Can Bush Be Both Ignorant and a Liar?
Yes. There's no reason for Bush-bashers to choose between the two.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, June 23, 2003, at 2:31 PM PT


Is President Bush a liar? The New York Times' David Rosenbaum examined this
question with a surfeit of post-Howell-Raines fair-mindedness in the June 22
"Week in Review" section. His bottom line: "[A] review of the president's
public statements found little that could lead to a conclusion that the
president actually lied" in two particular instances. The first was when Bush
claimed he knew Saddam Hussein to possess large quantities of chemical and
biological weapons. The second was when Bush claimed that his tax cut would
provide tax relief for everyone who pays income taxes. In both instances,
Chatterbox is baffled by Rosenbaum's doubt.

Let's address Bush's tax claim first. Its falsity is not in dispute. Chatterbox
has written elsewhere that Bush lied when he said, "My jobs and growth plan
would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." (The Urban
Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found 8.1 million people who
pay taxes but will receive no tax cuts.) Rosenbaum recognized that Bush's
statement was untrue but expressed doubt that Bush knew it to be untrue. Can a
false statement be a lie if the speaker is unaware it is a lie?

That leads us immediately to a second question, one that Rosenbaum dared not
address: Why is the speaker unaware that his statement is a lie? In Bush's
case, the answer is painfully obvious. It's because Bush is a functionally
not-bright man. As Chatterbox has explained elsewhere, it's impossible to
tell—and, ultimately, of little interest—whether Bush lacks the necessary
mental equipment, or whether he's simply incurious. The end result is the same.
Even Bush's allies concede that Bush is strikingly ignorant. In the July Vanity
Fair, Sam Tanenhaus quoted Richard Perle as saying that when he first met Bush,
it was "clear" that "he didn't know very much." Perle went on to argue (with
what he failed to recognize as condescension) that Bush is an eager pupil. But
there isn't much evidence to support even that.

It's often said that Bush has the virtue of self-awareness, that he knows what
he doesn't know. That's probably true. But if it is true, then Bush really
oughtn't to go around making sweeping statements that he hasn't made any effort
to verify. When these statements turn out to be untrue, Bush's feigned
certainty alone justifies calling these statements lies. They may not be the
sort of lies a clever person (say, Bill Clinton) would tell. Indeed, many
left-of-center commentators (Paul Krugman and Eric Alterman come to mind)
refuse to admit that Bush is dumb, presumably because they fear that would make
it impossible to hold him accountable for terrible things that he and his
administration do. (Many felt the same way about Reagan.) But there's no reason
Bush can't be thought of as both stupid and a liar. As Slate's Michael Kinsley
has noted, Bush's lies are typically lies of laziness: "If telling the truth
was less bother, [he'd] try that too."

Saying that Bush lacks much on the ball does not mean that he never lies the
way clever people do. Surely, for instance, Bush is aware on some level that it
has yet to be proved that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons
stashed away prior to the war. In addressing this question, Rosenbaum let Bush
off the hook by focusing on what he said before the war began, e.g.,
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the
Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons
ever devised." Like Rosenbaum, Chatterbox is eager to cut Bush some slack on
this, if only because Chatterbox, too, was convinced prior to the war that the
presence of biological and chemical weapons had been proved. (Click here and
here to read two columns Chatterbox now wishes he'd never written.) But
Rosenbaum never considered what Bush said on Polish television after the war
ended:

We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological
laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world and
he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons.
They're illegal. They're against the United Nations' resolutions and we've so
far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on.


In fact, it has yet to be proved that the two mobile labs were used (or even
designed to be used) to build biological weapons. It isn't possible that Bush
fails to grasp that. So, why did he say something so obviously untrue?
Chatterbox posed the question to The Nation's David Corn, who has written
extensively on the question of Bush's veracity. In Corn's view, the key to
Bush's lies isn't necessarily that he doesn't know any better, but that he
doesn't care. "He mischaracterizes situations to fit his pattern of thinking,"
Corn explained. "Does he believe he's lying? I don't know." But "he still
should be held accountable, whether he made a mistake of this nature in good
faith or in bad faith." Amen.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message ...

Can Bobsprit Be Both Ignorant and a Liar?
Yes. There's no reason for Bobsprit bashers to choose between the two.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, June 23, 2003, at 2:31 PM PT


Is Bobsprit a liar? The New York Times' David Rosenbaum examined this
question with a surfeit of post-Howell-Raines fair-mindedness in the June 22
"Week in Review" section. His bottom line: "[A] review of Bobsprit's public
statements found overwhelming evidence that could lead to a conclusion that
Bobsprit actually lied" in every post. The first was when Bobsprit claimed he
doesn't lie. The second was when Bobsprit claimed that has a boat. In both
instances it has been proven beyond a doubt that Bobsprit lied.

Let's address Bobpprit's "I don't lie" claim first. Its falsity is not in dispute.
all subscribers have noticed Bobsprit is a chonic liar and an even bigger
moron and fat buffoon. Can a false statement be a lie if the speaker is unaware
it is a lie? In Bobsprit's case he knows he is lying. He does it on purpose
because he is a chronic.

That leads us immediately to a second question - Why does Bobsprit lie
about having a sailboat? Why is Bobsprit unaware that his claiming to have
and sail a boat is a lie? In Bobsprit's case, the answer is painfully obvious.
It's because Bobsprit is a functionally not-bright asshole. It's impossible to
tell—and, ultimately, of little interest—whether Bobsprit lacks the necessary
mental equipment, or whether he's simply an asshole. The end result is the same.
Even Bobsprit's allies concede that Bobsprit is strikingly ignorant.

