« More Duke lacrosse inconsistencies | Main | Duke lacrosse: More timeline issues »

March 30, 2006


You are quite right that Bush rarely tells a straightforward lie. That seems to be Cheney's specialty. Bush let the cat out of the bag at his press conference last week however, when he said, "I was VERY CAREFUL NOT TO SAY" that Saddam had been directly involved in 911. That's correct. His cultivatedly clumsy delivery disguises tha the fact that his words are selected extremely carefully. His statements are crafted, not only to deceive, but to leave him with what Nixon called "plausible deniability."
With his constant use of the "non-lie," Bush has made Clinton and his parsing of "is," look like a paragon of candor. That's not a slam dunk.

Clinton called it "plausible deniability" as well. In fact, he used the term to explain to Lewinsky why there couldn't be full-fledged sex. Of course, his version never killed anyone.

B/c Bush is so stupid, it is about as possible as one out of 100 monkeys can type all of Shakespeare's works that Bush intentionally gives half-truths every single the time.

I think was is going on is that everyone speaks half-truths; it's just that more people hear the President than Joe Schmo in Indiana. Even an honest person will slip up unintentionally.

Furthermore, b/c noone is omnipotent we can only comment on what we perceive (or what others perceive for us) and perception is not error-proof.

Also, there are spin doctors on boths sides that can find an inconsistency in any statement. That's not all that hard. It's what lawyers do all day.

If we take the word of Iraqi generals alone, it is very reasonable that many people/heads of state believed Saddam had WMDs.

As far as everything else Bush has said, I have to take Nyhan's spin of it.

The comments to this entry are closed.