The Coverups Post
I hate it when politicians are found covering up a scandal far after the truth makes its way into the news. A classic example I have in mind is the infamous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman... Ms. Lewinski." What the heck was Clinton thinking? That Starr, et al. would shrug their collective shoulders and say "Oh... well ok then. Our mistake."!? Of course not. Flat-out denying any involvement with Monica just fueled the already growing flames and gave Clinton the fast track to impeachment. That is not to say, however, that it hurt his popularity, but the moral decay of America is something for another blog post.Less than a decade after Clinton, we have an administration declaring "...no really, they DID have weapons of mass destruction. We just can't find them." What the heck? We're the most advanced military force in the world and we can't find the WMD that our uber-cool espionage equipment told us was most definately there? Wow. What does it say about us when we can prove something exists with our clandestine operations and can't see it at all when we land on the ground? I bought the whole "mobile WMD moved into Syria" thing as a possibility for awhile, but then the Bush administration just sort of dropped that idea when the media pushed them on it.
This phenomenon of suckage in covering up stupid lies is not by any means limited to our nation or time, either. I am sure that more than one Caesar held a public policy that everyone knew to be a farce. There have been three father-son duos to be pope (think that one over). The underlying theme in every instance of the governmental coverup is the idea that with power comes the ability to define reality for the public. This has never been more false than in the post-Watergate world, where the media has made itself a sort of profit-mongering watchdog to the government.
So I conclude in saying that honesty, it turns out, is the best policy. Go figure.
posted by Michael @ 12:14 AM
Comments: 4
