Will wonders never cease?
By Jon Rappoport
July 5, 2017
I write about this one because the “mistake” excuse is prominent. I love the “mistake.” Politicians invoke it all the time when their backs are against the wall. They didn’t do anything wrong. They didn’t lie on purpose.
They made a mistake—something on the level of forgetting to turn off the lights in the basement after climbing up the stairs to the kitchen.
Here are the charges, as reported by CTV News: “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his embattled defence minister endured a withering question-period offensive Monday as opposition MPs accused Harjit Sajjan of ‘stolen valour’ for overstating his role in planning a 2006 battle in Afghanistan.”
“Opposition parties trained their sights squarely on Sajjan, who apologized again in the House of Commons for having described himself as the architect of Operation Medusa, one of the bloodiest and most pivotal battles of the Afghan war.”
“Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose went so far as to accuse Sajjan of stealing credit for the actions of others — a cardinal sin in military circles.”
“’The minister made a mistake’,” the prime minister [Trudeau] said repeatedly. ‘He acknowledged his responsibility and apologized for it; that’s what Canadians expect when one makes a mistake’.”
“’I would like to apologize for my mistake in describing my role, and retract that statement, and I’m truly sorry for it’, [Defence Minister] Sajjan said.”
“’I in no way intended to diminish the great work that our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces have done….and I’m truly sorry for it’.”
Here’s the point. It wasn’t a mistake. It was bald-faced lie. And what kind of politician tells that lie, knowing he can be exposed, knowing he can face withering attacks?
The answer: The kind of politician who deludes himself into thinking he can get away with it, because he believes everyone else is so stupid he won’t get caught.
The kind of politician who begins to believe his own lie.
The kind of politician who lives in his own little universe, where he can say and do whatever he wants to.
The kind of politician who is addicted to lying.
This describes most politicians. This describes their choices and their sickness.
The public, by and large, doesn’t understand that political lying is a symptom of a much deeper problem. They buy the “mistake” excuse, or they just go passive and limp and try to forget the whole business.
South of the border, we’ve had a few recent examples of lying ourselves.
Take the story of NBC’s anchor, Brian Williams, “the most trusted name in news.” He lied about being in a helicopter taking fire in Iraq in 2003. Under extreme pressure, he finally admitted his “mistake,” the result of “brain fog”—and in his “confession” he apparently lied again, giving the false impression that the helicopter right in front of his took the fire, when at least one soldier on the scene states that Williams’ helicopter wasn’t even in the same formation, but landed some time later. Williams was suspended from his job and then quietly rehired to anchor the news on NBC’s cable network, MSNBC.
Sharyl Attkisson, at CBS, wrote an instructive article about Hillary Clinton’s “perilous” 1996 “sniper” trip to Bosnia. Instructive, because she was there with Hillary.
“The trip in 1996 would later become grist for the political mill when presidential candidate Clinton claimed—in 2008—that we had dodged sniper fire [on an airport tarmac] on that trip.”
“I not only had a different memory, but I still had the video from the event and it clearly showed no snipers. In fact, there were children on the runway in Bosnia to greet Clinton. Sheryl Crow was on the trip with us, as was comedian Sinbad (to entertain the US troops). Sinbad, too, pointed out he didn’t recall sniper fire.”
“CBS News assigned me to do the story on Clinton’s mistaken memory. When she doubled down the next day [still claiming she was under sniper fire], we followed up with a second day story.”
“Some analysts said it was the final nail in the coffin that caused her to drop out of the race in 2008, clearing the path for Barack Obama to take the nomination for Democrats. Clinton never fully explained whether she knew she wasn’t telling the truth, or whether she actually somehow believed her own concocted story. She simply explained that she’d been overtired.”
Hillary eventually confessed, if you can call it a confession: “So I made a mistake,” she said. “That happens. It proves I’m human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation.”
And then, on another occasion: “I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke.”
She made a human mistake. She misspoke. Sure she did.
She lied. Brian Williams lied. Canadian Defence Minister Sajjan lied.
