For me, it’s not that Bush claimed Saddam had WMD that constituted a lie: it’s his specific statements about a specific UN report that constituted a lie. And I’ve never seen evidence that any Democrat made a similar statement about having seen a nonexistent UN report, or anything analogous.
I’m willing to attribute the Democrats’ mistakenness to incompetence, same as I attribute most Republican’s. Bush, however, was lying about the UN report.
Daniel
jshore: I wouldn’t find much to disagree with in your post #78. But that doesn’t change the fact that many Democrats thought there were WMDs, and many of them continue, to this very day, to say they don’t regret their votes. I’m not trying to exonerate Bush here. It’s his war. He’s responisble. He sold this war to Congress. But they bought it (or most of them did), and they didn’t have to.
Voyager: Since I began this thread to gather information (and some posts have been truly helpful; thank you), could you point me to the place where Bush uses the phrase, “imminent threat”? I thought he said, “growing threat” but you may be right.
But,John, this isn’t so hard to understand. The idea was that by authorizing this use of force, one was providing Saddam with the necessary incentive to allow the inspectors in and allow them free access to suspected sites. And, guess what, it worked! (Although maybe a resolution that didn’t have Congress give up all this authority would have too…We just don’t know!)
The only problem was that Congress misjudged who the more dangerous person was. The CongressCritters who voted for the resolution presumably thought Saddam Hussein was potentially more dangerous. As it turned out (and was apparent to some of us and, yes, also Russ Feingold at the time), George W. Bush was the more dangerous threat to our security.
I agree with you that Congress should never have ceded this authority to Bush…but I don’t think they necessarily shouldn’t have as a matter of principle but rather because it was stupid to trust him with such authority. (It is an interesting and debatable question whether Congress should ever cede this authority…But, one could at least make reasonable justifications for this to be the case.)
[Looking at your latest post in preview, I realize that we are probably down to a difference in emphasis. We don’t seem to really disagree on the facts…It is just that I am emphasizing my anger at the perpetrator of the fraud and you are emphasizing yours towards the people who allowed themselves to be swindled.
Sevastopol: would you please point me to the evidence that Bush did not act in good faith. I have read many opinions in that light, but nothing that would persuade a neutral person. I read, for example, Woodwards book “Plan of Attack”, certainly no whitewash and not terribly sympathetic to Bush. The book does not prove, though, that Bush knew one thing for certain, but told something else.
And what is your evidence that I am following a cue from “Republican Central”? I must say I fight that rather inappropriate and uncalled for.
Which report specifically did Bush lie about?
Have you checked out this post and the links it contains? I believe they set forth a very strong case that Bush was lying about a particular UN Document; this, coupled with other distortions of the record by his administration (e.g., his claims about aluminum tubes, the yellowcake debacle, misrepresenting the UN’s more recent findings) suggest a consistent pattern of deception by the administration. This thread is a great read, start to finish, on the subject.
Daniel
Bush is an idiot. Feel better? 
I guess I’m just able to criticize Democrats without feeling like I’m endorsing Republicans by doing so. This thread is about Democrats, that’s all. I’m a big believer in original intent. If this thread were about Republicans, I’d be happy to trash them.
Simulpost! I really encourage you to read those links if you’re curious on this subject, because the argument went back and forth for awhile, covering the subject in fair detail, and I don’t feel like rehashing all those old points. The central contention is this:
For more details on this, check out the linked threads, which show the President’s transcripts and other relevant documents.
Daniel
Left Hand of Dorkness, by any chance did you check out my Factcheck link earlier? They also have an article discussing the dread yellowcake. Just for balance I recommend also checking that out.
I’d say he’s a ‘fool’ more than an ‘idiot’, but I essentially agree with you. 
