Lies that are not Lies

Because some very nice people do not like reading political opinion pieces and otherwise read this blog, I am warning here and now-- partisan political discussion ahead. I do not want to be responsible for any high blood pressure!

There are lies that are okay and lies that are not. You can now know which are which, at least according to the political party holding the er uh moral high ground.

For the Republican base, the good news is Karl Rove will not be indicted for lying (which from what I can tell is the correct, legal decision given the circumstances). Rove has long since gone past being the sort of man who minds lying to most of the people while he manages to tell the truth to who he must. Some might call that hypocrisy but I doubt he does. He would have to indeed have an amazing brain just to keep track of it all. It also takes a lot of chutzpah to knowingly be testifying to an investigation and being truthful about the things that could have sent him to prison while letting his president walk in front of all the American people and say -- nobody in my administration was involved in the outing of that CIA agent. Did Bush know? Given my opinion of Bush, I suspect if he didn't, it was because he didn't want to.

So in public Rove smiled and kept his own mouth shut letting his spin machine work while he told government investigators the truth-- except, of course, for anything they found out he hadn't told the truth about but he simply had forgotten.The base apparently doesn't care about political lies. To them the excuse is everybody does it. All that matters is winning.

Reminder to add notation to the Ten Commandments sprinkled around the country. False witness only refers to government proceedings. Or to save doubts, you could cover that commandment with bird droppings. After all, isn't that Bush's nickname for Rove-- Turd Blossom? See how easy this is. It doesn't even have to be true. Just a question...

When Bill Clinton lied, it was not okay because he lied in legal testimony (not to mention he was part of godless liberals who secretly-- well not too secretly since this bunch's new bestseller knows all about it-- want to destroy the nation). I am not sure if lying would have been okay about blow jobs otherwise. Guess he could have said-- I forgot; but I doubt Hillary would have bought that. Considering how many women Clinton probably had and has, the rest of us might have.

Still we are not talking about him, after all what kind of leader would you expect from the 'godless' left. No, this is about ones on the morally superior ground. The latest New York Times bestseller (obviously made so by conservatives) is one claiming loudly-- as usual-- that liberals are godless. How does lying fit into that conservative's superior moral agenda?

The author's latest extremist effort is not being promoted by lies... mostly anyway. It's about interpretations and innuendos. It's okay to ask the question whether certain women, whose husbands were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack, might have had men who wanted to divorce them. Not that the writer had to have any evidence-- nor was this a lie even. The question was just asked-- how do we know? (four kids is not evidence)

What do you think the odds are that if these women had used their position to support Bush's agenda, it would have been just fine with that writer (who shall remain nameless here because she's only one of a group). It was not okay because the widows were politically incorrect-- to the right.

So in these cases, it appears lying or distorting (and I could write a book on that but they've already been written) is fine with the conservative base, which makes books like this last one an instant hit. By the way, if you aren't sure if you are in the right wing base-- if you bought that book, you are; and if you chuckled over how Rove pulled this off and thought glad he's on our side, you are.

After all, if lies are for a good cause, which in this case was about keeping any of this under wraps before the 2004 election and the Libby trial on the other side of the 2006 election, the morally superior bunch are fine with it. It takes a high level of hypocrisy to do what Rove did; but heck, so does supposedly improving opportunity in this country by taking government money from programs for the poor and even Veterans to hand to the rich. Chutzpah is a virtue in and of itself, isn't it? Not to mention, even godly groups sometimes need a man like Rove out there. Dirty tricks don't just do themselves.