Some solid indication is that he knew A before he said B.
I have problem with saying that Bush--or any of his "gang""--"knew" anything at all. They "knew" "without a doubt" that there were WMDs. Or that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked. Repeatedly they said this in all sorts of forums, from talk shows on radio and TV to speeches in front troops and fellow travelers and to the UN. What did they mean by "know" in those cases? Since it all turned out to be false, does the word have any meaning at all? Or was it simply a lie?
I think you're getting to a "what the meaning of is is" moment here. In a court of law, that matters in some contexts. On a thread such as this one, I don't think so. If I have time later on, perhaps I'll go through the timeline again, and point out specifics. But if they can use the word "know" without actually knowing anything and only suspecting (at best), I don't feel uncomfortable using the word "lie" to describe their words and actions. Just to use one elementary example that doesn't take too much time, which I don't really have right now.
My only point here is that, if you can't demonstrate it conclusively, it's disreputable to call him a liar, at it's disrespectful and provocative to do it in this forum.
As to what purpose does it serve to use the word--I think it is accurate. It would be disrepectful, IMHO, to the truth and to their modus operandi not to use the word that describes what they did and how they acted. Their "master of the universe" persona, their "We create reality and the rest of you react to it" attitude calls for strong words in reaction. It is provocative to those of us who are and have always been angry, embarrassed, amazed, shocked at the actions, attitudes and words of this administration to use any other word.
All JMHO of course. |
