One should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others, according to Moliere.
Well, that would certainly make life difficult for bloggers, editorial writers or politicians, wouldn't it?
We might ask Nancy Pelosi about this. The Democratic House speaker is under fierce attack from Republicans who claim that she learned in CIA briefings - and did not protest - about the very water-boarding she has condemned as torture.
She denies it, saying she was told at a CIA briefing in 2002 that waterboarding was not being used. Who knows the truth of this? Still, it does seems entirely plausible that Speaker Pelosi knew about it from others in the House, even if she was not personally briefed to this effect. So, yes, she may be guilty of the hypocrisy offense as charged.
But, then again, those condemning her are not paragons of virtue either. Their hypocrisy is that they surely knew about the torture too and thought it was just fine despite all their pretensions to high-minded morality.
What is the real offense here? The torture? Or the hypocrisy?
Another quotation may be helpful: "Because hypocrisy stinks in the nostrils one is likely to rate it as a more powerful agent for destruction than it is." So wrote the English novelist and writer Rebecca West.
Surely the real agent for destruction here was the torture.
By the way, thank you to all who responded to my question in the last post about the wisdom (or not) of including cricket references in my last column. While the comments on this site were few, several more readers of the shy type sent me personal messages - and that feedback was helpful.
As a reward, I will not inflict upon you in this space the latest cricket Test match scores.
Posted
May 14 2009, 05:55 PM
by
Reg Henry