The problem with lying is that sometimes it is irrefutably proven that you have done so.
"I went to Congress with the same intelligence Congress saw -- the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had."
-- George W. Bush, February 8, 2004
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
-- George W. Bush, June 17, 2004
"We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization."
-- Dick Cheney, September 14, 2003
Oopsie.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
To lie is to intentionally purvey a falsehood. You have not proven that the President had information CONTRARY to that which was in the hands of the rest of the world and pushed us into war, therefore you have not proven that he lied. You may well prove that he purveyed a falsehood, but if he knew not that it was a falsehood, he was not lying! Don't brush this off as a symantic argument: The word is in your post title!
I think you mean "semantic."
Did you read the MSNBC article? It says that 10 days after 9/11, the President and his advisors were briefed that not only was there no evidence at all of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, it actually explained why Hussein and bin Laden would never work together. It also shows definitively that the White House deliberately withheld intelligence assessments from Congress.
This is not about whether Bush "knew" there were WMD's in Iraq or was operating under bad intelligence; this is about him receiving intelligence that we now know was accurate and intentionally discarding it because it didn't support his desire to go to war.
This was not lying, it was (quite frankly) salesmanship, selling an idea that was concieved for the good of the world. That suggestion is unadvertised for the sake of outlining the information that is beneficial to the administration's plans may not be absolutely honest, but it is not a lie! "it actually explained why Hussein and bin Laden would never work together." Once again, you are taking a suggestion as if it were fact that must be represented lest the ommission of such suggestions be considered a lie. The suggestion about which you speak is NOT intelligence, and its ommission does not constitute a lie.
One of the only new things the President and Vice President have stated lately is that they have no problem with debating the begginning of the war, but when people say that they simply lied, they are not being completely honest. Those who convict as such are arguing politically rather than philosophically (the word "lie" does not allow for honest discourse). Argue over the reasons for going to war, but don't just say that the President lied...end of post!
Sorry I mispelled symantic (I mean semantic) but I did not mispell four times every falsehood like those crazy conservative ranters!
It's Strategery combined with Jackassary
Post a Comment