Another lying cabinet member

HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, this time. From the WaPo (page A15, of course):

At the April 28 event, Jackson told of a minority contractor who had finally landed an advertising contract with the Department of Housing and Urban Development after trying for 10 years, according to an article in the Dallas Business Journal.

Jackson said that when the man approached him to thank him for the contract, the contractor said he didn't like Bush.

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson told the group, according to the newspaper. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

The Post, of course, never mentioned Jackson's little "story" until two days ago, when Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) called for an investigation--probably notified by bloggers who have been paying more attention than I have lately.

I've said several times in the past few years that it is hard to find out the truth--but much easier to find out that someone is lying. In this case, Jackson was either lying when he told the story (which seems unlikely), or he's lying now when he says that it didn't happen:

Jackson said he made up the story. "I deeply regret the anecdotal remarks I made at a recent Texas small-business forum and would like to reassure the public that all HUD contracts are awarded solely on a stringent merit-based process," Jackson said in a statement. "During my tenure, no contract has ever been awarded, rejected, or rescinded due to the personal or political beliefs of the recipient."

Yeah, right. Either way, Jackson's a liar, and the lie is bad enough that he should be immediately fired. Note that he doesn't deny that he said the remarks--only that the remarks weren't true. When someone insists he has told a lie, it's the one time you can believe him.

His "anecdote," which as WIIIAI reminds us is a word which doesn't have any implication of being "not true," sure gives an insight into how the Repugs see the government--solely to be used for their own benefit. As WIIIAI says:

But it really doesn't matter that much whether it was true: the point of telling the "anecdote" wasn't about personal politics but to make clear that prospective HUD contractors are expected to make campaign contributions to the Republican party.