Is Michele Bachmann a Compulsive Liar or Just Clueless?

When people say factually inaccurate things, you can often tell whether they're deliberately mischaracterizing the truth or whether they just don't know what they're talking about. With Michele Bachmann, I really can't quite tell.

A couple of months ago, CNN's Anderson Cooper put together an amazing montage of Bachmann statements highlighting her addiction to falsehoods, but that did not dissuade her from continuing to blurt out unchecked allegations.

During a CNN-sponsored Republican debate a few weeks ago, Bachmann was predictably drumming up support for war with Iran, and claimed that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "said that if he has a nuclear weapon he will use it to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He will use it against the United States of America." This could be sound justification for a war, except Bachmann's allegation is completely devoid of truth. As CNN's Truth Squad points out, Iranian leaders never threatened to nuke Israel or the United States, and they couldn't have because they deny pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place.

So how did Bachmann take being corrected? Rather than speak more carefully when she addressed the topic again, she decided to even exaggerate further (and frankly fall off the deep end) during last night's debate when she said:

"We know without a shadow of a doubt Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map. And they've stated that they will use it against the United States of America."

So no longer is she only alleging that Iran said things they actually didn't, but now we know "without a shadow of doubt" that the attack will happen, unless we do something about it. That's the sort of lying that makes the Iraq war propaganda of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld seem like honest straight-talk by comparison. Not content with that much, Bachmann (who, remarkably, sits on the House Intelligence Committee) sparred with Ron Paul over whether the IAEA said Iran was only months from being able to develop nuclear weapons and, sure enough, Bachmann turned out to be wrong.

If all of this doesn't sound absurd enough, consider the mother of all ironic twists: while arguing with Newt Gingrich during the debate about whether her allegations in a previous debate were correct, she cited the fact-checking website PolitiFact as a defense, saying: "after the debate that we had last week, PolitiFact came out and said that everything I said was true." How did PoltiFact react? They immediately tweeted "For the record, we did not say that everything Michele Bachamnn said at last week's debate was true." [stet] Bachmann should certainly listen to David Henry's golden advice: "Bachmann would be wise to avoid directing anyone to her PolitiFact file -- of the 52 Bachmann claims they've tested, 31 have been ruled False or Pants on Fire."

Now, some might be thinking "what's the big deal here, don't all politicians lie?" Well, not exactly. Virtually all politicians bend the truth and commit deliberate errors of omission to win support (certainly dishonest behavior), but they rarely flat out lie. When Gingrich says that the Palestinians are an "invented people" just because they were part of the Ottoman Empire, it's a ridiculous statement because by no consistent standard can the Israeli people be considered any more authentic (there was also no Israel or Israeli people in the Ottoman era). Gingrich's demagoguery is of course dishonest, but dishonesty relating to the murky concept of nationalism is not quite the same as saying something that is a blatant lie on its face.

A mini earthquake must have occurred last night at the site of Orwell's grave when, towards the end of the debate, Bachmann told Gingrich:

"I think it's outrageous to continue to say over and over through the debates that I don't have my facts right, when as a matter of fact, I do. I am a serious candidate for President of the United States and my facts are accurate."

Dear Michele, if you don't want to be accused of getting your facts wrong, there is an easy solution: stop lying. And if you're not lying on purpose, just try to learn the facts before speaking. Seems like a reasonable expectation from someone who thinks they're qualified to run the world's only superpower, no?

 

Follow Omar Baddar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omarbaddar

Comments

[Nemo Oudeheis]

10:43 AM on 01/04/2012

Once there was a Pretty Woman who was used to being the center of attention when she walked into a room. Unfortunately, there was nothing to keep her ears apart, and one day her cranium imploded.

[knott wrench]

12:04 AM on 01/02/2012

I prefer Matt Tiabbi's Rolling Stone article description of Michelle in his article;

Michelle Bachmann Out of Money and Ideas can't expect to win in Iowa as the following;

"Political Psychopath, Equal Parts Divine Wind Kamikaze-for -Jesus and calculating Six faced Machivallian Peveractor".

So in one word; Liar.

[mia8485]

08:27 PM on 12/30/2011

The last time Iran invaded another country was something like 300 years ago.
The U.S.? About 9 years ago.

[carljr]

09:33 AM on 12/22/2011

I vote CLUELESS.

[Just logic]

02:20 PM on 12/19/2011

I have brought this up a couple of times but I still never see an opinion paper that brings this up. Has no one thought about Israel and their location. The last I checked regardless of who hates Israel in the Muslim world, Israel sits in the 2nd most Holy city to Muslims. So by attacking them with a Nuke they assure themselves an early grave. But to destroy a sacred city one would think that Iran destruction could come from a Muslim country long before the US and its allies. By them dropping a Nuclear Bomb they would kill many people like Palestinians destroying land that Mohammad walked. Sure sounds like the first thing I would do as extreme Muslim country bent on establishing one’s self as a powerful country.

I find the fact that nobody thinks anymore to be disturbing. Commonsense should tell us that any country who threatens a nuke on an offensive manner faces destruction by most of the world. I am pretty sure that Iran even with its quirky ways have plans for a long term presence in the world scene.

[almchrl13]

01:40 AM on 12/19/2011

I am a serious candidate for president of the United States and I WILL win the talent part of the competition.

[gmikejake]

09:07 PM on 01/02/2012

Target shooting with an AR15.

[almchrl13]

01:37 AM on 12/19/2011

She is part of a group who has been indoctrinated to believe
that 'lying for Jesus' is part of a larger truth that supersedes facts.

