But that’s the problem. Usually people tell lies by rationalizing it as doing so for a good cause, or good reason.
I wouldn’t make a big deal about this compared to the lying, misinformation, scare mongering that the Bush administration did in the follow up to the Iraq invasion. But again, I’m sure they justified the exaggerations of the then-current threat of Saddam in light of what he had done in the past: genocide, invading a foreign country, and using chemical weapons. Christopher Hitchens, who I admire as an intellectual, seemed to think the ends justified the means in certain cases, just like when he brings up the Thomas Jefferson and how he dealt with the Barbary Coast pirates. Hitchens would bring up what would happen when the UN sanctions were lifted from Saddam’s Iraq, and when justifying the invasion he stressed what Saddam had done in the past, and what he *could *do in the future.
Seems that way.
If they could trust him to be more direct with his or his party’s goals they still would have a hard time working with him. Then again, the very same could be said of them. Didn’t the Bush administration claim that they would only go to war with Iraq if all other options were exhausted?
Some already said he was personally against it but Biden, in the 2008 debate, also spoke for him by saying "Barack Obama, nor I, support gay marriage.
I have to question that. Most of the appeal of Obama was that he was against the Iraq War (despite being in a position to make any difference about it). People were upset about Iraq at the time, and Hilary was viewed as one more Democrat who acquiesced to Republican demands due to political self-preservation. Obama appeared to really represent change while Hilary looked like more of the same.
I’ll have to check Biden’s voting record and quotes on the issue prior to his 2008 answer. I would think Biden supported gay marriage and also lied about it, so as not to give Republican’s any ammunition to use during the presidential election campaign.
I voted against prop 8, but I don’t recall Obama or Biden’s opinion on gay marriage. I do remember being disappointed with Obama for voting to grant immunity to the telecom companies for spying on Americans. At first I thought it was because he didn’t want to be painted as weak on terrorism, since the Bush administration argued that the spying would help prevent further terrorist attacks. Now I think he would have granted immunity regardless because of the money involved and the influence of those corporations.
Hmmm…yeah, that doesn’t look good. I’d still like to see what he was saying privately but I’d say you’re closer to the truth than I am.
I unequivocally disagree with this. The problem is that everybody thinks that their cause is good. Every Republican you hate thinks his/her cause is good. It would be much better over all if nobody lied. If one is going to excuse Obama’s lying (if we assume that he is lying on this topic) then keep quiet when the Republicans do it. Otherwise one looks like a worthless hypocrite.
One person lies because he doesn’t want to get his campaign scuttled over the idea that gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else.
One person lies to start a war that kills over 100,000 people and costs the American Taxpayer™ a Trillion dollars.
We have to keep our mouths shut about person #2 because all lies are equivalent? I suppose that’s sensible, we can’t be expected to cut such a fine line between right and wrong.
The Bush Administration probably think that it was worth the cost to prevent Saddam’s Iraq from getting nuclear weapon’s capabilities. Did the Bush Administration initially estimate that 100,000 would be killed in the invasion and that it would cost a trillion dollars?
I doubt the Bush administration lied with the goal of spending 1trillion dollars and having a 100,000 people killed.
They probably lied because in their mind they wanted to remove a brutal dictator who had committed genocide, invaded two neighboring countries, and used chemical weapons. By playing up the threat of WMDs, and implying a connection between Saddam and 9/11 they though that was the best way to remove Saddam and his regime. I don’t know if they genuinely thought the US would be welcomed as liberators but considering Cheney’s contradictory comments during the first Gulf War, it’s unlikely. But I think it’s incorrect to say that the Bush Administration lied in simply to start a war. They lied to take out Saddam’s regime.
They were in a huge damn rush to get it underway before the UN inspectors could officially confirm there were no WMD’s. The sites they claimed were suspected locations were then simply bypassed in the invasion while the forces went straight to the Oil Ministry. Where was the truth in that?
Hundreds of thousands of deaths and a trillion dollars … anybody who supported that, and can rationalize the lies they swallowed to get it, probably needs to just shut the fuck up about how Obamacare was passed, okay?
There is nothing inherently immoral or unethical about a lie itself. It’s the intent or purpose of a lie that makes it immoral or unethical. In the end, it’s actions that really matter and it’s the actions a lie is trying to provoke that it should be judged by.
True statements can be immoral or unethical as well.
It can. It can also lead to substantial achievements that only become generally appreciated once the lies told against them have been proven false by the personal experience of those affected.
Yes, and the key here is that we have to trust Axelrod in gauging Obama’s “true” sentiments at the time. Obama is still denying that he was secretly in favor of SSM, but I think the whole “evolving” thing doesn’t really pass the smell test. How is it that you know your views are “evolving” until after they are already “evolved”.
Since the matter is of little import, we probably are best letting the polite fiction stand, and say that we just don’t know for sure.
Supposedly they went to the UN to disarm Saddam, but I don’t think they had any intention of leaving him in power.
However, if the goal is to remove him and his regime, how else would they do that non-militarily?
Because the public is hesitant to go to war unless they feel they are immediately and directly threatened. Look at the build up to the United States entry into WWII. There was no support to go to war with Germany, despite the evidence of Hitler being a dangerous criminal. It wasn’t until we were attacked by Japan that the public finally supported going to war.
If giving equal rights to gay Americans is the moral thing to do, why not say that? What if public opinion was still against gay marriage? Does that mean that Obama should deny equal rights to gays?
That said, I’m not justifying the invasion of Iraq. I didn’t support it at the time, and I voted against members of congress who supported the Iraq War Resolution.