Great example. If Clinton truly believed that oral sex was not sex, then he did not lie. Now, it is up to us (society) to judge whether if that sounds plausible or if it strains the brain too much. I would venture that a majority of people would say that Clinton’s statement was a lie (although he should not be punished because the whole issue revolved around sex, which ios private). As far as the “lies” attributed to Bush/Cheney, I would say about half the country does judge them as such.
So what you are saying that, given all the instances that Cheney was supposedly lying, he could have been misinformed, wrong, or in fact lying? He’s only human right? Now, given that their is a preponderance of evidence that would suggest he was lying, I will concede your point for this debate. This would leave two possible conclusions given the evidence:
1. Cheney is a liar: What most of us believe. This would mean that he was cunning and possessed some sort of evil intelligence. We are giving him benefit of the doubt.
2. Cheney is wrong: What some believe but would mean that Cheney was clearly INCOMPETENT with getting the facts straight. As our Vice-President and one of the main players guiding our country, this is a scary proposition. This is worse than him being a liar if you ask me.
SO what is it? Liar or wrong or both? Given the amount times he has been “wrong”, would you admit that this would demonstrate his incompetence?
Don’t forget…
- Ideologue. There are plenty of people throughout history who hear only what they want to hear. My first thought is of Mao, who was convinced that the Great Leap Forward was catapulting his country from the 18th to the 20th century in a matter of months, but he was only fooling himself. In my view, Cheney only listens to facts that make Iraq/terrorists/enemies bigger boogeymen.
So, in my book, that makes him 2 and 3, without a doubt. As far as being a liar, I certainly wouldn’t rule it out, but I think it is very difficult to prove an intent to deceive along with a confirmation that he actually knew the truth.
Don’t forget in the Edwards debate he told the demonstrable lie that he and Edwards had never met prior to being on that stage. Within hours, there were film clips on the networks of the two seated next to each other at a prayer breakfast. The lie served its purpose- it gave people watching the debate the impression that Edwards was a lightweight who did not take his Senate responsibilities seriously. He knew that being exposed as a liar would have no consequence for him, the important thing was to smear Edwards. And it worked.
Great. But this thread ain’t about Bush - for once.
None of those cites (and I realize you were responding directly to me) contain direct Cheney quotes stating that he has “repeatedly said Saddam was involved in 9/11. He is still saying this.” This assertion is given in the OP as a statement of fact and set forth as very specific example of something about which Cheney has lied - not only in the past, but that he’s continuing to do it to this day. There’s no evidence that Cheney has ever said anything so direct. If such a statement has in fact been made repeatedly by Cheney, then it should be relatively easy to produce even a single example. However, all we seem to be able to find is counter-examples. If no examples can be offered, then this particular “lie” should be withdrawn from the list.
No one cares about Clinton.
BobLibDem, I think, has finally nailed an indentifiable Cheney claim which can conclusively be proven a lie. Thank you, sir. But that’s only one. The OP claims this is an habitual pattern with Cheney. There should be others out there to be found.
It seems … magellan01 very easily “knows” what Icarus had in his head…
Thank you for the psychoanalysis session, where should I send the payment? 
Regardless if there are many instances that Cheney supposedly lied or just one, you are correct in that there are two possibilities: either he lied or he was mistaken.
You say:
“1. Cheney is a liar: What most of us believe. This would mean that he was cunning and possessed some sort of evil intelligence. We are giving him benefit of the doubt.”
Now, even if this is the correct conclusion, I take issue with two points. 1) I don’t believe “most” people believe that (if the last election is any indication) and 2) your conclusion that he “was cunning and possessed some sort of evil intelligence” surely does not necessarily follow. Is that a quality of everyone who lies? I think the only thing you can fairly ascribe to someone who lies is that he seeks to deceive.
You say:
“2. Cheney is wrong: What some believe but would mean that Cheney was clearly INCOMPETENT with getting the facts straight. As our Vice-President and one of the main players guiding our country, this is a scary proposition. This is worse than him being a liar if you ask me.”
If soemone is wrong they are not automatically incompetent. For instance, Cheney was wrong about WMDs, but that was the consensus of every intelligence agency back then, including Russia, France, and the U.N. He was also wrong about how well-received the US troops would be in Iraq. I personally believe that was due to our (the US’s) inexperience fighting a war against muslim extremists. All the other experience we’ve had with war was based on the premise that each side wanted to kill the other but wuiold like to keep themselves alive. This paradigm is thrown out the window with a war against suicide bombers. So he was wrong, but I don’t thinkn he lied on this. If you think he did, you have to then believe that he knew Iraq was going to be the nightmare it is and he STILL advocated going in. I just can’t believe anyone would do that.
