Survey Says: “Lie To Me”
Vol: 96 Issue: 26 Saturday, September 26, 2009
Six years ago, we published an E-book under the title, Bodyguard of Lies. The main premise of the book was that an increasingly gullible public would deliberately choose lies over the truth when they found the truth unpalatable.
That was in 2003. George W. Bush had just invaded Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, no WMD arsenals were found, although huge stockpiles of chemicals were discovered, along with boxes of nuclear research papers.
But Bush was already despised by the Left for not letting Al Gore steal the 2000 election in Florida. So despite the fact that EVERY intelligence agency in the world prior to March 2003 believed Saddam had WMD, the public sold the myth that Bush knew what nobody else COULD have known except Saddam.
The liberal-dominated media built the case that Bush was not taken in by Saddam s disinformation campaign like the British, French, Israelis and Italians were. They argued instead that Bush knew the truth and lied to make his case for war.
At first, the public was resistant, being somewhat discomforted by the knowledge he couldn t have known what nobody else did. And besides, why start an unnecessary war?
The media blitz was so intensely anti-Bush that by mid-2003, had their been a global popularity contest between them, Saddam would have won hands-down. So any suggestion that Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, would ever offer aid and comfort to al-Qaeda was roundly dismissed.
By imposing this imaginary reality onto Saddam s character and goodwill after-the-fact, any noble motive on America s part was effectively blocked from consideration. The media preferred the myth that the evil Bush and his Haliburton cronies invaded Iraq to steal Iraqi oil so America would have a steady supply of cheap oil.
But Bush turned the oil fields back over to the Iraqis and the price of oil skyrocketed. The next motive ascribed to Bush for the invasion of Iraq was to vindicate his father s failure to remove Saddam in 1991.
The media had to pretend that the UN mandate under which the Gulf War was authorized expired when Iraq withdrew its forces from Kuwait. But they didn t mind pretending — if it helped sell the ridiculous premise that Bush was so juvenile and petty that he d fight a war just to make his daddy proud of him.
Don t be distracted this isn t a defense of George Bush. But it is an accurate representation of the facts vs. the myth. Over the course of just six years, the myth has become the truth and the truth the myth.
We were there through the whole time. We saw it unfold. Nobody can explain how Bush could have known the truth any earlier than his intelligence services did. But from that moment forward, the myth is that he is Bush the Liar.
Maybe he lied somewhere along the line, I don t know. But he COULDN T have been lying about Saddam s WMD unless he knew the truth. At best, he could only have been as mistaken as everybody else was.
But the preferred reality was the one that suited the anti-Bush liberals in the media. If the preferred reality didn’t line up with the facts, they’d just create new facts that would.
As I said at the outset, this isn t intended as a defense of the Bush administration. There are so many lies in circulation that it would take decades, should the Lord tarry, to sort out whether it is worthy of defense or not.
It is intended as an re-examination of the principle of the Big Lie. I just thought it might be more illustrative if we used one that we witnessed unfold before our eyes as an example of how effective it is in application.
There is the truth that we instinctively know; Bush could not know what the CIA didn t know, so he couldn t have lied . And there is the truth we ve been conditioned to know; Bush lied for reasons too complex for ordinary Americans to fathom.
It was on the back of this particular Big Lie that the current administration rode into Washington. Obama has repeated it in some form on every occasion, in every speech. He is here to restore America s prestige after it has been so tarnished by the Bush administration blah, blah, blah, etc.
A new poll confirms that in the New America, the public is aware that the media is manipulating the truth, but that most don t mind, provided they prefer the manipulated version.
Two-thirds of Americans surveyed by the Sacred Heart Polling Institute agreed with the statement, Objective and fair journalism is dead. Only 24% say they believe all or most of what they see on the news.
Eighty-six percent of Americans strongly or somewhat agreed that the politics and policy positions of journalists influence what and how they report to the public.
When you consider that two-thirds of Americans also agreed with the statement that the health of our democracy is directly tied to the health of journalism these findings sound even more ominous.
Another interesting finding is that just over half said that it is bad for democracy that only six companies own almost all the major media outlets in the United States. To me, what was interesting wasn t that just over half thought it was bad. What was interesting is that it indicates nobody seems to appreciate what that means.
It means that those who control those six companies controls everything you see and hear. Last weekend, the White House shone a spotlight on the media as propagandists by appearing on every major Sunday talk show but Fox News.
The survey had some rather interesting findings when it came to Fox News. Thirty percent named Fox News as the news organization they trusted most. But twenty-six percent identified it as the one they trust the least.
I thought was interesting because it indicates that Republicans all watch Fox and Democrats all watch MSNBC, CNN, ABC or CBS.
If news was simply reporting the facts, rather than selectively reporting manipulated facts, then one s choice of news outlets would be rooted in programming preferences, not ideological perspective.
The Constitution demands a free press independent of either political ideology or government control. In six short years, we ve witnessed both vanish before our very eyes.
In the past nine months, we seen the fruits of those ideological labors. Schoolchildren singing hymns to Barack Hussein Obama. A political atmosphere in which if a network doesn t obey the White House, it can be excluded from participating openly with any objections summarily dismissed as whining .
Look at how far we ve fallen and look at how quickly it was accomplished. According to Bible prophecy, the antichrist will exercise complete control over all aspects of a person s life.
His control of a global media machine is alluded to by the Apostle Paul in his ascension to power the Apostle John describes its use by the False Prophet to deceive the masses and by the antichrist to display the bodies of the Two Witnesses.
Don t miss the significance of the fact that NONE of this was even imaginable in Paul s day. None of it was even possible a generation ago. Adolf Hitler s control of the media was limited by existing technology.
Today, global deception is not only possible, it is so routine that it blends into the white noise of politics so that we barely notice. Or care. Benjamin Netanyahu proved that when he exposed it from the podium of the UN while the world yawned impatiently.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2nd Timothy 4:3-4)
I used to think it couldn t happen here.