On the matter of Bill Clinton’s recent Fox News interview, a statement from an old pastor comes to mind. Asked if he believed in deathbed conversions he said, No, he reckoned people died just as they lived. Likewise, in Clinton’s political afterlife he’s instinctively re-employing his best defense in times of trouble: crafting manifest prevarications on his role in the War on Terror. His claims have been meticulously examined and roundly rejected like the whopper about building a plan to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan, which, alas, no associates seem to recall.
It is certainly fair to ask whether Bill Clinton’s truth-stretching matters now, but of course it does. Anytime a well-known person, and especially a public official, tells a deliberate falsehood and it is discovered it removes a little more substance of belief in open discourse regarding key issues. If the typical American comes to conclude all elected persons routinely dissemble, it would greatly undermine public confidence and obliterate the very logic behind creating a democracy. If all politicians lie, why listen to any of them?
For Clinton, it is perhaps another stone in the fortress he toils to construct, Sisyphean style, around his legacy. But for all others, including legions of rabid fans, a new Bill brawl has boiled over. Fascinatingly, the spat doesn’t seem to revolve around accusations he fibbed, but instead whether Chris Wallace and Fox got “owned” by the randy debater. This recalls one of the saddest casualties of Clinton’s White House years. Beforehand there was a naïve belief that “Truth” existed independent of any human, and could be discovered with diligence and care, and that it was the duty of responsible citizens to find this, if possible. After Clinton, the question was whether a claim was “plausible” in the way lawyers mean when trying to create a reasonable defense, which recognized all known facts. We are stuck with a new ethical yardstick for public statements, gauging plausibility instead of veracity.
Article comments
1 - Peter J
We have a country on the other side of the world in the throes of a civil war with us tangled up in the web spun with the lies and conspiracies of the current administration.The country we saved four years ago is having terrorist attacks every day as opposed to none before we saved them. Not to mention the evergrowing numbers of our kids being killed or murdered each day, what's the score these days?
And how about those innocent Iraqi's and thir wives and kids getting the shit slammed out of them every day. Hey, the cost of war, right?
Is that the one that our president declared over and won in his funny little Village People uniform on the aircraft carrier. Goddam, my fuckin heart swelled that day!
Not very far away we have two countries heaving missiles and rockets at each other while we wait on the inevitable nuclear warheads to start flying. Will Iran build theirs before Israel gets tire of waiting to see?
We have millions of people waiting to be lifted up out of their cars and homes as the Anti-Christ begins his One-World Order.
Now we have Fidel ill and at his age surgery is a pretty big deal so that leaves us with a question mark over little brother Raul.
On top of all of this, should we be worrying that we're going to see a flood of Iranians coming in through that open gate we call Mexico?
All of our politicians are sidestepping out of closets, into beds with big business, around the problems and across political lines because no one wants to be associated with dubya and his crew anymore.
Now, what was that about Clinton from over six years ago?
2 - KO
Nice response!!
3 - Bjoern "Bud" Schmekel
BUT, Peter J -- It wasn't six years ago, or even six months, but six DAYS ago that President Clinton invaded our news cycle like an avenging spore. IF he lied, why not just admit it?
If Clinton's people accept such a liar & even celebrate his deceptions, does that mean that the Dems are the POL (Party of Lies)?
4 - JustOneMan
Clinton has proven that the blame game is fruitless...he is the last gasp of air from the "Bush lied" chorus....he illustrates the Dumbocrats dilemna...you just cant yell and blame...people want someone they can trust to doi what they say -- as for Clinton its obvious that he cannot help himself but lie...the Dumbs need a world leader who can be trusted to tell the truth...where is he/she?
5 - Baronius
Peter, you're right that there are other things going on in the world. So what.
Kelly, I think the lack of faith goes back to Watergate. There's probably a cyclical element to it, with low government confidence in the 1910's, high in the Depression and WWII, back down in the 1970's. Of course, cyclical doesn't mean inevitable, and politicians who fail to live up to ethical standards should be condemned for it.
No, I take that back. Lying public figures should be criticized especially during periods when there are no ethical standards. It takes a lot more diligence to restore standards than to live up to pre-existing standards. It's going to be a long road back to Cicero, I'm afraid.
6 - Kelly
Just1...I don't think Clinton could change now even if he wanted.
7 - Kelly
Baronius, that is an interesting notion, that things cycle. Of course they must somehow. But you always wonder if things have ever been worse? That's the nature of our self absorption, I guess.