-XT
Yes, the Bush defenders have made much of this word parsing in saying that Bush never in fact used the phrase “imminent threat”. But, that is what he communicated to the point where this article in the Los Angeles Times characterized him as having said that (in the title of their article on his State of the Union address in January 2003). Given that the L.A. Times serves a large population, you would think that the Bush Administration would have been quick at the time to correct this if they saw it as a severe mis-characterization of what Bush had in fact said. So, I guess all you have to do is go to whitehouse.gov and dig up where the Administration set the record straight, right?
And, just in case you think that the L.A. Times is too much of a liberal source, here is a piece on the speech in RadioFreeEurope / RadioLiberty that chose the headline “Iraq: Bush Tells Americans Saddam Is An Imminent Threat”.
Here is another rundown of all the ways in which the Bush Administration characterized the threat.
I didn’t read your link earlier; my apologies. I just read it, and while they’re right on some counts, I’ll ding them on others. Specifically:
If I say, “I’ve found a bullet and a bullet-mold,” and really I’ve only found a bullet-mold (well, really I’ve only found a piece of moldy styrofoam, but I believe it’s a bullet-mold), then I’ve lied. The fact that I lied only about the bullet doesn’t mean I didn’t lie. Bush said,
Clearly he’s saying we found both. Factcheck is wrong to excuse this by saying the President falsely believed we’d found only the labs.
Excusing this by saying that he may have been mistaken is inappropriate. He said, “We know,” not “We think we know.” If he didn’t know, then he shouldn’t have said that.
Obviously, we can never know anything with perfect certainty; I don’t want to get into that philosophical debate. By this point, however, the Administration had already been wrong on several counts, I believe (e.g., the UN report); for them to pretend certainty on this aspect of their intelligence shows either temporary insanity or, more likely, a false reporting of certainty.
The rest of the article seems fine to me.
Daniel
Ah yes…and now we have a shining example of why the doctrine of “original intent” is so problematic. 
I see statements like this in the OP:
This causes me to interpret the OP’s original intent quite differently. Sure, he phrased the title in terms of what Democrats said. However, his larger purpose was clearly to provide cover for the idea that the Administration did not lie or even purposely mislead. And, this is why I (and presumably others) have taken the discussion in the direction that we have. In my view, this is more in keeping with the larger original intent expressed by the OP even if it is not in line with his narrow request!
I was just curious. Did you happen to look over their thoughts on the whole Yellow Cake thing? Its in a separate article in the archive.
-XT
Daniel: I apologize if my description of a lie, from a moral perspective was garbled. You rephrased it well.
The last part of the three part criterion for lying is to place certain kinds of lying well within the realm of moral wrongs. Generally speaking (see Kant on this), no moral wrong is committed unless harm is intended. If I say that your tie looks good, and I know it to untrue, but I intend you no harm, then while I might have uttered an untruth, it not does count as a moral wrong.
If you are person is fashion challenged (as I am), and you are going to a dressy party, and are wearing a comical tie, and as me, and I tell you it is fine, knowing that your humiliation is likely, then that is a moral wrong, and morally speaking, a lie.
In normal conversation, most folks don’t pay much attention to the distinctions between making mistakes, relating inaccurate information, telling innocuous untruths, and lying. Those subjected to training in moral philosophy, as I was, tend to use perhaps unnecessary precision with these words.
As one trained in moral philosophy, I am trying to understand with greater precision the moral wrongs of which Bush is being accused.
What I have gleaned from this board is that many hold that he knew one state of affairs to be true, but related a different state of affairs to be true (uttered untruths). These untruths causes others (Congress) to give him license to lead our country to war, which brought great harm to others.
It appears to me that the motivations ascribed to him for such lying run the gamut from utterly base (oil) to perhaps noble (export democracy).
In my attempt to analyze Bush’s behavior morally, I, like many here, must ask whether he was mistaken, and perhaps tailored what he knew to make it more compelling, or actual lied, e.g., fabricated a putative state of affairs.
Getting to his motivations would be another thread, hopefully populated with more light than heat.
First, xtisme, I’ve not read the yellowcake article yet. I’ll try to get to it later in the week.
