I think it should be obvious to U-K readers that Thomas Keyes has some strong opinions. I, for one, appreciate a person who stands by their beliefs and who has solid foundations for those beliefs. But I don’t appreciate someone who tries to convince others of his beliefs by presenting only the facts that support his case while omitting any that deny him. And I find it despicable when someone distorts the facts in his case in an attempt to manipulate others to agree with him. Thomas does both of these, most recently in his article denouncing Dr. Micks.

The issue being discussed is whether President Bush "lied" to Americans in order to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Perhaps I can help the U-K readers with a non-partisan examination of the controversy.

First, we should define the terminology used. I think everyone can agree that everyone lies. The wife looks good in that dress, your child is the smartest kid, etc. I think we can also agree that politicians lie more than the rest of us. The typical citizen does not have the understanding, or the desire, to comprehend all the complexities of political negotiation. And even if they think they know how American politics work, with the smoky backroom discussions and mutual back-scratching required to get legislation passed, there is another more complex layer involved with foreign policy. Attempting to explain these foreign policy negotiations in the context of a State of the Union Address to a largely apathetic audience would be a waste of time. SOTUs have been largely fluff that appeal to American emotions since George Washington’s first term.

My point is that the definition of "lie" in this discussion should eliminate standard emotional appeals common to all political speeches. Not that anyone is technically wrong to make such an accusation; just that such accusations are a meaningless waste of air, comparable to one accusing professional wrestling of fakery.

For a political lie to warrant outrage at the level raised by Democrats over this allegation (going on its fourth year), the lie should be material, intentionally manipulative, and importantly, the policy supported by it should have had a slim chance of success otherwise. If the President had proposed a law establishing Best Friend’s Day, ala Mother’s Day, and stated that "everyone loves their Best Friend" as justification, even though that statement is a lie (there are some that would not claim to "love" their Best Friend) and intended to manipulate, who cares? Such a law could very well pass without the distortion.

Second, when accusing one of lying, as with almost any other accusation, his/her motivation is relevant. As in criminal prosecutions, when the District Attorney feels pressured to establish a motive. Motive is absolutely not required to prove a party guilty, there are psycho- and socio-paths that lack a logical motive, but the DA knows that a jury will want to understand the motive before convicting in most cases. Time and again, juries have let guilty parties off only because they felt the motive was justified (spousal abuse, for example).

In a case, such as this allegation against Bush, where the evidence is not ironclad, it is very relevant to consider his possible motivation. Is there a conceivable motivation that logically explains why he would lie? If so, could that motivation itself justify lying, if in fact he did? At the same time, it is relevant to discuss the possible motivations of his accusers. What do they have to gain from making these accusations? Why are they continuing in the allegations so many years after the facts, and when no one is even suggesting that America reverse its actions taken, supposedly, on the basis of the alleged lie?

Finally, one should examine the facts, all the facts, not just one side’s, as Thomas does. One must also acknowledge the possibility, actually almost the certainty, that other facts exist beyond our knowledge because national security interests require our intelligence-gathering sources and tactics remain secret. And, it is the facts that should first be examined:

Thomas points to the President’s words in the 2003 SOTU speech. Those are fact, here is the entire passage, so we have the full context, including the words Thomas implies are lies:

One might note, that technically, there are no "lies" in these statements. And Thomas does not make that exact accusation. He states that his use of the word "lies" is based on:

In other words, Thomas thinks that because Bush later learned that some of the reasons he provided to support the war were false, he became a liar when he still invaded Iraq. Obviously, folks, this is patently absurd. One does not become a liar without lying, in either words or actions.

Bush’s words were not lies; the British had, indeed, learned of Saddam’s efforts to buy uranium. Thomas contends that they were wrong, but he does not contend that Bush knew this at the time of the SOTU speech. And Thomas distorts by only presenting that evidence which was proven wrong. He omits the evidence supporting the accusation, although I’ve documented some of it to him numerous times, and ignores the very plausible possibility of additional evidence, secret evidence, beyond our access even though Bush has alluded to the existence of such evidence.

Bush’s actions, in invading Iraq, could only prove him a liar if they contravene his words. In this case, that could only be true if Bush had declared that the ONLY reason we should invade Iraq was the British evidence. If he then invaded after the British evidence was denied, he was a liar.

That is not the case. Review his SOTU speech again. He cites a laundry list of reasons why we should invade Iraq. In fact, the British evidence seems almost an aside compared to the mountain of additional data he provides. How could Thomas have missed that? What about the IAEF’s conclusions, the same agency he believes in so strongly when they refute the British intelligence, that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program in the ‘90s – after the Gulf War treaty had outlawed such a program? That fact is stated in the very sentence (quoted above) proceeding the one Thomas cites.

The facts do not show Bush to have lied and Thomas distorts to make his case.

So, what about any possible motivation? Because we cannot be sure of knowing all the facts, can we surmise a logical motivation for lying that would lead to such a belief?

Democrats have suggested several motivations that imply Bush is an evil man. They say he merely wants to enrich his oil industry buddies, or Cheney’s friends at Haliburton. They imply that he is a meglomanical, blood thirsty war monger. At other times, opponents have claimed his mission is to annihilate Islam because he’s a fanatical Christian extremist.

Bush claims that his only motivation is to secure the safety of our country. Although no explicitly stated by Bush, another plausible motivation would be to secure our economy and the world’s.

Both sides could cite reasons for their beliefs, and of course, it is impossible to know what is in a man’s heart, but which of these motivations do you think an impartial jury would decide is true?

On the other hand, consider whether Democrats have a logical motivation to make this accusation for years now. Again, of all the Congressional Democrats, only John Murtha, to my knowledge, is proposing that we bail out of Iraq immediately. Their allegations are not intended to force a reversal of the decision to invade Iraq. The only other altruistic motivation I can imagine is that they want to expose lying as wrong. If you believe that, you might also believe that Hulk Hogan really does hate The Rock.

I think it is obvious that the Democrats are motivated by the prospect of political gain. They believe that convincing Americans that Bush is a liar will result in their party winning more elections. Thomas, on the other hand, is motivated by a hatred for Jews, whose plans of word conquest he images will be furthered by the Iraq war.

Don’t let the distorters spin your world. If you think America can be safe, with a secure economy for our future generations, without eliminating tyrannical madmen who control a signficant percentage of the world’s oil supply and are sword to eliminate us from Earth, fine. I don’t deny your right to your belief. But don’t distort the facts to try to convince me.

	Web useless-knowledge.com