Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child  No, it does not. That only proves that Rice may not have been knowing what she was talking about. Happens all of the time. Being ignorant does not equate to being a liar. |
Right, and Bush just doesn't realize what waterboarding is whenever he says "we do not torture."
When you spout off as an authority on something, and you say very specific things about it like "only," knowing full well at the time you don't know what you're talking about, then that's not an honest mistake, it's a lie. Especially when you're an important figure in a country's leadership and you're talking about another country pursuing nuclear weapons!
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child How? Lying REQUIRES one to know that what they are passing off as the truth is false. Did Bush in fact KNOW that? Did he ACCEPT the NIE's findings? |
It doesn't matter whether or not he "accepted" the NIE's findings.
How do you interpret this?
Bush: Hussein might give WMDs to terrorists on any given day.
Would you say that it sounds very likely that Hussein might do that, or not very likely?
Now how about this?
NIE: The likelihood that Hussein would give WMDs to terrorists is low.
Would you say that it sounds very likely that Hussein might do that, or not very likely?
Most people would interpret the plain wording exactly the same. Bush mentioned that scenario in alarming absolutes, even while his experts were telling him that it was not very likely. That is a misrepresentation of the facts as he knew them at the time, and as such it is a lie. Especially if he didn't "accept" the NIE's findings and fabricated his own reality instead.