Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fake News
Remarkable, isn’t it, that Donald Trump has made decrying “fake news” his calling card? Is the press hostile to him? Sure. Do they lie about him? For the most part, no. Then again, the truth is not everyone’s friend. As William Randolph Hearst once quipped: “If Mr. Hughes will stop telling lies about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about him.” Or, even better, William F. Buckley said of Gore Vidal: “Anyone who lies about him is doing him a favor.”
On his visit to Iraq, the president lied to the troops. How can you claim to honor people you are lying to? Lying signals contempt. “We are always going to protect you. And you just saw that, ’cause you just got one of the biggest pay raises you’ve ever received. … You haven’t gotten one in more than 10 years. More than 10 years. And we got you a big one. I got you a big one.”
Sure. Here’s the Pentagon’s online account of pay raises over the past 10 years. The military received raises each year for the past 10 years.
Mr. Trump wasn’t finished. “They had plenty of people that came up, they said, ‘You know, we could make it smaller. We could make it 3 percent, we could make it 2 percent, we could make it 4 percent,'” Trump told the troops about the latest pay raise. “I said, ‘No. Make it 10 percent. Make it more than 10 percent.'”
The late William Safire once wrote a column about his old boss, Richard Nixon, who had a weakness for claiming that aides had counseled him to “take the easy way out.” Safire joked (I’m paraphrasing) “Yes, I’m the one. I always proposed that he do the expedient thing, not the right thing.”
Trump takes the Nixon tick to new levels. The Boy Scouts claimed his speech to the jamboree was the greatest ever. The NFL called to agree that the timing of a presidential debate was terrible. Federal workers have been ringing him up to say “Keep the government closed,” though they are working without pay. What a lively phone life he has.
Anyway, did Trump request a 10 percent pay increase for the troops? No. Trump’s administration requested an increase of 2.1 percent for 2018. Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act which included a 2.4 percent raise. In 2019, the troops will receive a 2.6 percent increase, which is the largest in nine years. But, even in the Trump era, 2.6 is not 10.
Speaking of previous efforts to visit Iraq that had been thwarted by security concerns, the president complained: “Pretty sad when you spend $7 trillion in the Middle East and going in has to be under this massive cover . . .”
It’s not the first time Mr. Trump has used this figure. On the campaign trail, he used to say that we had spent $6 trillion in the Middle East (“that’s trillion with a t”). And then, one day, he just began to say $7 trillion. And there it has remained. Don’t be surprised if it goes to $8 trillion when the mood suits him. Who says the inflation rate is low?
In 2014, the Congressional Research Service put the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts at $1.6 trillion. When questioned about the $7 trillion figure, the White House pointed to a paper by Boston University political scientist Neta Crawford. Her work factored together a great deal more than spending on Iraq and Afghanistan. She focused on all of our post-9/11 spending including not just the wars in those two countries, but also State Department and Agency for International Development spending, homeland security expenditures, and war-related veterans care and disability expenses. Still, even adding all of those extras into her calculations, she arrived at a figure of $3.6 trillion by 2016. She then also added something more – the cost of caring for veterans stretching into 2053, and “additional cumulative interest on past appropriations” to reach the number $8 trillion over 35 years.
Those are some loosey goosey numbers. But even assuming total good faith on Crawford’s part, and assuming Mr. Trump is even aware of her, he is grossly distorting her work. He constantly asserts that we’ve already spent $7 trillion on wars in the “Middle East,” not that our total post-9/11 expenditures on defense, diplomacy, homeland security, and veterans care until 2053 may add up to that.
So even while visiting the troops — a good deed — he managed to soil it by flinging lies in all directions.
Published in Politics
Just because someone doesn’t acknowledge every lie that’s been told by someone on the right doesn’t mean they’re a hypocrite.
I think your intent requirement should be expanded to include a reckless disregard for whether there is any factual basis in what he’s saying. The reason Mona and I get worked up by Trump’s lying isn’t because others haven’t lied before, it’s because Trump’s lying is a subset of his narcissism. Other Presidents lied, but not because they thought they were pulling a George Costanza – “If you can make yourself believe it it’s not a lie.”
Shoot, weathermen lie all the time. Don’t even take reckless disregard.
Weathermen and baseball players are the only people who can fail at their jobs ~70% of the time and remain employed.
Har har har – I was correcting it while you were typing – so sorry.
I’m not sure that’s a benchmark willing to be established.
