# New McCain Doctrine: Preemptive lying **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 20, 2008, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405 "2008-09-20T05:06:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/21 "2008-09-20T06:01:30Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Care to help the class and define the term “to lie”? Look numb nuts, here is how it plays out: 1. Someone in McCain’s camp says > [@](#): > > we’ve heard that at his next event in New Mexico, Senator Obama is about to distort the facts and attack John McCain’s call for removing the Chairman of the SEC… 1. Obama says no such thing at his event in New Mexico. 2. “we’ve heard”… from WHO? They don’t say. Why? They did not “hear” from anyone. They made it up. They fabricated it. They concocted it from whole cloth. They put words in Obama’s mouth that he did not say. 3. Making something up is also known as “lying”. Clear now? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/22 "2008-09-20T06:04:38Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Look numb nuts, here is how it plays out: > > 1. Someone in McCain’s camp says > > 2. Obama says no such thing at his event in New Mexico. > > 3. “we’ve heard”… from WHO? They don’t say. Why? They did not “hear” from anyone. They made it up. They fabricated it. They concocted it from whole cloth. They put words in Obama’s mouth that he did not say. > > 4. Making something up is also known as “lying”. > > Clear now? You are basing your belief that McCain did not hear that Obama would say that on your bare assertion to that effect? Why is it so important to you people (i.e., Straight Dope liberals) that you say a politician you don’t like “lied”? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/23 "2008-09-20T06:05:58Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Look, McCain didn’t lie. What proof do you have that this is true? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/24 "2008-09-20T06:05:58Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Care to help the class and define the term “to lie”? Let me start… JM _“I have never asked for a single earmark, pork barrel project for my state of Arizona.”_ Fact [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry\_id=30483](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=30483) So, that was a lie wasn’t it? Or did you mean just a Friday, 9/19/2008 lie? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/25 "2008-09-20T06:08:16Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You’re just saying the same thing in different words. You still have to show that McCain did indeed “make an accusation he did not know to be true.” If he knew it to be true, then why wasn’t it true? It’s impossible for him to have known it to be true because it _wasn’t_ true. > [@](#): > > Look, McCain didn’t lie. But what he did do was pretty weird (i.e., responding to something that Obama hadn’t even said yet). Why not just get mad at that? Why do you have to say it’s a “lie”? I get the distinction you’re trying to draw (between making an accusation you don’t know to be true and telling a lie), but I don’t think its enough of a distinction to be worth quibbling about. If you’d prefer, we can just say McCain preemptively attacked a statement that Obama never ended up making. If that distinction actually gives you solace, more power to you. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/26 "2008-09-20T06:08:47Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > What proof do you have that this is true? Huh? The null hypothesis is that X didn’t happen. We have yet to see proof that X did happen, so the null hypothesis is carrying the day so far. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/27 "2008-09-20T06:12:03Z")
Where are the staunch McCain supporters on the SDMB? Have they taken a cue from the candidate and taken a nap? Are they no longer enthusiastic about McCain/Palin? I know a bunch of local wingies who are still at least against Obama. But the past few days have been as bad for McCain as they have for the market. Alas, if only the polls would reflect this. Obama is just barely hanging on. Yet the old man loses more marbles by the day. Only three good debates for Obama and disasterous ones for McCain will pull it out now. Oh, and maybe Palin looking like an idiot in the VP debate. But what are the odds of four lopsided victories in the traditionally boring debates? Hell, even George W. Bush did passably against Kerry. How many times can McCain mention 5 years in a POW camp? How many times did Stockdale? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/28 "2008-09-20T06:14:39Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Huh? The null hypothesis is that X didn’t happen. We have yet to see proof that X did happen, so the null hypothesis is carrying the day so far. No, the null hypothesis is that Obama did not have any plans to do what McCain accused him of. McCain made the accusation. You can’t say that the accusation itself is the null hypothesis, especially when the accusation can be definitive proven not to be true. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/29 "2008-09-20T06:15:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If he knew it to be true, then why wasn’t it true? It’s impossible for him to have known it to be true because it _wasn’t_ true. Because it is perfectly plausible that McCain heard Obama would say that from someone who actually didn’t know jack shit about what Obama was planning to say. > [@](#): > > I get the distinction you’re trying to draw (between making an accusation you don’t know to be true and telling a lie), but I don’t think its enough of a distinction to be worth quibbling about. If you’d prefer, we can just say McCain preemptively attacked a statement that Obama never ended up making. If that distinction actually gives you solace, more power to you. Well, yes, I would prefer. It’s frustrating how the word “lie” gets bandied about around here. I’m going to hold you to it. Just say “McCain is a poopyhead” if that’s all you can prove. Geez. And yes, the next time I’m around when someone says Obama lied about something with the same level of proof you have, I’m going to do this same routine again. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/30 "2008-09-20T06:16:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, the null hypothesis is that Obama did not have any plans to do what McCain accused him of. McCain made the accusation. You can’t say that the accusation itself is the null hypothesis, especially when the accusation can be definitive proven not to be true. I was focusing on your accusation. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/31 "2008-09-20T06:16:42Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Huh? The null hypothesis is that X didn’t happen. We have yet to see proof that X did happen, so the null hypothesis is carrying the day so far. Right, so you agree that there is no proof that Obama was going to say what McCain said he was going to say. That was not so hard was it? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/32 "2008-09-20T06:20:36Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Right, so you agree that there is no proof that Obama was going to say what McCain said he was going to say. That was not so hard was it? Huh? No. X=McCain lied. DtC said “X!” The verdict is “McCain did not lie” until DtC proves he did. I think he gets my point, so I’ll go to bed and let you lesser liberal dopers catch up on your own time. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/33 "2008-09-20T06:21:29Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > How many times did Stockdale? As I recall, not nearly as many as Johnny Mac, though he was the whole Hero of the POWs, not Johnny. And deserved it, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/34 "2008-09-20T06:21:31Z")
So I guess we can just stick “I heard that” in front of any statement we make, and it automatically protects us against charges of lying, eh? I’ve heard that you are a necrophiliac serial adulterer who is plotting to put poison in the Great Lakes. No lie that. I heard it. Somewhere. And you can’t prove that I didn’t. So I didn’t lie. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/35 "2008-09-20T06:21:56Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I was focusing on your accusation. My “accusation” is an observation of bare facts. McCain claimed to know something that he did not know. Now he may have _believed_ it to be true, but believing is not the same thing as knowing, and claiming to have certain knowledge of something that you don’t actually have certain knowledge of is close enough to a lie, in my book, as to make no moral difference. This sounds like the debate over whether Bush “lied” about WMD all over again. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/36 "2008-09-20T06:23:55Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > So I guess we can just stick “I heard that” in front of any statement we make, and it automatically protects us against charges of lying, eh? > > I’ve heard that you are a necrophiliac serial adulterer who is plotting to put poison in the Great Lakes. > > No lie that. I heard it. Somewhere. And you can’t prove that I didn’t. So I didn’t lie. Agreed on all points. Note that your proposd course of action does not protect one from charges of aggravated fuckwittery, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/37 "2008-09-20T06:25:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > My “accusation” is an observation of bare facts. McCain claimed to know something that he did not know. Now he may have _believed_ it to be true, but believing is not the same thing as knowing, and claiming to have certain knowledge of something that you don’t actually have certain knowledge of is close enough to a lie, in my book, as to make no moral difference. > > This sounds like the debate over whether Bush “lied” about WMD all over again. You’ve regressed . . . And yes, it is that debate over again, because we’re still waiting for the “Bush lied, people died” idiots to pony up the goods. I guess saying “Bush caused America to engage in acts of aggression for reasons I do not support, and people died” doesn’t fit on a sign, but it’s factually accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/38 "2008-09-20T06:26:40Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You’ve regressed . . . And yes, it is that debate over again, because we’re still waiting for the “Bush lied, people died” idiots to pony up the goods. I guess saying “Bush caused America to engage in acts of aggression for reasons I do not support, and people died” doesn’t fit on a sign, but it’s factually accurate. Well, that and the fact that he lied his ass off. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/39 "2008-09-20T06:29:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Well, that and the fact that he lied his ass off. Why does it feel better to you to say that a politician lied? Why not just say he’s a dickweed? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/40 "2008-09-20T06:35:53Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I guess saying “Bush caused America to engage in acts of aggression for reasons I do not support, and people died” doesn’t fit on a sign, but it’s factually accurate. Yep, though you should expand “Bush caused America to engage in acts of aggression for reasons I do not support,” into “Bush caused America to engage in acts of aggression for reasons I do not support and had no basis in reality.” But reality doesn’t always fit into soundbites, so I can understand your objections. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405.md?page=3)