Nadine, if his mechanic just told him the car "doesn't burn oil" and he has no information that it does, then he's mistaken, not lying.
And if he's the president of the U.S. and he says the head of the CIA told him there was a "slam dunk" case for Saddam's wmd, then he ought to ask what kind of wmd, what kind of slam dunk case and what kind of risk to the U.S. for such wmds.
After asking, and if he still believes the "slamma dunkiness" of the CIA, he ought to state it accurately and not talk about "mushroom clouds," and not tolerate his VP saying that "we know that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program" and not piggyback onto the British "have reported that Saddam is trying to secure yellowcake from Africa;" all statements that he KNEW were at best questionable and, at worst, deliberate untruths.
So yes, the question of the lies is twofold, first, did he know the statements were untrue and, if not, secondly did he know that he didn't know whether the statements were true or untrue.
The facts recently revealed indicate that it's probable that he failed the first test with some of his statements and that it's even more likely that he failed the second veracity test. |
