to be lying fucks!
If you have ever seen the movie, 8mm, the bad guy makes a statement that pretty much covers this reality. Paraphrased, he says, "This is the way I am. I like being this way. I wasn't sexually abused, beaten or forced to be what I am. I simply like being this way."
Like it or not, there are simply people who were born liars, killers, deniers, and war mongers. What's worse is there are also people who are born to be sycophants to these others just because they want a taste of the power they see being wielded by the war mongering social misfits in control.
As wrong as it may seem, there is really nothing that can be done to fix our present situation short of having the war mongers and their sycophants all fall dead in one fell swoop. To make sure it won't happen in the future, those who were exposed to it and think it's the way to be will also have to die at the same time.
That's not going to happen. There is no such thing as a miracle, and that's frankly the only thing that's going to stop this juggernaut of insanity that crushes one and all under the weight of lies and denial. Short of this non-existent miracle, we will all just have to grit our collective teeth and wait for DUBYA and his minions to fade away.
Since it seems obvious that no one in a position of power cares to exercise the balls it takes to call each of the criminals in the DUBYA regime on the carpet for their numerous crimes, we are probably stuck with this reality until DUBYA is no longer in office. As horrible as it is, clearly we are in for more of the same as far as neo-con lies, and the reasons that force them to lie; a war monger in power, and a people unwilling to do the right thing...get rid of him.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 1:57:34 PM
Mind you, I can't and won't say for sure that the ideas I put down are correct, but they sure make sense. Hopefully the day will dawn soon when people no longer have to ask such awful questions. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this end!
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 3:19:14 AM
I work with a women, mind you she's not a youngster by any means that is programed as you say. The sorry part of knowing her is if she's not lying, everything else that is pitched out of her mouth is total nonsense.
She has only been employed by my company for nearly two weeks, another female that works with us could not resist asking her why on the back of her pickup truck was painted the words fucking liar. Not just once but twice, her response was that's the way she felt about everyone because no one tells the truth, so she painted it on herself.
Its usually rare I cross path's with her, but she constantly brings things to my attention in my work place that are off the wall, or completely make no sense. I firmly ask what did you say, and she gives me a look as if she's a deer in the car's headlights look and quickly leaves.
I think in given time Bush will be as bad, being he is bordering her personality.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments)
on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 5:59:06 PM
I believe that people who live in the stratosphere of wealth and influence have a different code of ethics that they promulgate among us common people than the one that they try to live by themselves and to teach to their children, one which approves of such behavior.
These aristocrats feel entitled and superior. They believe that the rest of us need to be handled and herded, to keep us optimized for their needs, with a morality that we all recognize as the usual set of do's and don'ts that is essentially universal for our culture: *do* tell the truth, *don't* steal, volunteer, it's better to give than receive, try to see the positive in things, quench all anger, find the simple pleasures in life and be content with them, obey authority, go to church.
People such as the Bushes and Cheneys don't believe that such behavior is desirable or optimal for themselves (or you, but that's the point), so they don't think that such rules apply to them. This is how *we* should behave. They give lip service to this common moral code, as if it applies to them as well, as if they weren't elitist and entitled to privilege. They give lip service in speeches in support of common Americanisms like. "All men are created equal." And "No man is above the law", but they don't believe it. Among themselves, they never think or say such things, and they mock those that do and consider them gullible.
The aristocrats have a second code of ethics for themselves by which they make judgments about one another, which most adhere to. Those that don't conform to the ethics of privilege may be shunned and derided for that, but not for being in violation of the common moral code, which I firmly believe that the blue bloods consider to be a sucker morality.
Now plenty of we riff-raff also reject the common morality and fail to approach or even try to approach those moral standards. But when do so, we do so in defiance of the expectations of our peers, and as such, are considered somewhat anti-social (or in the extreme, psychopathic). We talk about an ordinary person who is a chronic liar as being pathological. We label him a social deviate with a psychological malady out of DSM-III. He is mentally ill and presumably maladapted to his world where his behavior is rejected and harms him. That is the definition of mental illness: persistent maladaptive behavior at odds with societal expectation.
But an aristocrat knows that when he is dealing with then rabble, he is expected even by his peers to always say whatever is expedient, whatever is most helpful to him at the time. They learn to lie shamelessly and without guilt or compunction. It's not considered a failing in that world. Hurting yourself by telling the truth unnecessarily just because it is the truth, what we would can common honesty, would be considered contemptibly stupid by his peers. But they would never let on that they feel this way outside of their social stratum. They must always give lip service to the standard model of exemplary behavior.
Now, having said all of that, when we judge Bush, we apply the common standard to him even though he has been taught that those rules are for the peasantry. Accordingly, we call him (and the Republicans in general) pathological liars, and we utilize language such as anti-social and maladaptive. We think of him as someone from a family like ours, but richer, who somehow turned out bad. We assume that his parents, like ours, would be disappointed that George turned out to be such a selfish liar, that they would consider these traits character defects that would disappoint them and cause trouble for him.
But for these people, people like Bush and Cheney *are* well adapted to *their* world where it is socially accepted and even expected that they lie, cheat and steal in business wherever profitable. That's the way that they all live every day: by exploiting ordinary people. They must openly acknowledge that among themselves, but just with a wink and a nod when addressing the public.
All of this lying, stealing, cheating and lawlessness are business as usual for such people. They have had a dominant effect on American politics and thus American culture since the Reagan era began in 1980. Their ethics have begun seeping by example to lower strata, from the super-wealthy and super-powerful to the merely wealthy and powerful. When the blue bloods started stripping away governmental protections against plundering the commonwealth, such as by replacing the all of the watchdog agency heads with do nothing figureheads like heckuva job Brownie, for example, the message was clear: it's OK to be greedy, it's safe and even admirable to steal, the ends justify the means, and people are objects to be utilized. This has become the ethical norm on Wall Street that Gordon Gekko was created to embody.
In summary, the Republicans may be pathological by our standards - the moral code that they have given us to apply to ourselves, but to which they don't hold themselves – but they are not social deviants in *their* strata, and the behavior is not maladaptive in their world.
by
Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 8:37:40 AM
I wrote 
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
