Liar

I'm getting awfully tired of this word, used in so many ways...and often times used wrong.

It is becoming almost commonplace--if you say something I believe is wrong, it's a lie. It happens in law; it happens in life; it happens in business.

Yes, you probably can see where this is going.

I was frustrated by a post at that quaint, misguided, late-to-the-game "Huffington Post" clearinghouse. Want to see a bunch of Hollywood rejects, bad actors, unknown "authors", policy wonks who are not known at all but somehow are better known than these "authors," and sons of former presidential candidates tout (a) their pet projects, and/or (b) their Hollywood liberal credentials? Go to the HuffPuff and prepare to be bored.

Now, I mention this because comments currently on the HuffPuff by "Darren" titled starts off with the well-tired meme "Bush the Liar".

Excuse me while I consult my directory of government officials and the phone directory...

[Musak, featuring the dulcet tones of "Cat Scratch Fever" performed by Raffi drones in the background]

Yep. Checked it...there is no "Bush the Liar".

So, Darren, check your nomenclature next time.

One of these lesser known "authors" is Robert Schlesinger, who wrote a piece on the new strategy in the White House to "reformulate" the debate about the war. The piece also used a tired leftist meme, Bushit. Therein he asks,"Is anyone surprised at how full of shit [Bush] is?" Essentially, calling Bush a liar. Way to raise the level of discourse there, Bob. But that's the way to the Golden Cookie at Arianna's pad. (Is that indecent?)

But, pace, let me calm the humor for a moment--this is important.

Do these people know what a serious charge lying is?

Allow me to be philosophically legal for a moment. To lie, you have to enter whatever statement you're going to make with the knowledge that it's untrue and the intent or reckless disregard to carry on with that untruth with the intent of making it your position and the position publicly represented to others.

Lying is a serious moral issue, and in some matters it is criminal (see, e.g., crimes of perjury and false statements). It is not a charge to be thrown out willy-nilly to score easy rallying points.

It is possible that the Bush administration selected choice pieces of intelligence, military strength reports, and political rap sheets that supported its cause to launch a war against Iraq. All of that is not lying--every single piece of the puzzle was true, and continues to be true.

The law has a very important truism--it is not up to the plaintiff/proponent to eliminate all other causes to make his case. He must only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that one event proximately caused the injury. The same truism exists in life, and most certainly in politics.

Lst I checked, one side in an argument does not need to make the other side's argument for him. In our democratic society, we are free to engage in open discourse and free to associate and form factions for our collective beliefs. Our establishment political institutions and our voters have implicitly recognized a two-party system. In most circumstances where there is important debate, we will modulate toward the party that supports and speaks our ideas.

There was nothing stopping the anti-war crowd, or partisans in the media (in fact, nothing did stop them), or opponents in Congress from making the argument opposing the war in Iraq. As Bush mentions, the Congress had access to the same intelligence he had and could make arguments based off the same information.

The late "realization" by some that we were "lied to" and "misled" into Iraq is phony-baloney posturing of the worst kind. But the worst part is that these people actually believe that, deep in their hearts, that George W. Bush is a liar. They truly believe that he possesses a soul so deprived of moral value that he would intentionally state an untruth and make that his position. These people truly believe that George W. Bush would sacrifice his own personal moral health, his own convictions with God, his own interactions with others.

And what do they base these revelations on?

Reading the same documents Bush did.

I think it speaks volumes that two interpretations of intelligence and reports existed, and the other side never made a peep until now.

I supported the war then, I support it now. In fact, we're not doing ENOUGH over there.

I see the evidence they're using differently. Yet, I'm not proffering that the other side lied. But they sure didn't make their moral objections when they had the chance.

So, please--let's take this word "lie" and put it back on the shelf to use when people commit serious moral infringements that are objectively wrong; not to use it when one side in an argument interprets stuff differently.

I return you to your Musak.