Obama's mythography: An Orwellian disaster
President Barack Obama's Orwellian rhetoric has become absolutely pathological. And it's become so blatant that you can almost guarantee that the truth is the exact opposite of what he says. To wit:
The president insisted he had no intention of taking over Chrysler and General Motors.
The president calls "cap-and-trade" environmental legislation a "market-based" approach, based on "sound science."
It is not.
The president claims his health care reform plan is not "socialized medicine."
He claims it won't harm private insurance.
He claims service won't be rationed.
But to control costs as he proposes, it must be. (Even top aides concede the point.)
Mr. Obama says he supports "democracy" in Latin America.
How can he• He also supports the Marxist ways of Manuel Zelaya, legally removed from Honduras' presidency by the constitutional actions of the legislative and judicial branches.
And the examples of this president's mythography go on and on.
Some will dismiss Barack Obama's pronouncements merely as "rhetoric" and "posturing." "Everybody does it," they'll say. "It's politics."
But this is different and decidedly more dangerous: The president of the United States says one thing and does another and claims things that cannot possibly be.
Whether by delusion or by design, Barack Obama is being dishonest with the American people. And that is a harbinger of national disaster.
Read the Trib on your Kindle
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.