Lies, damned lies and John Ensign

Scanning some of the other stuff that happened while we were out, we're a little surprised that this uncharacteristic (but not unprecedented) moment of candor from Sen. John Ensign hasn't received more attention -- The AP's Kathleen Hennessey, reporting from the Republican state convention:

Ensign suggested war critics should lie about their opposition. In comments to reporters, the Las Vegas Republican quoted what he said was a line from comedian and talk show host Dennis Miller: "I happened to believe in what we're doing over there. But if I didn't, I'd lie."

Hey, wait a minute. If the Hair-Do didn't believe in what we're doing over there, he'd lie about it? So how do we know he's not lying when he says he believes in what we're doing over there?

Ensign posed his little nailbiter while urging people who opposed the war, like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, to hush, because their complaints about the war "have emboldened the enemy." Asked for a specific example, "Ensign said Pelosi had called evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq "lies.'"

Um, let's try to get this straight. If people think the administration lied to puff up it's WMD claim, they should lie, and say they don't think the administration lied.

Here at the Gleaner, we think the United States, for all its errant leadership, tragic military adventurism and overall colossal bungling of late, is a truly great nation; so great, in fact, that not only can it withstand internal wartime criticism, but thrive on it, build on it, learn from it and become greater still. We invite Sen. Ensign to abandon his dour, sour, pessimistic blame-America-first attitude, and join us on the side of hope and optimism.

Meantime, Ensign's infantile my-country-right-or-wrong posturing notwithstanding, his staunch pro-lying position begs the question: Just how many things does John Ensign feel so strongly about that he is willing to lie?

When he says that Republicans are doing all they can to protect American security, does he really believe it, or does he feel that continued Republican political control is more important than exposing GOP incompetence on national security, so important, in fact, that it warrants lying? When he continuously votes in lock-step with corporations, does he genuinely believe that he is acting in the public interest? Or does he recognize the harm being inflicted on the public, but believes so strongly in the ideological purity of unfettered corporate profiteering that he's willing to lie?  When he votes to give tax cut after tax cut to the rich, does he really believe that those tax cuts are fair, or has he determined that rewarding his campaign contributors, and thus extending the curiosity that is John Ensign's political career, is so important, that the ends justify the means, i.e., it's worth telling lies?

Did John Ensign really birdie the 12th hole?

The answers to these and many other questions should emerge as the campaign moves along and the Hair-Do fleshes out the rationale behind his extremist, which is to say widely unpopular, positions. The 'Do will make his case.

But watch out. He could be lying.

Comments

[Dave Ross]

Dear Hugh,

Keep up the terrific work.

I am curious, is there a statute of limitation on aiding and abetting terrorists of Saddam Hussein's ilk? I cannot believe that the American people have such a dim view of history and cannot recall that in 1985 under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, George Bush's actual and political father lobbied hard to have Saddam Hussein taken off the list of terrorist nations to arm and bankroll him in the war against Iran. Surely they must have known that he was doing terrible things to his people. To have Hussein tried for war crimes that occurred BEFORE 1990 is just astounding to me and it was Bush's own father who was instrumental in securing a billion dollars in loans to Hussein at that time. It is likely that the very chemical weapons that Hussein used were purchased with American loans or from American companies. INCREDIBLE! Republicans are masters at deceit and hypocrisy to the extent that they can distinguish between good and bad war crimes and it is inexcuable that we do not hold them accountable by removing them from office and then indicting and throwing them in the clink. Bush and Cheney know that without a sense of outrage, they win.

By way of comparison, and this is going back a little in history to a far darker time for the country, Judge Learned Hand gave a tremendous speech about the spirit of liberty. Not George Bush's we're right and they're evil liberty, but the kind of liberty that we would all do very very well to consider these days. Learned Hand, the celebrated federal judge from New York was asked to preside in May, 1944 over a ceremony in Central Park NYC where over 100,000 new citizens would be sworn in. It was right before D-Day. Surely, Judge Hand could have given the kind of speech Cheney and Bush and Rumsfield make in their sleep - literally. Instead, almost Lincolnesque, Hand gave as beautiful a description of real liberty as I have ever heard.

"What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define
it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of
liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is
right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks
to understand the mind of other men and women; the
spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their
interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit
of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to
earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of
Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind
that lesson it has never learned but never quite
forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least
shall be heard and considered side by side with the
greatest. "

Learned Hand,
Central Park, NYC 1944

Without a sense of history and perspective, we are doomed.

Best regards,

Dave Ross