Is Your Credibility on a Timeline or a Time Horizon?

So Barack Obama wanted to set a timeline for getting out of Iraq. Supporters of the war cried foul: "Why, that would give our enemies time to plan bad things for the time we are gone."

Yet President Bush felt perfectly comfortable in announcing that he agrees to a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals," which includes U.S. troop withdrawals from combat missions in Iraq. This after Iraqi officials - most notably their prime minister - issued a statement that they would like to vacate the country.

Winston Smith, call your Big Brother right away. 1984 has arrived, albeit retroactively.

I mean, seriously, folks, how can anyone look into a camera and state with a straight face that a "time horizon" is any different from a "timeline?" Whether off in the distance or traveling linearly, both methods of time travel have the same destination - withdrawal.

This is just the latest of recent rhetorical refuse that have embarrassed our politicians. Phil Gramm said that we were a bunch of whiners and that the current recession is in our minds. John McCain had to disavow his friend and advisor, despite the fact that the Senator had called him one of the finest economic minds in the country. George Bush said in a recent press conference that the economy looked good to him. Perhaps it looks different from the cheap seats where most of us reside. Barack Obama endorsed public financing of his campaign for POTUS, and then rejected it when it was obvious that he his supporters could give him so much money. Whoops, I really didn't mean that, everybody; ignore that comment from behind the green curtain. Besides, apparently it's not change that he believes in, but the cold, hard cash that is flowing to him unexpectedly.

Once again, the politicos have taught us a lesson that we can apply to our everyday lives: Say what you mean, mean what you say, and stick to both. Otherwise, your credibility is shot. This is particularly important in the world of external communication. I'm glad that I never said anything that I had to regret later during my years as a public spokesman for a variety of organizations. Most of all, being reliably and consistently truthful was like "Love Story;" it meant never having to say I was sorry. It also meant I did not have to retrace all my prior statements to keep track of all I said.

But most important, it meant that I did not have to constantly go back and qualify my statements when conditions changed. When I said there were no layoffs planned for the manufacturing facility, it meant just that and I didn't need to explain later why we laid people off - because we didn't do it.

When I said that the hospital was running perfectly well during the strike, it meant that the quality of care was not compromised and there was no danger to the patients. And the strike ended because it had no effect.

Such occurrences meant that when we spoke to the community, to the employees, to the shareholders, and other invested parties that they could make plans according to my statements. I did not need to retract my comments later and say, "Sorry. Do over!"

And when I laid out a timeline to the public, I did not need to explain later that we had a "time horizon" instead, whatever the hell that is. That is why the press and I got along.