How would this play, for the public? “I apologize. I lied. I intended to lie.” It wouldn’t play very well.
When these people lie, they often can’t separate their own conscious intent to deceive from their belief in their own lie.
They’re actors trapped in their own roles. They can’t get out.
That makes them dangerous.
Most of the public would rather not face that fact.
Thus, politics-as-usual spreads and spreads across the landscape.
I have a suggestion for mainstream reporters—one which they’ll never accept. Whenever you get a chance to sit down with a prominent politician and do an interview, or if you moderate a political debate, start off by asking the politician the following revealing question:
WHAT’S THE BIGGEST LIE YOU EVER TOLD?
For example, Prime Minister Trudeau might say: “Well, let’s see. Hmm. Yes, I remember. When I was five, I told my father I planted a little tree in the back yard to help the environment and stave off global warming and save the Earth. But actually, you see, I had planted two trees! I didn’t want to say that, because I took the extra money to buy the second tree from my allowance, and I thought my father might think I was short-changing myself.”
Reporter: And that’s the biggest lie you’ve ever told?
Trudeau: Why, yes. It was a whopper!
Reporter: Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Then the whole country of Canada bursts out laughing.
Let’s look at a few actual Justin Trudeau quotes. His form of lying is an endlessly popular brand among politicians. It’s the Empty Generalization. You follow along with him, and when he’s through talking (if you have working brain cells), you think: “What did he just say? I could get more meaning out of breakfast cereal made of plastic and sugar…”
Trudeau: “For me, to represent people who represent the future of Canada and the great challenges we will face over the coming decades — this is where I wanted to start. … I’m a teacher; I’m a convenor; I’m a gatherer; I’m someone who reaches out to people and is deeply interested in what they have to say. And people see that I’m not faking it. I’m actually genuinely committed to this dialogue that we’re opening up, and this understanding that needs to happen in order to be an effective MP.”
What? A dialogue? Where’s the dialogue? Trudeau is a “gatherer?” Who is he gathering? Sheep? Goats?
Trudeau: “In Canada, can we speak of acceptance, openness, friendship, understanding? It is about where we are going and what we are going through every day in our diverse and rich communities.”
“It” is about? About what? What is the “it?” What exactly are “we” going through every day?
If I were a speechwriter, I’d want to put different words into Trudeau’s mouth, just to clarify things a bit. I’d have him say:
“Look, I’m a Globalist, okay? Let’s get down to it. I’m a mid-level player who wants open borders, as a step toward putting a North American Union together. Let’s erase borders and let’s have the US, Canada, and Mexico join together in a structure very much like the European Union, where armies of bureaucrats decide your fate and your future every day, by passing tons of regulations. We’ll run your lives down to the fine details, and you’ll learn to live with it. Stay passive, my friends. Our present national government is already overbearing, but you haven’t seen anything yet. When I use words like ‘diversity’ and ‘openness’ I mean ‘control’. Control from above. Control with a smile and friendly face. I’m a Globalist and a technocrat, which means I want a completely planned society, an engineered society. No more individualism. And no more free speech. We have to get rid of that. Are you catching on? There is no ‘dialogue’. That’s a fantasy. I paint a Disney cartoon for you yokels and rubes. Think of me as a sort of New Age hustler. I’m selling you love and friendship, which, when you take them apart, crumble in your hands. Remember the old saying, ‘grin and bear it’? Well, I’m grinning, and you’re bearing it. Canadians are famous for being stoical. Keep it up. Take what we give you. Nationalism is dead. This is now One Planet, and you’re all ciphers, numbers on a planning board. That’s the vision. I’ve been groomed for this job since I was a child. The thing called the New World Order? It’s real. You’re in it. And finally, I’m not lying. Not now. Everything else I’ve been saying up until now was by way of selling you rose-colored glasses…”
Wouldn’t that be refreshing? Refreshing and disturbing, yes. But at least a statement like that would begin to define the actual situation; and the terms of the struggle.