Saturday, March 12, 2005
OUR PRESIDENT USES HALF-TRUTHS
I use e-mail to keep in touch with some old friends from the last place I worked. We exchange letters about current events and express our differing opinions about politics and political people. One friend, Harold, often brings up the matter of half-truths. He cites as examples statements by certain “liberal” organizations or certain “liberal” Senators, particularly Ted Kennedy, that express only one side of a complex issue. For example, a pol or an organization criticizing President Bush’s environmental policies presents only one side of a complex issue. Harold says that the person or organization is using a half-truth to criticize a policy or to advocate a different policy.
One matter of intense contention between Harold and “liberal” environmentalists is drilling for oil in ANWR. Environmentalists argue that the drilling would severely damage wildlife in the region, that the amount of oil available would satisfy our needs for petroleum for only a few months, that in any case nothing would be available for years, and that the country should instead spend the money on developing alternate fuels and energy sources. Harold argues that these arguments are half-truths, that they ignore the real and pressing need at present for a source of petroleum that isn’t subject to the vagaries of Middle-East politics, that alternative sources of fuel and energy are years away even with a crash program, and that we should compare the possible damage to wildlife with the damage to our whole economy in case of another oil embargo.
Well-put, Harold. Of course our policy makers have to consider all of these arguments. One argument that Harold doesn’t cite is the greed of oil exploration and production firms. These firms see the chance to make a killing if drilling in ANWR is approved. Officers of these firms have close ties with Mr. Bush and members of his administration. Those of us (myself included) with suspicious minds tend to see these close ties as the real reason for advocating drilling in ANWR. Harold would, of course, classify this bit of information, even if true, as a half-truth.
Recently I have seen President Bush on television promoting his scheme for “improving” or “saving” social security. He reminds me of nothing as much as a side-show barker at a carnival hawking a magical elixir that will cure warts, bad breath, and baldness. When one speaks of half-truths, Mr. Bush must be given due recognition for his accomplishments in this field. I can go on to list dozens of his statements that are half-truths, but I will refrain from that luxury and limit myself to just one. He claims repeatedly that the terrorists who took down the twin towers and who are bedeviling us in Iraq do so because they “hate freedom.” That statement is obviously a half-truth at best. In fact, there are so many different motives among the various terrorists that one can’t make a blanket statement that they all agree on anything except a burning desire to punish the United States. They have many motives, not necessarily justifiable but real enough to them anyway. To say that they all hate our “democratic system and values” is at best a half-truth.
Watching Mr. Bush hawk his cure for the real or imaginary ills of Social Security makes me wonder why so many Americans voted for him. Are we as a people so easily convinced by the side-show barker and the snake-oil salesman? I would like to think not.
One matter of intense contention between Harold and “liberal” environmentalists is drilling for oil in ANWR. Environmentalists argue that the drilling would severely damage wildlife in the region, that the amount of oil available would satisfy our needs for petroleum for only a few months, that in any case nothing would be available for years, and that the country should instead spend the money on developing alternate fuels and energy sources. Harold argues that these arguments are half-truths, that they ignore the real and pressing need at present for a source of petroleum that isn’t subject to the vagaries of Middle-East politics, that alternative sources of fuel and energy are years away even with a crash program, and that we should compare the possible damage to wildlife with the damage to our whole economy in case of another oil embargo.
Well-put, Harold. Of course our policy makers have to consider all of these arguments. One argument that Harold doesn’t cite is the greed of oil exploration and production firms. These firms see the chance to make a killing if drilling in ANWR is approved. Officers of these firms have close ties with Mr. Bush and members of his administration. Those of us (myself included) with suspicious minds tend to see these close ties as the real reason for advocating drilling in ANWR. Harold would, of course, classify this bit of information, even if true, as a half-truth.
Recently I have seen President Bush on television promoting his scheme for “improving” or “saving” social security. He reminds me of nothing as much as a side-show barker at a carnival hawking a magical elixir that will cure warts, bad breath, and baldness. When one speaks of half-truths, Mr. Bush must be given due recognition for his accomplishments in this field. I can go on to list dozens of his statements that are half-truths, but I will refrain from that luxury and limit myself to just one. He claims repeatedly that the terrorists who took down the twin towers and who are bedeviling us in Iraq do so because they “hate freedom.” That statement is obviously a half-truth at best. In fact, there are so many different motives among the various terrorists that one can’t make a blanket statement that they all agree on anything except a burning desire to punish the United States. They have many motives, not necessarily justifiable but real enough to them anyway. To say that they all hate our “democratic system and values” is at best a half-truth.
Watching Mr. Bush hawk his cure for the real or imaginary ills of Social Security makes me wonder why so many Americans voted for him. Are we as a people so easily convinced by the side-show barker and the snake-oil salesman? I would like to think not.