It's often said that Bobsprit has the virtue of self-awareness, that he knows what
he doesn't lie. That's patently false. Bobsprit knows he's a liar and lies at every
opportunity.

S.Simon

"Bobsprit" wrote in message ...

Can Bobsprit Be Both Ignorant and a Liar?
Yes. There's no reason for Bobsprit bashers to choose between the two.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, June 23, 2003, at 2:31 PM PT


Is Bobsprit a liar? The New York Times' David Rosenbaum examined this
question with a surfeit of post-Howell-Raines fair-mindedness in the June 22
"Week in Review" section. His bottom line: "[A] review of Bobsprit's public
statements found overwhelming evidence that could lead to a conclusion that
Bobsprit actually lied" in every post. The first was when Bobsprit claimed he
doesn't lie. The second was when Bobsprit claimed that has a boat. In both
instances it has been proven beyond a doubt that Bobsprit lied.

Let's address Bobpprit's "I don't lie" claim first. Its falsity is not in dispute.
all subscribers have noticed Bobsprit is a chonic liar and an even bigger
moron and fat buffoon. Can a false statement be a lie if the speaker is unaware
it is a lie? In Bobsprit's case he knows he is lying. He does it on purpose
because he is a chronic.

That leads us immediately to a second question - Why does Bobsprit lie
about having a sailboat? Why is Bobsprit unaware that his claiming to have
and sail a boat is a lie? In Bobsprit's case, the answer is painfully obvious.
It's because Bobsprit is a functionally not-bright asshole. It's impossible to
tell—and, ultimately, of little interest—whether Bobsprit lacks the necessary
mental equipment, or whether he's simply an asshole. The end result is the same.
Even Bobsprit's allies concede that Bobsprit is strikingly ignorant.

It's often said that Bobsprit has the virtue of self-awareness, that he knows what
he doesn't lie. That's patently false. Bobsprit knows he's a liar and lies at every
opportunity.

S.Simon

Looks like Neal is having sockpuppet problems!

Bwahahahaha! What a beating!


RB

"Bobsprit" wrote in message ...
Looks like Neal is having sockpuppet problems!

Bwahahahaha! What a beating!


I wish you'd quit talking about your favorite method of
pleasuring yourself.

S.Simon

I wish you'd quit talking about your favorite method of
pleasuring yourself.

Trouncing you and your illiterate president IS my pleasure!
Sadly, he's also a killer of Americans.

RB

Strange how a so-called 'illiterate' holds a higher degree
than you do.

S.Simon


"Bobsprit" wrote in message ...
I wish you'd quit talking about your favorite method of
pleasuring yourself.

Trouncing you and your illiterate president IS my pleasure!

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Can Bush Be Both Ignorant and a Liar?
Yes. There's no reason for Bush-bashers to choose between the two.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, June 23, 2003, at 2:31 PM PT

In fact, it has yet to be proved that the two mobile labs were used (or
even
designed to be used) to build biological weapons.

In fact the two "mobile labs" have been positively identified. They were
British built artillery Training Support Vehicles.

There was nothing suspicious about them at all! Perhaps Fox News didn't
feel that the truth was worth reporting.


Regards


Donal
--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:32:20 -0000, "Donal"
wrote:


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Can Bush Be Both Ignorant and a Liar?
Yes. There's no reason for Bush-bashers to choose between the
two. By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, June 23, 2003, at 2:31 PM PT

In fact, it has yet to be proved that the two mobile labs were
used (or
even
designed to be used) to build biological weapons.

In fact the two "mobile labs" have been positively identified.
They were British built artillery Training Support Vehicles.

[snip]

Donal

Firearms deer-hunting was open here last week. Funny, that store
managers won't let me carry my deer rifle around in the clothing
store when I look for some warm socks. After all, my rifle was
designed as a deer rifle--no deer in the store--and so could never
be used for anything else, right?

If WMD equipment couldn't be (falsely) assigned a benign purpose,
the Iraqis simply didn't buy it. They weren't stupid. I don't know
who's right about the trucks, but it's not as simple as you make it
sound.

two wheels


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQA/AwUBP76sGdCBA23eyf45EQJY5wCghzkfqZ5xAoC/+upiTmyrFSKZnwsAn2VN
yLc2aCIDuP0M/ivJlIQ1D/2k
=bSZ6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"two wheels" wrote in message
...

Firearms deer-hunting was open here last week. Funny, that store
managers won't let me carry my deer rifle around in the clothing
store when I look for some warm socks. After all, my rifle was
designed as a deer rifle--no deer in the store--and so could never
be used for anything else, right?




If WMD equipment couldn't be (falsely) assigned a benign purpose,
the Iraqis simply didn't buy it. They weren't stupid. I don't know
who's right about the trucks, but it's not as simple as you make it
sound.

Why not? The trucks were built with a single purpose in mind. They hadn't
been modified. They were only capable of performing a single function.

Don't you think that it is time that you considered the possibility that the
rest of the world *might* be right about this?

Do you really believe that Blix is wrong? Do you really believe that major
weaponry can be produced without big industrial installations?


There is NO evidence that Saddam had WMD for one simple reason. Why are you
unable to think about this?



Regards


Donal
--