That’s a reasonable point, but I disagree. “Reckless disregard” is a legalism. In common parlance, which is what we are (I think) using, we should be using what amounts to a “normal” (dictionary) definition (which BTW is not my requirement). At the rate we are going, that may change because it’s a bit “inconvenient,” but it hasn’t yet. The use of the word “lie” or “liar” (without regard to intent) is a nice weapon, as has been evidenced above a couple of times. But, for the most part, it’s a convenient form of attack meant to dodge what a “lie” really is.
He hits me. But then he says he loves me. It’s so confusing!!
Segue question: are members of the military free to express their opinions on politics (eg the president is a liar about military salary raises!!) while they are still in uniform? They might not be:
And if they can’t express their opinions on this, how does anybody know what the military as a whole is thinking about the President’s words, truthfulness and dishonour? People can only conjecture.
You are living proof of my point. If it really about love of the truth, the heightened indignation about Trump’s bombastic stylings among the NeverTrumpers should have gone to eleven during the Obama years when the lies were far more precisely calculated, substantive and about far more than the speaker getting attention in the moment.
Trump is intellectually lazy and tosses off half-nonsense like a typical politician from a pre-mass media age. But his crapola is not intended to nor does it achieve much movement on public opinion on specifics. The lies of Clinto and Obama were crafted for larger effect and thus more malevolent.
I am urged by George Will and Mona Charen to take these more malevolent forms of dishonesty as politics as usual but Trump’s BS as the end of the republic. That disproportion invites the suspicion that it is less about the specifics of Trump’s inaccurate stylings and more about a big dose of narcissistic virtual signaling in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary
Are you honestly arguing that Will or Charen didn’t care about Democrat lies? We are never going to be free of political “spin” by our politicians; Trump’s fantasies of Muslims cheering 911 from Jersey City rooftops or 10% raises for the troops from the dear leader are of a different quantum.
It is a matter of degree. I don’t recall either calling on Democrats to abandon Obama despite horrific abuse of power and lying about it. I do not recall an air of indignation and exasperation with Obama in every column regardless of the subject matter or topic. From that I conclude it is more about Charen and Will gratuitously signaling virtue much the same way Trump’s ego is always center stage.
Trump is frustratingly bombastic and conspicuously lacking in specific virtues but no more egocentric or dishonest than Obama and Clinton. The opinion leaders who comprise the NeverTrump cadres did not separate themselves from the corrupt stylings in vogue pre-Trump and are now in the odd position of virtually defending more established forms of corruption in opposition to the ad hoc BS theatrics of Trump who was elected in reaction to that corruption.
I can’t understand how people of goodwill can see the same things so differently. I don’t doubt your honesty, but to those of us in the NeverTrump camp your comparisons sound like the Europeans that see no difference between Israel and Hamas.
“Would you be saying this if we replaced President Trump in this scenario with President Obama?” I was hyper sensitive to anything President Obama said about the troops, as I never felt like he thought much of the military. In my opinion, Trump holds the military in higher regard, so my reaction is different and not nearly as harsh.
Regarding the use of the word “lying”, I wish we could be more nuanced in our descriptors. What Trump said about pay raises for the troops pales in comparison, for instance, to what Obama said about Benghazi. Silly to think anyone would have similar feelings of outrage to both acts of “lying”.
So what? I treat and judge each person individually based upon a lot of information. I’ve used this example before: I have four adult children. “Lend me 20 bucks and I’ll pay you back” means something different for each one of them, and they are all treated differently.
Isn’t that what thinking, intelligent adults are supposed to do?
Well, I guess we don’t know. Even after syndicated writers have weighed in, it’s still conjecture.
I’m conjecturing that members of the military will have their own feelings on the matter and don’t need others to tell them they’ve been “dishonored” if, indeed, that’s how they feel.
And the insistence to label every inaccuracy and exaggeration as a “lie” sounds to me like my kids when they were young insisting I’d “lied” when I told them we’d go to the park and it didn’t happen.
I cannot help but wonder how much Ms. Charen paid for her personalized copy of the Thomas Friedman Op/Ed Generator…or is it just a bootleg copy? Another tiresome offering of artificial thinking. (Believe me, that is the less embarrassing interpretation.) Yawn.
Tenacity? Don’t make me laugh.
LOL my comment was an attack? Ok. My first mistake was breaking my promise never to read Mona again. It really is a waste of time.
If Trump is not sufficiently versed in budgetary matters to get a cost of living increment wrong, he is not qualified to be President.
Truthfulness is a virtue. Name a less truthful Republican President.
Neither PT Barnum or Bernie Madoff should be President. Neither should be the nominee of my party.
