What is the role of truth during wartime? is question raised by Bushites

[Inland]

The attack ad featuring and misrepresenting Kerry's senate testimony about war crimes actually has huge relevance to the present situation. The issue to the SBV is not whether what Kerry said is true or false, and in fact, there is practically no discussion of whether it was true or false, either in how it was related to Kerry or whether atrocities actually happened.

The point of the attack ad is not that Kerry lied, but that Kerry told the truth, and the truth hurt the vets feelings, or the truth aided the enemy.

This is the same tack the Bush administration has taken to those who either opposed the Iraq war, criticized the handling of the Iraq war, or today wish the war to end. It is not to debate the merits of the position, but to say that criticism of the mission is improper, even treasonous. Being against the war before the invasion was improper because it weakened the president's power over Saddam by making us seem divided. Being against the war once our men were deployed was giving aid to the now declared enemy. Wondering out loud if Bush screwed it up demoralizes the troops.

And lastly, saying that Bush should not have done it in the first place makes all our soldiers sad because it makes them wonder if they are sacrificing in vain. '

So the question is, is truth a luxury a democracy cannot afford during wartime, either Vietnam or now? If there is a truth that reflects on the war's conduct, if for example the soldiers ARE sacrificing in vain, should you or Kerry just pipe down? If there are atrocities at My Lai or torture at Abu Gharaib, is acknowledging it wrong?

IMO, Bush for three years has succeeded in squelching all review of his foreign policies on the premise that truth is a luxury a democracy cannot afford during wartime. Many of his supporters have been clear enough to me in chat rooms that we should expect Bush to lie to us, for our own good. The fact that Bush has lied to us and discouraged criticism for HIS own good is just now sinking in.

And that the war, either defined as troops in hostile Iraq and or the war on terror, is going to be a state that lasts through election cycles.

The SBV say Kerry was wrong for criticizing that war, for telling the truth about that war, but they mean to say that you must line up behind this one and this president. That's why the ads aren't about thirty years ago. They are about today, this war, this foul up, and this president covering up and this quagmire.

I don't believe that any democracy, or indeed any national defense, predicated on hiding the truth can survive. I don't believe that the SBV ads, or Kerry's testimony, or any other aspect of public life can be evaluated as if it a false statement is better than the true one. Yet the talking heads barely touch on truth vs. fiction, implicitly accepting the Bushite position that truth is irrelevant to other concerns, not only toward matters of war, but just about everything else. And its not surprising that the Bush supporters, having determined that they should be lied to about some things, do not mind that they are lied to about others. In fact, they expect it, and copy it.

The truth matters. Even in wartime. Even in an election campaign.

[MichiganVote]

1. This is Bush politics plain and simple. Cutthroat, vicious and

utterly without merit. The whole point to this is to refocus the population and cement his base. The media is having a field day because they have a story packaged by Rove, something the majority would never work for.