Lying Liars

Glenn Greenwald notes the increasingly desperate behaviour of Republicans. He's outraged by Bill Kristol "overtly arguing that the Mark Foley case proves that gay men cannot be trusted around young children" but then Glenn gets started on the lies. I've noted before the Republican willingness to lie even when proof that they are lying is readily available. It must be easy to make a compelling argument when you're not being obligated to tell the truth. But what makes this technique successful is that so many people don't make any effort to fact-check. The lie gets "out there" and enough people just hear it and assimilate it uncritically, that it's worthwhile for the liars even though everyone who has done even a bit research knows that it's a lie.

And then we have what can only be called the outright lie being disseminated by Ken Mehlman and Ed Gillespe, among others, both of whom claimed on television yesterday that when the heroic Denny Hastert learned of the IMs last Friday, he gave Mark Foley the ultimatum of either immediately resigning or being expelled from Congress. Gillespe and Mehlman both trumpeted Hastert's heroism by claiming that it is "the first time in 30 years in this town" that such a tough ultimatum was given to a Congressman by a Speaker.

In fact, as Think Progress documents, the whole story is a complete fabrication. Hastert himself admitted that Foley had already resigned by the time Hastert even learned about the ABC report, and Hastert gave no such ultimatum to Foley. The whole thing is complete fiction -- just invented out of whole cloth -- and the GOP's leading political spokesmen are now shamelessly reciting it as fact. What they are saying happened never actually happened. It really is just that simple. This willingness to go on television and just outright lie -- in a way that can be clearly demonstrated -- ought to be a story in itself.

Then we have the truly ludicrous effort by Republican Congressmen to claim, as I heard many do last night, that the "only chapter left to be written" in the Foley scandal is an investigation into whether Democratic leaders -- Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel and others -- knew about Foley's IMs with pages long before last week. There is zero evidence to suggest they did, and nobody claims there is any such evidence. It is an accusation that is grounded in nothing other than fantasy and desire.

Nonetheless, GOP Congressmen and similar types are insisting that it is imperative that we "find out." Demanding investigations into speculative accusations for which there is literally no evidence is just moronic. That "reasoning" would mean that we ought to investigate whether Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks, whether Dick Cheney received bribes directly from Jack Abramoff, and whether Karl Rove has been blackmailing Senators by eavesdropping on their conversations.

After all, there may no evidence for any of that, but we need to find out if it's true. This demand is so inane, so irrational, that it is a classic case for when the media has the responsibility not to tolerate it (and, as Josh Marshall points out, that responsibility seems particularly strong given that reporters know who the sources are for this story and thus know that the insinuations are false).

[...]

Even if one believes that their failure to do more about Mark Foley is insufficient grounds for them to be removed from office, surely their continuous lies about what they did and what they knew constitutes such ground.

There is, I think, a growing desire in many quarters for this scandal to end. I can understand that sentiment and -- as someone who has spent the last seven days looking way too closely at the likes of Denny Hastert, Tom Reynolds, Mark Foley, Ken Mehlman, and Scott Palmer -- I even share it. The last thing one wants to do is continue to think and read about them.

But there is simply no justification for walking away from this story while Denny Hastert and his top aides continue to lie about the key issues in this scandal, especially now that the GOP, in a unified and coordinated fashion, has simply invented fictitious talking points about what Hastert did. Most people's opinion of Hastert and company with regard to what they did in the past concerning Foley is solidified, but proving just how demonstrably dishonest they have been -- and continue to be -- is a task that still needs to be completed and is, on every level, worthwhile.