Precisely–thanks!
The argument happens in that thread primarily from posts 158-171. A summary:
-A lie consists of the statement of a falsehood with an intent to deceive.
-Bush stated that “according to a 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iraq was within six months of developing nuclear weapons. A spokesperson for the IEAE denied that any such report existed. When asked for clarification, a White House spokesperson said that the report was from 1991, not 1998. Again, the IEAE denied that it had issued such a report.” We’ve got our statement of a falsehood.
-The president was offering this misstatement as part of a campaign to convince the public that the evidence was unambiguous that Iraq was developing WMDs. In reality, many experts within the Executive branch doubted the evidence:
We’ve got our intent to deceive.
A falsehood uttered with an intent to deceive is a lie. As Bricker stated in this thread, “The only saving grace here will be if there WAS a report after all. Absent that,” he concluded, “I concede this was a lie.”
For my part, this is far too much niggling. The attempt to deceive is the morally relevant portion of a lie; even if someone manages to deceive through speaking only the truth, they’re as bad as someone who lies. But some folks grant more ethical leeway to politicians and other advocates than I do; even they should admit that Bush lied about the evidence leading up to war.
Daniel