Liars
vs. Liars
by
David Dieteman
In
thinking about the possible war with Iraq, one must not lose sight
of the fact that it is not ordinary men and women who begin wars,
but a very limited class of men and women: politicians.
Unfortunately
for the human race, and more specifically, for those unfortunate
men, women and children living in Iraq, politicians are not known
to have an affinity for truth-telling, and are very fond of calling
one another "liars."
The
White House web site has a helpful link to the provocatively titled
document: "Iraq:
Apparatus of Lies."
American
national security adviser Condoleeza Rice has authored a piece provocatively
titled: "Why
We Know Iraq is Lying."
In
this piece, Dr. Rice writes that: Iraq's
declaration even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy
passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word (or
edited to remove any criticism of Iraq) and presented as original
text. Clearly,
any regime which participates in such "unabashed plagiarism,"
by copying texts word-for-word, and presenting it as "original
text," is populated by liars.
And
yet Colin Powell’s United Nations speech was based upon 12-year-old
information which the British government plagiarized from a private
research paper.
As
CNN reports, Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge,
told a British television station that ten of the 19 pages were
taken from an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a researcher in California.
As
Rangwala told CNN,
The
information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges
this in his article. The British government, when it transplants
that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement.
So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really
the information it is using is 12 years old. The
British government’s response: "We have learnt an important
lesson."
One
would have thought that British government officials had learned
about plagiarism, as well as outright acts of deception, a long
time ago.
Not
to be flustered, the spokesman for the British Prime Minister sought
to save the case for war by adding a bit of propaganda: "this
issue does not take away to any degree from the accuracy of the
information in the report nor does it negate to any extent the core
argument put forward that Iraq is involved in deliberate acts of
deception."
Preposterous.
First, if the information reported by Colin Powell is 12 years old,
it is not accurate. Second, notice that the spokesman claims the
act of deception "does not negate the core argument" for
war. This is a very different thing from claiming that the document
affirmatively supports the American position.
And
yet that is precisely the claim which Colin Powell made to the United
Nations. As CNN also reports, it is the plagiarized and outdated
British document which was "highlighted by U.S. Secretary of
State Colin Powell at the U.N. as a ‘fine paper...which describes
in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities."
Please
never mind that the document is based on information from the time
of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Assuming
for the sake of argument that Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi politicians
are liars, shall we follow lying British and American politicians
to war with such liars?
Remember,
Condoleeza Rice herself condemns as "unabashed plagiarism"
the lifting of text word-for-word and presenting it as "original
text." This is precisely what the British government has acknowledged
doing. And this is precisely the basis of Powell’s speech to the
U.N.
In
this regard, consider the Bush administration’s stance of war at
all costs in relation to the cheerleading, sycophantic, lap dog
American media (sorry to be repetitive; there is a point to be made).
As Nobel prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek notes in The
Road to Serfdom (see Chapter 11 – "The End of Truth"),
If
the feeling of oppression in totalitarian countries is in general
much less acute than most people in liberal countries imagine,
this is because the totalitarian governments succeed to a high
degree in making people think as they want them to. (p. 168)
George
Bush and Jonah Goldberg repeatedly tell us that "Americans
are free people," do they not? Nothing to worry about here!
The
deception practiced by politicians comes with a terrible price,
Hayek argues:
The
moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda which we must now
consider are, however, of an even more profound kind. They
are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the
foundations of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth.
(p. 170; emphasis added)
As
Hayek continues, totalitarians must propagandize not only about
values (e.g., placing the government above individuals), but about
facts as well. The government’s "values" must be connected
to genuine values held by the people, and the people must be spoon-fed
government’s view of the "facts" so that the government’s
desired conclusion appears inevitable. (See page 170)
So
politicians tell myths (or, to use Plato’s term, "noble lies")
to con the people into supporting certain acts.
In
the process, however, Hayek observes,
The
whole language becomes despoiled, and words become empty shells
deprived of any definite meaning, as capable of denoting one thing
as its opposite and used solely for the emotional associations
which still adhere to them. (p. 174)
The
word "truth" itself ceases to have its old meaning.
It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual
conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance
the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants
a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something
which has to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized
effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this
organized effort require it. (p. 17879)
Hayek,
writing in 1944, provides a helpful analysis of where the West stands
today. Hayek warned of the dangers of propaganda in The
Road to Serfdom.
His
warnings about "totalitarian propaganda" apply very nicely
to the propaganda currently served up for gullible consumption by
the American and British governments.
Lying
American and British politicians proclaim that Iraqi politicians
are liars, and that such lying justifies war.
Nothing
could be further from the truth.
February
10, 2003
Mr.
Dieteman [send him mail] is
an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy
at The Catholic University of America.
©
2003 David Dieteman
David
Dieteman Archives
|