Hypocrisy 101

Nobody can make sure that 100% of his or her statements are mutually consistent. In fact, if you say a lot, you will contradict yourself from time to time. And if the news media watch you and report on everything you do and say, some of those inconsistencies will be reported.

That is why it is so important to be careful when making public negative judgments of others. You end up looking foolish when such things are pointed out.

Recently, the leader of a certian nation went on record with criticisms of his main political opponent. He accused the opponent of making unclear statements, undermining the authority of an allied leader. This caused indigant remarks to pop up around the Blogosphere like mushrooms in horse dung after a rainstorm.

People criticized the opponent (lets call him, say, John), some even going so far as to call his remarks treason. Yet, at the same time, we see this:

Commentary: Rumsfield's field day : The current confusion over the fate of election in Iraq
Posted on: September 24, 2004

By Jyoti Omi Chowdhury : If the fog of war has not confused the ordinary Iraqis yet, the current US administration's squabble about the fate of the Iraqi election is sure to put the confusion right back on the Iraqis and the world public.

In one of the most extraordinary and strange admission[s] to US failure in Iraq, Donald Rumsfield concluded that voting might not be possible in certain parts of war torn country due to the level of violence.

And then to make things more confusing for the general public, his deputy Richard Armitage, told reporters that the intial plan to hold elections in every part of Iraq is going to go ahead. So evidently, it is the tail that is wagging the dog.

[...] And according to Allawi and Bush, the only reason Iraq is seen as a quagmire because the “media” is reporting negative stories about the ongoing struggle of power.

Though it may come across as a flimsy excuse at best to shift the blame to the media, it also points out that this visit of the Iraqi prime minister, who has been hand picked by the current administration, is nothing but a election stunt, and a rather daft attempt to convince the general public that Iraq is somehow in a better state.

So how will this contradiction of position of Rumsfield and the administration about the current state of Iraq affect the election is yet to be seen.

But it is safe to say, the administration has followed a policy of “if you can’t win them, confuse them.” And this may be another ploy of an administration to do exactly just that.

So the bush administration is perhaps hoping that this policy of “hide and seek” may confuse the Americans enough to the extent that they might suffer denial and believe even with all the internal conflicts, suicide bombings, hostage takings, lack of funds for infrastructure, Iraq is somehow a better place, waiting for an election, just like America.

© The Bangladesh Journal

Presumably, English is a second language for the author, as the acticle is full of grammatical errors. Still, the author makes some good points. Blaming the media is a flimsy excuse. I don't agree that the visit of Allawi is "nothing but an election stunt," although certainly it was done with the election in mind.

The thing is, if it was treason for John to be critical of the situation in Iraq, is it not also treason for Rumsfeld to do so?