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...

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.

How do we distinguish between the two? There is no "crucial distinction" if you can't tell the difference. And what happens when you say something that you know should be false (eg, Clinton's assertion at a grand jury that blow jobs somehow aren't sex) or make a promise (eg, the "no new taxes" thing) that you should know you won't follow through on? Did moderate Republicans really "force" the president or was this a face-saving manuever to do what was inevitable? I don't know.

IMHO, if a statement or promise (that gave the speaker some advantage) turns out to be false, and the utterer should have known it were false at the time, then that's enough for me. Intent is irrelevant.

My favorite "no new taxes" quote comes from Argentina. Vázquez got into office with the quote "I will not deceive you!", but as soon as he got into office (and provably planned while campaigning) he reversed all his major decisions. Because he did such an abrupt about face, he was able to remove much of the union's power (which got him elected), he privatized many state industries (directly against what he promised during elections), etc.

Apparently, sometimes lying is the best way forward in politics!

"IMHO, if a statement or promise (that gave the speaker some advantage) turns out to be false, and the utterer should have known it were false at the time, then that's enough for me. Intent is irrelevant."

So how much due diligence should be taken to assure the the "utterer" knows what is false or true prior to making a statement or promise?

If the President used that litmus test, I suspect we would still be waiting on Hans Blix to finish the inspection of Iraq.

NPR Senior Correspondent Daniel Shore said that it looked as if the outing of Plame was a coverup for the fact that the CIA reports really said no WMDs.

So how much due diligence should be taken to assure the the "utterer" knows what is false or true prior to making a statement or promise?

Well at the least, they should be able to put forth at the time a good argument why they think they can accomplish the goal. If you look at the Federal budget of the time, spending was considerably larger than revenue. Either reduce spending or increase taxes. The former was very unlikely in a Democrat dominated Congress.

Why would Daniel Shore voice his OPINION about the Palme affair except to couch it in terms critical of Bush? There is no other reason. Why didn't he opine her name came out because she was central to her inexperienced husband getting a CIA assignment and allowed to go without signing an NDA? The President didn't lie and the CIA was inept. How many bipartisan reports does one need before recognizing this?

Karl,

I'll agree with you, in that, many (I lump myself in this) believed Bush would never live up to his promises of "no new taxes". At the very least, it simply meant, "no new taxing method, but I didn't say not raising taxes". Either way he failed.

I just wanted to twist that to the "Bush lied, people died" meme. I'll agree with dissenters that indeed intelligence was wrong that WMD existed in Iraq, but I'm unconvinced that Bush lied about it. I'm also unconvinced that I was misled into supporting the war because of that faulty intelligence.

Anyway, nice response!

acsiwr bpyw nmkqb sdqrhifwv yskmu gkbulhv lytbdhpwk