[gmikejake]

09:11 PM on 01/02/2012

Knowing too many of that sort of group for decades now, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, etc. most of them do not see what they are doing as "lying" at all. Just witnessing for the TRUTH, the revealed TRUTH, the TRUTH that supersedes any other "truths." Doing the work of "the lord." That's just one of the many scary parts of their world view.

[zanzig]

09:26 AM on 01/03/2012

"Truth" based on faith, untethered to reality seems to be the stock of religions everywhere.

[F1guy76]

12:35 AM on 12/19/2011

Both!

[jwald1]

12:26 AM on 12/19/2011

I think she believes Jesus wants her to lie.

[BooTay]

10:56 PM on 12/18/2011

"Is Michele Bachmann A Compulsive Liar, or Just Clueless?"
To the Author: Seriously, this IS a rhetorical question, yes?

[gmikejake]

09:14 PM on 01/02/2012

I've talked with several Bachmann observers from her general area of MN, they insist, all of them, that she truly believes what she says when she says it. And she won't back down, because, from her perspective, she was/is speaking the truth. Even when she contradicts herself, which often happens, there was no contradiction, people just misunderstood. Is it lying when you truly believe what you are saying? Clueless? Probably, but she, and her supporters don't think so ... her opposers are the "clueless" ones.

[zanzig]

09:31 AM on 01/03/2012

To lie is to state something, with disregard to the truth, with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth. (paraphrased from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie)

Her belief in the accuracy of her statements is not a precondition; it is enough that the statement is false and that she intends it to be accepted as true. So she is a liar.

[l78lancer]

09:02 PM on 12/18/2011

She is very typical of the Jim Jones, Kool-Aid drinking mentality wherein she insists that everyone believe what she says because she said it, regardless of the truth - or lack of - behind it.

That mentality may work in some "religious" settings where people step out on hope and faith and leaders like her, with no guile, abuse and misuse their followers. But it will never work in the public domain where people on the left and right will disagree and call her on it.

[cma cma]

02:51 PM on 12/18/2011

"During a CNN-sponsored Republican debate a few weeks ago, Bachmann was predictably drumming up support for war with Iran, and claimed that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "said that if he has a nuclear weapon he will use it to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He will use it against the United States of America." This could be sound justification for a war, except Bachmann's allegation is completely devoid of truth. "
The web has many Ahmadinejad examples supporting Bachmann and demonstrating that Omar Baddar is a political liar and propagandist.
Start with this one: Tehran: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to destroy the US and Israel and send them to the "morgue" if Iran is put on the defensive. "Resistance will continue until Iran sends its enemies to the morgue," Ahmadinejad said on his website.
http://www.newsbullet.in/world/52-more/13696-ahmadinejad-threatens-to-send-us-to-the-morgue

[Omar Baddar]

06:25 PM on 12/18/2011

It must be really confusing when you get your news from right wing websites. Iran has always maintained that it is not developing nuclear weapons, but that it would destroy anyone who attacked it. Of course, that context is conveniently missing from your link, but if you looked at the very same story in the original Iranian press, you'll notice it includes this line: "He stressed that Iran has never thought of an attack on other countries, but warned if any superpower launched an offensive against the country, the Iranian nation would 'cut off its hands'" (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/189773.html). To repeat what I said twice already: Iran could not have threatened to nuke anyone because they deny developing nuclear weapons in the first place. I would demand an apology from you, except it's not your fault that you are terribly misinformed; there is a huge propaganda machine out to get people like you who don't invest energy to learn the reality of things. I'll let you know if they ever apologize.

[karim banned]

01:13 AM on 12/20/2011

F&F

[champain]

03:58 AM on 01/03/2012

F&F also, mostly because there is no choice marked, "standing ovation".

[carljr]

09:32 AM on 12/22/2011

Yeah, and Krushchev pounded his shoe on the rostrum and told the UN that he'd bury the United States. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the United States. The Chinese are on a path to destroy the United States. The North Koreans are threatening the west coast with nuclear tipped missiles. Newt Gingrish is unreliable, Mitt Romney is a Mormon filp flopoper the President is Chicago Politician who hates white people, Tim Tebow and the Broncos win because of Tebow's relationship with the Almighty. Aliens make crop circles, who's buried in Grant's tomb?

Your comments suggest you have the same view as Bachmann. A shallow, FOX-based understanding of the world. All the above things happened and we're still here. The world of international relations is a little more complicated and nuanced than and involves a little more stuff than a President shooting his mouth off. What the Ahmadineja­d's statements prove is that he can shoot his mouth off and say things that sound pretty awful. Beyond that....well, not much beyond that.

Oh yeah, and the world didn't end this summer and it's not going to end in 2012 when the Mayan calendar runs out --- that was a movie, OK?

[TexasHurricane]

01:03 PM on 12/18/2011

Ron Paul missed an opportunity when he did not call out Bachman and Santorum for being dangerously paranoid.

[MikeDu]

12:45 PM on 12/18/2011

RNC spammers used to flood these Bachmann stories in defense of her. You will notice they don't so much anymore. Bachmann's star has fallen. Well, actually, those posters never *really* defend any of their candidates. They usually just string party-approved epithets together at random in opposition. 'Socialist illegals Obamacare pals-with-terrorists turnip!"

[ydnas639]

09:39 AM on 12/18/2011

Grumpy Old Dude Commented 8 hours ago
"The headline....that was a rhetorical question right? Most
rational people know she is both!"