Hypocrisy

I've had a long-running discussion with a good friend of mine who absolutely hates George Bush with every fiber of his being. He's told me on more than one occasion that he hates hypocrisy in politicians more than anything else. Today, he sends me this e-mail:

Let's see, Kerry is all over the TV saying Bush has failed in his duty as C-in-C because he failed to secure the mountain of ammo that is now missing. Some of Kerry's own advisors have said we don't have all the facts so its not clear when the ammo went missing. In return Bush attacks Kerry for jumping to conclusions before all the facts are determined. So Kerry is guilty of being a typical scumbag, exaggerating (lying?), overblown, say anything politician.

I know you can see where I'm going with this:

Without determining all the facts, Bush jumped to the conclusion that it was vital to invade Iraq, which has resulted in over 8000 American casualties. What's the word I'm looking for? Hypocrite?

Of course, charges of hypocrisy will always strike an immediate chord with true fans of "The G-Man"... aka Jonah Goldberg. I give the G-Man full props for helping to shape my opinion on the subject, and thus this response to my misguided friend...


Here's what I think about hypocrisy.

Somewhere in the last couple hundred years or so, the word "hypocrite" has attained a severely negative stigma that it doesn't necessarily deserve. Or maybe the label of hypocrite has always been bad, but somehow we've watered down the meaning of it.

Being a hypocrite isn't a good thing, to be sure. But some people would rather be labeled a liar, a fraud, a thief or any number of worse things, than to be called a hypocrite. Reasonable people say that nothing else infuriates them the way hypocrisy does. Why is that? What is a hypocrite, exactly? The strict definition would probably be somebody who criticizes others for things he does himself. Lately, we seem to have expanded upon that definition to say a hypocrite is "a person who criticizes other people for actions that MAY be similar to something he has previously done himself."

Here's what I think. Hypocrisy, to most people, is little more than perceived inconsistency between previous statements and current statements. And by that measure, we're ALL hypocrites, to some degree. Bush is a hypocrite. Kerry is certainly a hypocrite as well. You're a hypocrite. So am I. You simply can't avoid occasionally saying something that can be construed by someone as inconsistent with what you said 3 years ago.

If you're going to criticize Bush for being a hypocrite on "jumping to conclusions," that's fair. But if hypocrisy is supposedly the most important measure by which you judge a candidate, then YOU are being hypocritical if you don't criticize Kerry as well. He has only contradicted himself a couple hundred times. Let's look at a couple examples:

John Kerry, September 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Kerry voted for authorization to use force in Iraq on October 11 that same fall.

John Kerry, January 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Kerry based these statements on the very same evidence that George Bush had. But once he became a presidential candidate, and once he understood that he'd never get the Democratic nomination unless he was anti-war, he changed his tune:

John Kerry, April 2004: "George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them. ... We were misled about weapons of mass destruction."

And of course, we're well aware of his continued refrain of "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." But that's not what you SAID, Senator.

Second example:

John Kerry, September 2004: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

Of course, we all know by now that Kerry did, in fact, vote against the bill to support the troops. He later tried to explain this incredible hypocrisy with the famous line, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." And later, he even had the nerve to criticize Bush by saying:

"You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service."

That's exactly right, Senator. So why did you vote against the $87 billion to buy (among other things) BODY ARMOR???


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's some pretty messed up, hypocritical (stuff) right there. What I want to know is... if hypocrites are at the top of (your) sh- list, how can you vote for this guy?


End of my response to my buddy. My point.... Bush is not perfect and has been hypocritical on occasion. But anybody voting for John Kerry has zero room to be complaining about hypocrisy. Best to keep that one in your pocket if credibility is of any importance to you.