Of Course
The shills at MoveOn respond to the Libby indictment with their customary accuracy and restraint.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, announced that Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to a grand jury, lied to FBI agents and obstructed an investigation into the White House cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq. Libby has now resigned.
Whatever "lies" are being investigated or prosecuted, they are those that took place in the wake of the investigation of a non-event (at least, apparently, from a legal perspective) -- that is, the alleged "outing" of Valerie Plame. So far, there is no evidence whatsoever that the war in Iraq was the result of "lies" of any kind.
For the distinction between mistaken intelligence and lies, here is how I described it here:
But the left has been working overtime to accuse people of "lying" -- completely ignoring the fact that a lie requires (here's that word again) an intent to deceive. When Clinton said, "I did not have sex with that woman," he lied. He knew he had been getting blow jobs in the Oval Office. When Bush told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he may have been mistaken (as, then, Clinton and other Democrats were, who said the same thing) -- but so far, there's no evidence that he knew there were, in fact, no weapons and deliberately chose to say something different.
It's an important distinction. If you know Bush is President, but you tell everyone that the President is Reagan, you're lying. If you go into a coma in 1984, and you awaken tomorrow -- and then, upon being asked, you tell someone that Ronald Reagan is President -- you're mistaken. Not a liar.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, announced that Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to a grand jury, lied to FBI agents and obstructed an investigation into the White House cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq. Libby has now resigned.
Whatever "lies" are being investigated or prosecuted, they are those that took place in the wake of the investigation of a non-event (at least, apparently, from a legal perspective) -- that is, the alleged "outing" of Valerie Plame. So far, there is no evidence whatsoever that the war in Iraq was the result of "lies" of any kind.
For the distinction between mistaken intelligence and lies, here is how I described it here:
But the left has been working overtime to accuse people of "lying" -- completely ignoring the fact that a lie requires (here's that word again) an intent to deceive. When Clinton said, "I did not have sex with that woman," he lied. He knew he had been getting blow jobs in the Oval Office. When Bush told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he may have been mistaken (as, then, Clinton and other Democrats were, who said the same thing) -- but so far, there's no evidence that he knew there were, in fact, no weapons and deliberately chose to say something different.
It's an important distinction. If you know Bush is President, but you tell everyone that the President is Reagan, you're lying. If you go into a coma in 1984, and you awaken tomorrow -- and then, upon being asked, you tell someone that Ronald Reagan is President -- you're mistaken. Not a liar.
posted by LadybugUSA at 2:33 PM
3 Comments:
Carol, as I understand, it comes down to intent. Which is basically what I'm hearing from you.
I am most curious about Lewis Libby's e-mails. And I would encourage you to "wait and see" with Libby as you encouraged us till recently with Miers.
Libby knew he was going before the grand jury. I refuse to believe that the topic was never the subject of an e-mail between himself and others.
If Libby's e-mails reveal an intent that does not illustrate a mere mistake, that's a big, big problem.
Thanks for defining what a lie is. Why should that be so hard for even marginally intelligent people to understand? Did I not just answer my own question? Yas, I'm afraid I did.
It is absolutely incredible that we have to be so intentional about actually defining a lie, because the press, political hacks, and rabid left wing blogs are so insistent on trying to call things lies that aren't even related to lies. It's the intent, stupid! When everyone in the world knows a guy like Saddam has weapons hidden in warehouses all over the country, bodies hidden in graves all over the country, money hidden in bank accounts all over the world, and has actually used WMDs, why in the world is it a stretch to believe that we suspected he still had them? The only real mystery is not that he had them, it's "where are they now?"
Post a Comment
<< Home