In debating whether or not to tell the truth . . .

. . . the Obama Administration decided to lie deliberately. From The Wall Street Journal:

Aides Debated Obama Health-Care Coverage Promise
Behind the Scenes, White House Officials Worried About Insurance Pledge
By Colleen McCain Nelson, Peter Nicholas and Carol E Lee | Updated Nov. 2, 2013 11:21 a.m. ET

As President Barack Obama pushed for a new federal health law in 2009, he made a simple pledge: If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your plan. But behind the scenes, White House officials discussed whether that was a promise they could keep.

When the question arose, Mr. Obama’s advisers decided that the assertion was fair, interviews with more than a dozen people involved in crafting and explaining the president’s health-care plan show.

But at times, there was second-guessing. At one point, aides discussed whether Mr. Obama might use more in-depth discussions, such as media interviews, to explain the nuances of the succinct line in his stump speeches, a former aide said. Officials worried, though, that delving into details such as the small number of people who might lose insurance could be confusing and would clutter the president’s message.

“You try to talk about health care in broad, intelligible points that cut through, and you inevitably lose some accuracy when you do that,” the former official said.

More at the link.

Let’s be clear here: stating that “you inevitably lose some accuracy when you do that” is stating that the Administration knew that the statements were not completely accurate, and they went ahead because that was the basis on which they were tying to sell the plan. One of the people involved added that the pledge wasn’t “a salable point,” but, given that they were scrambling for every last vote, and needed every last vote to pass it — just one more vote on the sensible side in the Senate would have maintained the Republican filibuster and doomed the bill — telling the truth, that not everybody who liked his current insurance plan would be able to keep it, would probably have sent the bill down to defeat.

At the time the law was being written, Mr. Obama was trying to make the case for the health-care overhaul in understandable terms, and in an environment in which Republicans were casting it as a “big government” takeover of the health system. Mr. Obama’s aides were focused on telling people that disruption would be minimal and benefits from the law substantial.

It’s clear, now, that the disruptions are not going to be minimal, and the benefits will accrue only to those who didn’t have coverage previously, which was less than a fifth of the population. Of course, conservatives and Republicans said this all along.

Hube noted the difference between a mistake and a lie, and how the Democrats have, for years, claimed that President Bush deliberately lied about banned weapons in Iraq.1 I’m guessing that, with direct evidence that President Obama’s statements were deliberate and calculated lies, they’ll not object in the slightest. Hube also noted that The New York Times could only bring itself to say that “Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.”

The left would swallow anything President Obama said; even when they know that he’s lying, they think it’s all for the best.

  1. I noted, in my review of Valerie Plame Wilson’s book, Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House, that even a CIA insider who had absolutely no reason to support President Bush on anything stated that the CIA believed that there were WMD in Iraq. The difference is that President Bush was basing his policy statements on the information he was given from our intelligence agencies (though I believe that he would have pushed to depose Saddam Hussein even if the CIA had concluded there were no WMD in Iraq), while President Obama and his minions were creating policies which deliberately differed from the promise that the President made.

Comments are closed.