Gary,
Isn’t this a rather idiotic statement considering that Trump has done a rather good job as President for the last two years. This with a rabid Democrat/MSM viciously attacking him for no cause whatsoever and half the Republican Party doing nothing because they hermaphroditically aren’t sure just what party they’re in.
Perhaps Trump failed a spelling test in 3rd grade too. Nothing is too trivial for a cosmic disqualification.
Regards,
Jim
There are three reasons why lawyers get disbarred. First, stealing from clients. Second, lying to the Court. Third, abandoning one’s clients. The first and third reasons are usually directly related to drug addiction and/or alcoholism. But the second is not.
Being deceitful is grounds for the loss of your license. Ironically, you are suggesting that the standards for a President should be lower than being an attorney.
Gary,
I am suggesting nothing of the kind. You know as well as I do that this is a completely manufactured issue designed to propagandize. It is an ugly tactic that trivial journalists who don’t have the guts to pursue a real story, one that will matter to the great mass of people, but would rather make themselves out to be a hero by sticking it to Trump. While the so-called news media has been bloviating this incessant nonsense the middle class has been mutilated, the family destroyed, genocide spread over the face of the earth, and tyrants appeased. Obama’s mentor was the editor of the Communist Party of America newspaper while Stalin was alive. Obama’s reverend shrieked, “God Damn America” not just once but actually sold DVDs of the “sermon” where he repeated the phrase many times. None of these stories were of any interest. When I was growing up if someone was Black it meant that their grandfather had been dragged to this country in chains. It didn’t mean your father was a Kenyan politician who had a brief relationship with a white girl and then went back to Kenya. Obama made over 30 speeches where he quoted the amount of money that the average family was going to save on their healthcare costs. They instead got 40% 60% 80% increases in their healthcare costs. Gruber made it clear that they knew exactly what was going to happen. He said, “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.” Ben Rhodes explained how they sold the “Iran Deal” a major arms control treaty that didn’t need a 2/3 vote to be ratified even though it says exactly that in the Constitution. Ben explained, “We lied!”
In short, the standards for a President have already been lowered down so far that a dung beetle has higher standards.
Regards,
Jim
True enough, but the OP expressed an opinion/made a statement (President lies to the troops) and asked a question (can you really respect someone if you lie to them?)
The author didn’t tell anybody how they ‘should’ feel. I’m not sure where that came from?
Amen!
I am glad they wrote the first part. It shows flexibility on their part. As far as thinking Christmastime is after Christmas, it is a judgement call. I don’t think it is. Maybe writing “The Christmas Season” would appease me more. In any case, I still believe your original comment was wrong. I don’t like much of the media either, but to say they lie about Trump all the time is inaccurate, and a calumny. And you did not prove it with your original comment. Mona proved her case, by quoting figures.
I fing, Joe, that most people who use that word nowadays do not understand its meaning.
I don’t want to engage in whataboutism here, but it seems like a good place to mention my favorite political lie. Actually, my two favorites. First, we have been told for at least 20 years that there are 11 million illegal aliens (or, if you’re a Democrat, 11 million undocumented immigrants) in the U.S. The number never went up. That was obviously ridiculous. There are no caravans of illegals headed south across the border. Of course the number has been increasing. Finally, this year, we got a Yale / MIT study that put the actual number at somewhere between 16.5 million and 29.1 million.
My other favorite lie is that not a single one of these people ever votes in any U.S. election. Even though they all break the law by coming here, and a majority of them break the law by using forged documents and stolen social security numbers to work here under perjured I-9 Forms, they are all too morally upright and respectful of the law to ever dream of voting illegally. No need to check ID’s. Nothing to see here; move along. Unless you’re a racist… Hmmm, are you?
The difference between these lies and Trump’s lies is that Trump’s lies are always about how great Trump is, while the lies I mention are intended to affect public policy and have been successful in affecting public policy. It’s a difference between puffery and fraud. I’m sure Mona could direct me to some of her outraged articles about the fraud-style lies, but I don’t seem to be able to find them.
Ok.
The Weekly lets bash Trump, stir the pot and never ever deign to respond to any of the comments from the paying members of Ricochet, who overwhelming seem to find this weekly bashing annoying and off-putting.
Not just your opinion. Take a look at Obama’s “Latte Salute” and compare with President Trump’s fetching the Marine’s hat. No comparison between the two.
Actually – I’m confused myself. The OP seems to end different than I remember. My original comment about dishonor was about that word in the OP. The last sentence of the OP isn’t anything I would respond to.
edited to add: nevermind