It's not a lie if you believe it! The Costanza Defense and Bush:

[jane_pippin]

Not to mar the fine work of Jason Alexander and Larry David, but for the past few years I've found myself shouting "That's the Costanza Defense you bastard!" when I see Georgie Boy* on the tv.

As George Costanza often said on Seinfeld, "It's not a lie if you believe it!" Meaning, if you think what you're saying is true you're not technically lying. You might be wrong, but you're not lying.

Now, I believe Bush is a liar but I also believe he and his Rovian masters are quite good at using this Costanza line of "reasoning." Take, for example, the intelligence they chose to believe about WMD in Iraq. It backed up what they wanted it to, they believed it, (or they tell us they did anyway), so when they made statements like "our intelligence indicates Saddam has WMD therefore we must bomb Iraq" they were bustin' out The Costanza Defense.

Today Shrubby McChimpster says he takes responsibility "to the extent that" the federal government was responsible for screwing up the response to Katrina.

Say it with me: That's the Costanza Defense, you bastard!

Why? Because * and his GOP Pals routinely blamed state and local officials over the feds for this monumental screw-up. So, assuming he even believes the feds screwed up in the first place he must not believe they were largely responsible. If the feds aren't as responsible then he's taking responsibility for pretty much not screwing up (in his eyes). Therefore, his statement today wasn't technically a lie--he believes he is taking responsibility for something, even if it's a minor something, (again, minor in his eyes)--and this allows him to look like a "leader" when in reality it's just a lot of pandering to "the folks." Welcome to the beauty of The Costanza Defense.

I don't know if I explained that well enough, but I believe I did. Who needs a Junior Mint? :D

[KingFlorez]

1. Good point

Most Republicans believe the lies they tell and the ones they are told

[jane_pippin]

2. Or they make sure they appear to believe it. n/t

[Touchdown]

3. So he's going back to Karl and saying...

...TIPPY TOE, TIPPY TOE, TIPPY TOE!...?

[formercia]

4. That's what pathological liars believe.

and that's why they usually will pass a polygraph examination.

[jane_pippin]

6. Well there you go. n/t

[TomPainesBones]

5. "A George divided against itself cannot stand"

[maddiejoan]

7. GEORGE IS GETTING ANGRY!

[gratuitous]

8. Yep, and the Washington Post is a full subscriber

Last week, the Post granted anonymity to a White House source who claimed that the reason the administration had been so slow to react to the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina was that the Democratic governor of Louisiana had dragged her feet in waiting to declare a state of emergency.

Well, we all know that's just flat not true. There is no "debate" or "sides" to the fact that Gov. Bianco declared a state of emergency in Louisiana three days before Katrina made landfall. This is a fact easily at hand for anyone on the Post, and the anonymous Bush official was clearly in error (there's no question about that). The ensuing fact was that the Post wrote a story putting the onus on Gov. Bianco for the magnitude of loss due to Katrina based on their error, helpfully furnished by the Bush White House.

However, as convenient as the factual error was for the administration to deflect blame for its own shortcomings, the Post declines to this day to identify the administration official who fed them the misinformation because they can't say for sure that the official intended to mislead the Post. It's all just a happy coincidence that the factual error fed a storyline pleasing to the administration, and the Post isn't willing to draw any conclusions from the facts.

I'd find this lack of curiosity acceptable in a professional wrestling referee; for a newspaper, it's unconscionable.

[jane_pippin]

9. That's a great example, thank you.

I hate that this is what we've been reduced to. Oooh, we don't know for sure that he was lying so you know, it's cool. We're just the media. What do you want from us? An investigation or something?

I just find it sickening that ShrubCo is arrogant enough to try it over and over, and that so many people buy into it over and over again. What it comes down to for me is that we deserve better from the governement and the media, but that's not news to anybody here.

[gratuitous]

11. Not to mention the Post's own high dudgeon

When Dan Rather got caught out with the story of Bush deserting the National Guard. The substance of the story in that case was true. Bush deserted his post during war time. There was no dispute that the documents CBS relied substantiated that fact. The only dispute was whether the copies of the documents CBS had in hand were sufficiently firsthand to serve as corroboration.

The whole story fell apart under the relentless hammering of a bunch of partisans who didn't have the first clue whether the documents were authentic or not, and who didn't care. Their goal was to stop the story, plain and simple. In this, they were aided and abetted by the Washington Post (among others), who had no difficulty in that instance divining the motives of Dan Rather, CBS News, the suppliers of the documents, and even the mindset of people who had passed away between the time of Bush's dereliction of duty and the 2004 campaign.

[jane_pippin]

13. Yep. That could even extend to the whole "Swiftboating" of

anyone and anything they disagree with, no matter what the facts are.

What was done to Rather was just disgusting, but I guess it's all a part of their "deflect/defend" strategy. (Deflect blame/truth--whichever hurts them more--Defend idiotic behavior in the face of facts when it "benefits" them--"Brownie, you're doin' a heck of a job).

[melissinha]

10. thats the standard defense

but in legalize its that they didn't "knowingly" do anything... I mean, how can you prove or disprove them without taping or seizing all email communications, which somehow would eb overlooked too.

[jane_pippin]

12. So what you're saying is, in my feeble attempt to coin a phrase

I'm actually on to something. ;)

I'm just so sick of Shrub and his ilk getting away with it so I tried to put their shennanigans in terms I could understand--Comedy TV addict that I am.

I'd hate to be a lawyer and have to deal with proving someone "knowingly" did something. Isn't that the very concept that was surrounding some of the Rove/Fitzgerald issues? Sheesh. I do not envy Fitz.