Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Liar label

As I have said before, it irks me to no end when the liar label is thrown around without the offering of any specific evidence of such alleged lying. So today my ire is focused on Mark Dayton, who was quoted in the StarTribune as follows.

Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton said he is voting against Rice to protest what he labeled the administration's "lying" about Iraq.

"My vote against this nomination is my statement that this administration's lying must stop now," Dayton said on the Senate floor. "I don't like to impugn anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally," he said. "It's wrong. It's undemocratic, it's un-American, and it's dangerous.

"And it is occurring far too frequently in this administration. And this Congress, this Senate must demand that it stop now."

I would listen if the argument was "bad decisions were made based on unconfirmed facts." But if you are going to call someone a habitual liar, you better damn well be specific and, if you can't cite specific evidence, in my view you expose yourself as nothing but a political hack who does not belong in the United States Senate.