President Bush: Is He a Liar?

blatham wrote:

blatham wrote:

brandon

Quote:

I said that something is not a lie if the speaker believes it to be true. This is simply the most reasonable definition of a lie

.

blatham

Quote:

How might you or anyone know that the speaker believes his statement to be true?

brandon

Quote:

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that there would be a number of ways. If, for instance, someone said that he didn't go to a meeting, but other witnesses attest that he did, that would be strong evidence of a lie. Another example would be if someone said that a = b, but it can be shown that it had already been proven to him that a does not equal b. Whether I can list every method of doing this is irrelevant. A person cannot be said to be lying who believes that he is telling the truth, yet proving perjury, libel, slander, or informal lying to a sufficient degree of confidence does not require mind reading.

You are correct to argue that if someone believes he isn't lying, then we can't really refer to what he's done as a lie. The term presupposes intent to deceive.

But as their is no way to establish intent with certainty, we have to accept the limitation of reliance on inference from behaviors, past things said or done, contradictions, etc.

All of which makes the "we don't know he didn't believe what he was saying" criterion quite useless.

So, Bush says, at a particular point in time, "There are no war plans on my desk" and yet we also have solid evidence (in the form of statements by dozens of administration, military, intelligence and investigative individuals) that he had ordered up war plans many months earlier, then it seems rather reasonable to conclude that the inference Bush was trying to deceive is far more reasonable than inferring he was speaking truthfully.

This one is still open, Brandon.

Alright, then, give a citation to his statement, and at least one citation to evidence that it was false.

Alright, then, give a citation to his statement, and at least one citation to evidence that it was false.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I told the Prime Minister there are no war plans on my desk

Or, given that there are existing war plans on file for just about any scenario you can imagine, it could very well be that the President was simply saying he had not received any specific plans for any specific scenario and there were no such plans literally on his desk.

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

So, Woodward has a bug in the Whitehouse that allowed him to overhear what Bush said to Rummy in a cubbyhole behind closed doors? No speculation here?

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

So, Woodward has a bug in the Whitehouse that allowed him to overhear what Bush said to Rummy in a cubbyhole behind closed doors? No speculation here?

C'mon, be honest McG - if a notarized statement from an eyewitness reported the same thing, you'd still defend the shrub, now wouldn't ya?

Or, given that there are existing war plans on file for just about any scenario you can imagine, it could very well be that the President was simply saying he had not received any specific plans for any specific scenario and there were no such plans literally on his desk.


If the plans were in the wall safe, would he be truthful or deceptive? If they were on the tank of the oval office toilet? If they were in the War Room downstairs?

Which is he trying to do with his statement in Australia, be truthful (in the normal sense we understand that term, as in "the whole truth and nothing but") or is he attempting to suggest something which was actually false (that he had no plans to go to war and that no such plans existed)?

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

So, Woodward has a bug in the Whitehouse that allowed him to overhear what Bush said to Rummy in a cubbyhole behind closed doors? No speculation here?

A little integrity here would be just peachy, McG. As I said, the timeline is noted from many sources. You boys just don't read much it seems.

But you may recall that the WH itself was promoting Woodward's book. Foxfyre even challenged me to read it. I did.

For honorable people, fairness in these things cuts both ways. If you are asked a question you don't wish to answer you might refuse to answer it. But your normal tactic is to dodge and swerve, change the premise, or otherwise obfusicate to avoid a direct answer. Does that make you a liar?

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

"I didn't have sex with that woman"

I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

Quote:

For honorable people, fairness in these things cuts both ways. If you are asked a question you don't wish to answer you might refuse to answer it. But your normal tactic is to dodge and swerve, change the premise, or otherwise obfusicate to avoid a direct answer. Does that make you a liar?

First two definitions from dictionary.com

Quote:

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

Of course, it makes him a liar. A false impression is conveyed and it was intended to be conveyed.

"I didn't have sex with that woman"
"No, mom, I don't have any hashish in my pockets!" (it's in his shoe)

What does it matter? If the President says there are no war plans on his desk, and that is exactly what he literally means, then there is no lie. And you can't pin a lie on him based on him ordering his staff to be prepared for a war whether that preparation was for an imminent war or one that could become imminent. Nor can you pin a lie on him for answering a question differently than it was probably intended. (I threw in that last one since you ignored the more pertinent parts of my post.)

For honorable people, fairness in these things cuts both ways. If you are asked a question you don't wish to answer you might refuse to answer it. But your normal tactic is to dodge and swerve, change the premise, or otherwise obfusicate to avoid a direct answer. Does that make you a liar?

For honorable people, fairness in these things cuts both ways. If you are asked a question you don't wish to answer you might refuse to answer it. But your normal tactic is to dodge and swerve, change the premise, or otherwise obfusicate to avoid a direct answer. Does that make you a liar?

Quote:

Quote:
For honorable people, fairness in these things cuts both ways. If you are asked a question you don't wish to answer you might refuse to answer it. But your normal tactic is to dodge and swerve, change the premise, or otherwise obfusicate to avoid a direct answer. Does that make you a liar?

First two definitions from dictionary.com Quote:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.


Of course, it makes him a liar. A false impression is conveyed and it was intended to be conveyed.

"I didn't have sex with that woman"
"No, mom, I don't have any hashish in my pockets!" (it's in his shoe)

I didn't ask if it made HIM a liar? I asked if your tactics to avoid answering a question you don't want to answer make YOU a liar.

And does the fact that you answered the question differently than it was asked make you a liar?

Perhaps you mean the last sentence??

What makes a lie a lie is established by the meaning of the term. Is the intention to give a false impression of real facts? That makes it a lie, by definition

So again you have not directly answered a question that could have been easily been answered with a yes or no.

It was a dangerously loaded question for sure and it is understandable
not to wish to give your opponent/enemy/foe/etc. that kind of ammunition to use.

There are all kinds of reasons that a President, coaches, attorneys, or anybody would not wish to answer a direct question for which the complete and full answer would greatly compromise the game plan. Useful tactical means to avoid doing so, just as you just did, is a legitimate way around having to do that. And even if the President was in fact planning to go to war against Iraq, not revealing that to the Press Corp. (and thus the enemy) was a very practical and necessary thing to do. Any other tact would have been grossly irresponsible.

In the case of the statement on war plans, however, if you read anything other than anti-Bush material, you would know that when he said that he did not have any intention of going to war, but he was quite properly aware that it was a possibility.