See, I agree with this (and not because of any special training in philosophy, but because I thought lots about this stuff in the sixth grade). However, note this subtle difference. You agreed that I rephrased your argument well, with the third step, “With the intention of bringing harm to the person to whom the lie is told.” Now, however you’re saying that it’s a moral wrong if “harm is intended.” The audience, in your revision, is not part of the picture.
I think nobody would dispute that Bush intended to cause harm to people in the commission of the Gulf war. That may not have been his primary motive, but he didn’t intend to prosecute the war with cupcakes and daisies. He intended to bomb people, burn people, shoot people–what was the phrase? “Shock and awe” people by blowing them all to shit. The intention of causing harm is firmly established.
So the remaining questions are whether he said falsehoods, and whether he said them with the intent of deceiving people. The posts and threads I linked you to make the case that, with the UN Document, he said a falsehood with the intent of deceiving people. The factcheck article, in disputing six lies, leaves two of them still looking an awful lot like lies; and one of them is straight from W’s mouth.
Daniel
[QUOTE=jshore]
Ah yes…and now we have a shining example of why the doctrine of “original intent” is so problematic.
I see statements like this in the OP:
This causes me to interpret the OP’s original intent quite differently. Sure, he phrased the title in terms of what Democrats said. However, his larger purpose was clearly to provide cover for the idea that the Administration did not lie or even purposely mislead. And, this is why I (and presumably others) have taken the discussion in the direction that we have. In my view, this is more in keeping with the larger original intent expressed by the OP even if it is not in line with his narrow request![/QUOTE
JShore: As you will see in my opening thread, I predicted that my request for information would invite a polemic. I have no desire to polemicize here, though I certainly cannot prevent others.
The media are full of claims that Bush lied. I find that I must refer to sources, such as this board, beyond the mainstream media to find a contrary viewpoint, buttressed by evidence.
Allow me to be clear. I am involved in a debate with others (not on this board), who claim that Bush is lying. Lying, as a moral wrong, has a rather precise definition. In my trying to analyze whether Bush lied, or was simply incompetent, it is important to know what others thought to be the truth at the time.
My hypothesis is that Bush was incompetent, but did not lie. I believe he tailored the evidence, but did not fabricate it. I am willling to be argued out of this position by dispassionate evidence.
If members of Congress also “knew” what he “knew”, then this is prima facie evidence that he did not lie, but rather was mistaken. Prima facie, but not compelling, because as has been stated on this thread, Bush could either have shaped what Congress knew, or he knew things that they didn’t. The latter two would have to be proved.
The hated of Bush is palpable here. It is thicket that must be navigatied to enjoy the considerable erudition that now and again appears amongst the inflamed rhetoric.
Daniel: as usual, a face to face or voice to voice discussion would prevent the minor misunderstandings you raise.
To give an example: FDR wanted us in the war in Europe to save Britain. His lend lease program was essentially a deception. FDR did not “lie” to benefit himself personally or harm the American people (though some Germans and Italians were discomfited by the newly obtained armaments of the British).
I discussed lying as it usually discussed in the interpersonal realm, and then applied it to the political realm, without the necessary intermediate steps.
I shall look at the links you provided me with great interest. Thank you.
The part I underlined is what I believe is called a “quibble.” Or it is a distinction without a difference. You think that GW selectively cited only part of the evidence, or claimed a certainty that didn’t exist, for the purpose of convincing someone to agree to his favored course of action. How is that different from fabricating evidence for the same purpose?
Shodan, if you want to launch a diatribe against your political opponents, then open said diatriabe up in the Pit, don’t deliberately answer a question with a false response in order to set up a strawman effigy that you can burn in the middle of the thread.
The rest of you: control your knees when someone so blatantly taps them. If someone posts completely off-topic, then just ignore it or report it. Otherwise, you are simply feeding each others’ ill will and no serious discussion is possible.
Yeeesh! I step out of the Forum for one day and when I come back I feel like I have to put on my recess monitor uniform and go break up the fights among the little kids.