Distortion is built into our perceptual systems. We tend to see what we want to see and we distort things to make our realities conform to our biases. We justify our faults and amplify those of the people we dislike. In politics, it is worse. We are often given lies disguised as facts. Again, if the lies conform to our biases, we are eager to believe them.

One lie, often stated, is that Liberals are weak. It is repeated by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and is a leitmotif of FoxNews. When I hear that, I wonder which Liberals are being referred to. Certainly not FDR. Was Liberal Harry Truman weak when he used the A-bomb in Japan, counter-attacked in Korea and imposed the Truman Doctrine of Containment? Didn’t Liberal JFK go eyeball to eyeball with Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis? When the Saudis threatened the US with an oil embargo, Jimmy Carter threatened force and the Saudis retreated. Clinton stopped genocide in Kosovo by using force, without losing one GI. Eisenhower, on the other hand, sat on his hands while the voice of America encouraged the Hungarian revolution, and forced the Brits, French and Israelis to retreat from the Suez. Nixon recognized Communist China and surrendered in Vietnam. Reagan ordered our Marines to cut and run after they were bombed and slaughtered in Lebanon.

Both Al Gore and John Kerry served in Vietnam—Kerry with distinction. Yet both were accused of being weak by supporters of draft-dodgers Cheney and Bush. I am Cheney’s age, have more education than him and yet I served in active duty (as did my son), while Cheney finagled five educational deferments. Bush, a supporter of our Vietnam policies, specified he didn’t volunteer for overseas assignment while others died for our country. I believe he exploited his family connections to evade his responsibility to our country. In the Army, the least-respected leader was the one who said, “Follow me men, I’m right behind you!” Clinton didn’t serve, but, consistent with his beliefs, he did not want others to die in that futile war.

Another lie is that Liberals are weak against terrorism. Some facts from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report: Although Clinton clearly failed to kill bin Laden and prevent 9/11, he strengthened the antiterrorism priorities of both the FBI and the CIA. He appointed Louis Freeh who designated antiterrorism as the top national security priority and tripled the anti-terrorism budget. Clinton created and promoted a position for Richard Clarke as anti-terrorist “czar.” Clarke served as a cabinet-level advisor in that capacity. At Clarke’s recommendations, Clinton ordered attacks on bin Laden. When Clinton bombed Afghanistan and the chemical warfare plant in Sudan, Republicans criticized his actions as diversion from the Lewinsky scandal.

On the other hand, despite warnings from Clinton, Clarke and others about the imminent dangers of terrorism, Bush demoted Clarke and cut the antiterrorism budget in half on 9/10. Clarke specifically warned of an imminent bin Laden attack. Bush slept at the wheel. It was on Bush’s watch that 9/11 occurred. Yet, the lies emerged that Clinton had been asleep.

Bush allowed bin Laden to escape in Tora Bora when he outsourced the attack to tribal leaders. Later, I was dumbfounded by Bush’s weakness in not sending in enough troops to Iraq. I supported our invasion of Iraq, because I feel people who commit genocide should be held accountable. When General Shinseki recommended 400,000 troops, somewhat fewer than the previous Iraq war, he was rebuffed and canned. Our weakness has been tragic. Even though Bush was warned that, “If you break it, you own it,” he is criticizing Congress, which has no executive power, for not having a plan.

I am not saying all Republicans are weak. That would be the same sort of lie that Coulter, Limbaugh and Fox profess. Reagan did go after Khadaffi in Libya, who then quickly disowned terrorism. And Bush senior amassed a formidable international coalition of troops to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. What I am saying is it is a lie to characterize Liberals as weak. Almost all of us know the records of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, etc. and yet some perceptual systems distort obvious information to conform to our biases. We should compare what is claimed to be true with the facts that we know before accepting them as dogma. If Liberal Harry Truman were President, bin Laden would almost certainly be long dead.

On the flip side, and even more important, is how we define strength. When I was growing up in the southeast Bronx, the strongest kids were rarely in a fight. Because everyone knew the cost of attacking them, they didn’t need a preemptive strike to prove anything to anyone, least of all themselves.