Our first President could not tell a lie. Our newest President has difficulty telling the truth. He is not only a compulsive liar but an accomplished one, as evidenced by his adeptness at discovering novel meanings for ordinary words such as "sex" and "is." He is, in the words of Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE), "an exceptionally good liar." But he is not a perfect one: He has not always kept his story straight; he has not always covered his tracks; and he is now much better known for his evasiveness and perjury than he is for his openness and honesty.

The thoroughly honest man never lies, but the habitual liar sometimes tells the truth and oftentimes substitutes new lies for old. The honest man is always consistent, even if he does not remember what he has said in the past. The liar is often inconsistent, even if he does remember. But the liar, no matter how proficient he is at keeping his lies straight, will sometimes forget what he had said in the past and will therefore contradict himself without even realizing it. On occasion, he may even forget to lie, particularly if he is caught off guard.

The latter phenomenon apparently explains what happened to Bill Clinton on November 30th when he was asked by a reporter if he was "worried about the Chinese controlling the [Panama] canal." In his response, the President not only contradicted the official line but displayed amazing candor. The President said: "I think the Chinese will, in fact, be bending over backwards to make sure they run it in a competent and able and fair manner. This is like them, like China coming into the WTO. I think they’ll want to demonstrate to a distant part of the world that they can be a responsible partner, and I would be very surprised if any adverse consequences flowed from the Chinese running the canal."

When the specter of Communist Chinese control of the Canal became an issue earlier in the year, White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart referred to it as "the kind of silly stuff that gets out from time to time in this town." More recently, albeit prior to Mr. Clinton’s admission against interest, the Atlanta Constitution blasted "ultraconservatives in this country" for "conjuring up the direst of outcomes once Panamanians take over the canal’s operations." The Constitution continued: "Very soon, they say, Communist China will be in a position to seize this strategic waterway. Among the purveyors of this far-out speculation are retired Adm. Thomas Moorer, a right-wing doomsayer of long-standing; Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-Idaho), the militia movement’s favorite congresswoman; and the John Birch Society, a Cold War relic notorious for its anti-Red paranoia."

Readers of THE NEW AMERICAN know better, since Adm. Moorer wrote a cover story for this magazine, entitled "Save Our Canal!," wherein he revealed how China’s People’s Liberation Army was effectively taking control of the Canal through a front company known as Hutchison Whampoa (see our August 2, 1999 issue). Moorer is, of course, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, although the Constitution editorial neglected to include this credential. Moreover, Rep. Chenoweth-Hage also wrote an article for TNA, entitled "Don’t Give Up the Canal!," wherein she too warned about the Chinese encroachment and then recommended her recently introduced H. J. Res. 77 (see our December 6, 1999 issue). That resolution, which was cosponsored by 26 colleagues in a matter of days, declares that the 1977 Carter-Torrijos treaties, under which the transfer is taking place, are null and void.

Presumably, those 26 congressmen must also be "ultraconservatives" — even though three of them are Democrats! (See Insider Report "Rep. Chenoweth-Hage Fights On" of our December 20, 1999 issue for the list.) And so must be Mr. Clinton, based on his November 30th admission.

But the President’s momentary lapse has not prevented the Clinton-friendly spinmeisters in the media and the administration from clinging to the original script. When the Associated Press originally covered the President’s remarks, it matter of factly stated that "he brushed off the notion that China was preparing to take over the canal once the United States leaves," even though it quoted enough of what the President actually said to show that such an assessment made no sense. Later in the day, AP issued a revised story that read: "Clinton brushed aside these concerns, but in doing so appeared to misspeak when he left the impression that the canal was being turned over to China and not Panama." The revised story quoted a National Security Council spokesman as saying that "responsibility for operation of the canal rests with the government of Panama and the Panama Canal authority."

But the truth is getting out, and the truth is causing some consternation on the part of the guardians of public opinion. Mr. Clinton, in fact, has decided not to attend the hand-over ceremony scheduled for December 14th, but to send instead former President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who backed out herself at the last moment). As the Los Angeles Times pointed out, "it is an open secret in Washington that Clinton is not eager to be associated too closely with relinquishing control of the [Canal]."

Bookmark/Search this post with:

delicious | digg | newsvine | technorati