Thursday, December 11, 2008

Unnecessary Lies

Following the breaking of the story about the Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, Senator Barack Hussein Obama made a brief statement saying that he had not been in contact with the Illinois Governor. However, on Fox News, Obama's spokesman, David Axelrod said that Obama had been in touch with Blagojevich (or "bag the riches) about who would fill his Senate seat. In addition, a reporter from Chicago reported that Obama was meeting with the Governor on November 5. The day following the election.

It would make perfect sense for the man elected to be the new President to make suggestions on his successor. I would see nothing wrong with giving his input. In fact, I would expect it to take place. So when I saw Axelrod say that Obama had been in touch, I thought nothing of it other than my belief that politicians should not be appointing politicians to replace politicians.

So why would Obama come out and say he hadn't spoken with the governor? 1. Either he didn't speak to the Governor which meant that Axelrod lied or 2. Obama did speak to the Governor and lied to the American people about it.

There are a couple of possible reasons why Obama would lie. For one, he might be just trying to distance himself from the governor. I can understand that, but you don't distance yourself by lying to the people of America. Another reason could be that Obama has been involved in Chicago politics (the Chicago way), and didn't want it known how involved he was or is.

Assuming that Obama is too busy to be involved in a play for pay scheme, there was no need for him to lie about his contact with the governor. Perhaps he really wasn't in touch with him, but had his surrogates in touch with the governor. This makes some sense because of the way Obama parsed his words when discussing it. He plainly changed his comment from "we" to "I" when he said there'd been no contact.

I don't believe it. I think he has spoken personally with the governor. I don't know that he's involved in this scandal, but I believe he's lying about not having spoken to the governor. This is a lie he didn't need to tell. It's also another example of how we're going to get more of the Clinton years. Remember, Clinton lied when it wasn't necessary for him to lie. Imagine if Clinton had admitted in his Grand Jury testimony that he did have a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He wouldn't have been impeached. He wouldn't have obstructed justice, and he never would have had to stand up in front of the American people and said "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

Since Grand Jury testimony is private, Clinton's testimony would never have been made public. In fact, it's likely that Starr would have begun wrapping up his investigation saying that there would be no charges brought.

Senator Obama is stepping in it when he doesn't have to step in it. It would have been very simple for him to say 'yes, I've spoken to the governor about my successor in the Senate and made my suggestions.'

Unneccessary lies lead to more lies. That then leads to mistrust. Will we be able to depend on what Obama says after he becomes President? Not if he will lie about things that it's not necessary to lie about. We'll never be able to believe him when he needs to lie to us for national security reasons.

Some irony. Bill Clinton was 47 when he took over as President in 1993. Obama is 47. Bill Clinton told unnecessary lies. Obama seems to be following the same track. Unneccessary lies tainted the Clinton administration. We're now headed that way with Obama.

Your comments are welcome.


No comments: