Glenn is glad to see Senator McCain defending the president from the accusations of lying us into war. Me, too.

But the Senator goes too far. In turn, he is in fact guilty of the same thing of which he accuses the Democrats (and the same thing of which many of them falsely accuse the president).

I don’t know when it became common in public discourse to completely erase the crucial distinction between making a false statement and lying. It probably goes back further than this, but the first time I noticed it was when the president’s father went back on his pledge (“read my lips”) to oppose new taxes, and then acquiesced to them under pressure from the Democrats who ran Congress and some “moderate” Republicans. As a result, many charged President Bush the elder with “lying” at the convention.

But going back on a pledge isn’t a “lie.” It’s certainly deplorable, but there can be good reasons for doing so (though I don’t think they were valid in this case). But to break a promise is not a lie, unless the person intended to break it at the time it was made. It is in fact not reasonable to talk about “lies” about future events, since ultimately the future is unknowable to anyone–it is merely possible to be wrong (again, unless the prediction is made with the knowledge that the event will be different than the prediction, and is fully within one’s control). It may be that the first President Bush had no intention of keeping his pledge, but I certainly have no way to get into his mind to know that. Absent some “smoking gun” memo (“Ha, ha, ha…I certainly put it over those anti-tax rubes last night”), I doubt if anyone else does either.

And that’s what it comes down to. It is not sufficient to make a false statement and be a liar. It has to be made in the knowledge that the statement is false, with the deliberate intent to deceive.

Now, I believe that in fact many accusing the president of lying, pace McCain’s accusation, are in fact telling lies (that is, they don’t really believe that he is lying, and are simply saying this to politically damage him, and are indifferent to, or in some extreme cases, happy about, the degree to which this damages the war effort). But it’s certainly possible to make such an accusation and not be a liar, which is to say that the accuser actually believes the accusation.

We’ve certainly seen enough people suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome to find it credible that people believe such nonsense, so it’s unfair to brand them all intrinsically liars. It should be sufficient to call them deranged, unless the Senator has some personal knowledge that they know what they are claiming is false. Accordingly, he should, in the interest of defending the principle, apologize for his own overly broad accusation.

[Update a few minutes later]

Hey, and speaking of deranged, here’s the head of the DNC:

Asked what the president withheld, Dean charged that Bush withheld proof that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks [The president never made a claim of such a connection–ed]. Dean claims Bush deliberately corrupted intelligence reports and sent them to Congress.

“The intelligence was corrupted, not just because of the incompetence of the CIA; it was corrupted because it was being changed around before it was presented to Congress,” he said. “Stuff was taken out and not presented. All of this business about weapons of mass destruction, there was significant and substantial evidence passed from the CIA and the State Department to, perhaps, the office of the vice president — we don’t know just where — in the White House that said, ‘There is a strong body of opinion that says they don’t have a nuclear program, nor do they have weapons of mass destruction.’ And that intelligence was not given to the Congress of the United States.”

Dean repeatedly characterized the Bush administration as “corrupt.”

Well, maybe he’s lying, but after the scream, I have to go with deranged.

This from the party of Bill Clinton. Who, by the way, admitted to lying…