I do agree that, lies or not, if someone is wrong time after time, their incompetence should be their downfall. But I truly believe that this type of war is new territory for us and no one could have been expected to know how things were going to transpire. If green men landed here tomorrow and started shooting us, I think you should say we shold shoot back. But after doing that we see that every time we shoot them and they die, ten more sprout up from their corpses, it would be clear that shooting them is the dumbest thing to do. Yet, whoever had ordered the shooting was neither evil not incompetent. He was simply using information gleaned from past similar experiences to determine action for current situation.
You are right, I should have said “it seems to me that although many of these posters…” And in reading the post over I wish I had used “Person A” instead of “Icarus”, but I think you understand that I was not calling you a liar.
You can send payment to Cheney/Rice 08.
UncleBeer,
I’m all for not discussing Clinton, I was merely responding to a commnent from The Highwayman.
And, yes, I think BobLibDem has identified to what I consider to be a Cheny lie.
Yes, I understood your intention, thank you.
So, if he’s not incompetent he’s just wrong. A lot.
What has he done to correct the mistakes that he has made? I mean, did he come out and say “the insurgency is NOT in it’s last throes, I was wrong.”
See that is the problem with this administration. It has made grievous errors in judgment even if you agree or not in them purposefully misleading the American people. When are they going to own up to it? When are they going to take responsibility for their mistakes?
Being able to admit that you were wrong is the mark of a true leader. However, these people make mistakes and keep plowing through. “Stay the course,” that same old tired song. This is very dangerous to this country. I believe that they are liars because they know exactly what they are doing. I believe that they went into Iraq thinking that it would be easier than they thought and that the general population would support a regime change.
Regardless of what you and I believe, the American people never tolerate incompetence for long. The bad part about waiting for this to happen is that the insurgency is growing in strength but our forces are not. We are simply waiting in Iraq till something catastrophic happens (an Iraqi Tet offensive perhaps). When it does, I pity our troops who are doing the duty that neither Bush nor Cheney could do when their time came. Let the blame fall squarely where it should.
[QUOTE=The Highwayman]
I believe that they are liars because they know exactly what they are doing. I believe that they went into Iraq thinking that it would be easier than they thought and that the general population would support a regime change.
I agree with much of what you say, and I think you raise a very interesting point. let’s say that they completely miscalculated how easy it woud be to quash the insurgency (I’m sure they expected some resistance) and the extent to which the people would support a regime change, what would you have them do now?
I think you would agree (as do most of the administration’s opponents in congress) that it is not an option to simply pull out right now? If you do, then do you accept that, as the leader of the nation and the armed forces in particular, Bush has to couch the fight in it’s most positive terms? I don’t think that gives him the right to fabricate falsehoods, but I think he has the obligation—once troops are in the field—to support them and the cause they are fighting for. The minute he stops doing that he should bring them home, which doesn’t seem to be the wisest option at this poin in time.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he is “spinning” things. Let’s say on a scale of 1-10 (ten being fantastic), that Bush believes in his heart of hearts that the how the war is going is a 6. What should he do. Admit that it’s a 6? Attempt to spin it down to a 5 or a 4? Or try to keep the moral of the country and the troops positive by putting the best face he can on it and shoot for a 7 or 8?
If it is a fact that we cannot pull out immediately, I think he is doing the right thing. I also think it is what every President has done. And rightly so.
I would agree with you that he shouldn’t admit bad information about a war. That is not in question here. If you know that this is not the case, then let your commanders spill the bad news. He tried to paint a rosy picture and the general in charge contradicted him right after. This accomplish what? Why say it? What was the point of it? It does not engender confidence in this war.
Look at the timetable. I’m sure he could call the general and get an accurate estimate of what is going on in Iraq. This either reflects his disconnection from reality, incompetence, or is a bold-faced lie engineered to appease his party loyal in contradiction to the facts.
I’ll agree it was dumb. But if it was a lie, as you say, that means he knew it to be false. If he knew it to be false, he knew what the truth was. So do you think that he is so stupid as to intentionally mislead about something that was so easy to get caught on? Say what you like about Cheney, but I think he is far from stupid. My guess is that a combination of positive spin and a lack of accurate information combined to have him form those unfortunate words. Which I guess you could call stupid.
maybe the problem is that Cheney surrounds himself by yes men.
He probably doesnt read the NY Times or the Wash Post. He gets his info from “insiders” who are feeding him info that makes him feel justified.
The same kind of the guys that spun the WMD stories at the CIA to him. Of crouse, he’s ultimately at fault. I’m sure he’s a bit of a tyrant and doesn’t want bad news.
So, you are admitting that he is incompetent? Or is it that the buck doesn’t stop with him? In either case he has a lot of explaining to do.