Sunday, November 13, 2005

On The Commission of Lies

2 out of every 3 top lefty bloggers agree:

What this country will end up needing is something like a Truth and Reconciliation Commission because what the country needs is not so much for particular people to go to jail but for the lies and the lies to cover up earlier lies to stop. The country can't get past what has happened or move forward until we can get the truth on the table, deal with it and move on.


Not really making a partisan point here, but I myself don't think people are ever satisfied with commissions. There's usually a minority dissent, and folks go on believing the side they came to dance with.

I've been interested in the investigations into the Pearl Harbor attack, which might be the closest historical analogue to this, and with parties reversed. Surely someone had blundered. This article seems to be a fair recap.

Seems right after Pearl Harbor, the Roberts Commission found the Hawaii commanders culpable, and FDR and Washington in the clear. Then as the war was winding down in '44, a court-martial was held, and one of the commanders was vindicated.

In November '45, after the war had ended, there was yet another commission which voted along party lines, and with an election coming up, the majority Democrats once again vindicated FDR, even though he was already dead.

In 1995, the Democratic administration's Undersec of Defense killed another inquiry. Finally, in 1999, the Republicans passed a Senate resolution vindicating the naval officers.

Almost sixty years later, and still they were voting along party lines. There will be no reconciliation.

7 comments:

Hunter Baker said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
connie deady said...

The point of the commission is not in the conclusion, but in the investigation. Seeking information is not a bad thing.

Of course, I don't believe there is an absolute truth. There are facts to be unearthed. There's a difference.

Greg said...

>>Of course, I don't believe there is an absolute truth. There are facts to be unearthed. There's a difference.<<

Connie, this has never been explained to me. Could you please make an attempt? Thank you.

Hunter Baker said...

The idea of a truth and reconciliation commission in America (which has worked well in South Africa) is absurd. There is no party that has been massively aggrieved in America in that way during the past three decades with the exception of the aborted unborn. And they, unfortunately, aren't up to raising a ruckus.

Hunter Baker said...

Connie, if lefties are invoking the South African commission as Tom indicates they are, then the point is not mere investigation. The point of that commission was so that one class of REALLY BAD GUYS could make a clean confession to the aggrieved and clear the ground for healing.

The implication would be that Bush and company have done some REALLY BAD THING on par with Apartheid.

B.S.

connie deady said...

Hunter, if lefty bloggers are doing that, I want no part of it. It's absurd to compare America with South Africa. As I say, truth is in the eye of the beholder and usually subject to partisan spin. Facts are useful.

Greg. I don't know what your question refers to. I'm an athiest and basically a philosophical relativist. Do you want me to explain relativism and my political philosophy? Got a few hours? ;)

Tom Van Dyke said...

That's OK, Connie. I'm quite interested myself. I started this thread, and I yield the floor.