President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Brandon9000 wrote:

The nature of a lie can certainly be part of this discussion. However, when I started this thread, I simply assumed that no one would define "lie" to include honest mistakes.

This is petitio principi--it assumes in advance that what are alleged to be lies were simply mistakes, and that they were honest. Therefore, you beg the question of whether or not Bush has lied. It is entirely possible that the examples which have been provided were mistakes, but that Bush had no intention of being honest, that he intended to deceive, whether or not he believed his statement to be true. It is, of course, possible that Bush knew or believed that he was mistaken, and still had the intent to deceive. A good deal of this thread has been devoted to a definition of "lie," the purpose of which appears to be to beg the question altogether.

I'm not saying anything of the kind.

an honest mistake is simply not a lie.

I'm saying that it is sometimes possible to demonstrate that a reasonable person would conclude that a statement was a lie.

Actually, I was trying to emulate Brandon's strategy in order to win this discussion with you, you noodly monstrosity!

(And you left out, "You are calling me intellectually dishonest! I say that is a lie! Prove it or retract the statement....")

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm not saying anything of the kind.

Yes you are. Maybe you honestly forgot. Here, read it again:

Brandon9000 wrote:

an honest mistake is simply not a lie.

But I wouldn't insist that you were lying. Maybe you honestly believed you never said anything like that.

You're saying...."However, if there is an additional witness, then even an honest mistake is a lie."

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm saying that it is sometimes possible to demonstrate that a reasonable person would conclude that a statement was a lie.

Yeah. But who gets to define what a "reasonable person" is? We'd have to define that one first. After all, you wouldn't trust me to be a reasonable person, would you?

Nevertheless, Brandon, this thread has devolved into a discussion of what the definition of a lie is, at which point the supporters of Bush merely assert that he was mistaken, or could have been mistaken, and call upon others to prove what he believed when he made the statement. And that begs the question.

It's never reasonable to assert that someone is lying merely because he was mistaken. There simply must be some additional argument about the likelihood that the person knew he was stating something false.

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's never reasonable to assert that someone is lying merely because he was mistaken. There simply must be some additional argument about the likelihood that the person knew he was stating something false.

Okay, just a little reality check: after the invasion, a team of bioweapon experts was sent to Iraq. They wrote a report back to Washington, saying the trailers they had found were as suitable as mobile bioweapon labs as a rusty bucket. The White House received this report. A day or two later, Bush said in an interview: "We have found the WMD".

What would you say is the likelihood that the person in questions knew he was stating something false? From 0 to 100 percent?

There is another underlying assumption that makes it difficult to have this conversation. That is the assumption that a president, by nature of his high position, is well informed and makes an effort to avoid making false statements and to verify his information thoroughly before speaking.

I see that you intend to ignore the point that someone could make a statement which was mistaken, while still intending to deceive.

There is another underlying assumption that makes it difficult to have this conversation. That is the assumption that a president, by nature of his high position, is well informed and makes an effort to avoid making false statements and to verify his information thoroughly before speaking.

FreeDuck wrote:

There is another underlying assumption that makes it difficult to have this conversation. That is the assumption that a president, by nature of his high position, is well informed and makes an effort to avoid making false statements and to verify his information thoroughly before speaking.

But..... isn't there another point to it: the responsibility to present information that is not verified or disputed as such? For example, if I rely on a single source of information - let's say a defector from somewhere - and subsequently use the information from that source in order to make my point, isn't it my responsibility to say "Well, look, there is some information about this and that" - instead of saying something like "We know for a fact that this is true."

FreeDuck wrote:

There is another underlying assumption that makes it difficult to have this conversation. That is the assumption that a president, by nature of his high position, is well informed and makes an effort to avoid making false statements and to verify his information thoroughly before speaking.

Many things cannot be deduced in advance solely by the available evidence. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, many knowledgable people believed that there was a decent chance that Iraq was still hiding WMD and programs. Other statements like, "I am a uniter not a divider," are subjective and may not be susceptible to absolute determination.

It's never reasonable to assert that someone is lying merely because he was mistaken.