File:Musee de la bible et Terre Sainte 001.JPG

What exactly is a lie? Here are some definitions from different sources:

1. A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. Something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture;
3. An inaccurate or false statement.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

 

1. A gross falsification or misrepresentation of the facts, with constand repetition and repetition and embellishment to lend credibility.
2. The propaganda technique, as in politics, of using this device.

 

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr0cult.htm

Now contrast these definitions with the definition of perjury:

 PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC
 

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

Okay? Do not confuse perjury with lying. And never take a quick definition from Black's Law Dictionary or some general text book as the LAW. You have to check local statutes or federal statutes and then check out at least a handful of good cases that cite the statutes.  And I think everyone at TPM knows that when some pundit reads a definition from a dictionary to prove a point...........well they have proved nothing.

Getting back to the point of this post; I am attempting to find a good definition of the word lie, set some guidelines for its use and then stick to those guidelines.

I mean just because I do not agree with a statement does not mean the one making it is lying.

RULES

Did the person make the statement?

Was the statement at the time it was made incorrect?

Was the statement material to the discussion at hand?

Did the speaker know that at the time he made the statement the statement was incorrect?

Should the speaker have known that the statement was incorrect at the time he made it? Reckless disregard for the truth is as bad as absolutely knowing the statement to be false.

Did the speaker have intent, specific or otherwise to influence his audience with regard to some issue when he made the statement?

Well let's apply my little test to somebody who says good morning to all the fascist Nazis in this country, daily, on FOX News:

DOOCY: Two hundred and thirty-three years of precedent dating back to the very founding of this Republic, American leaders do not bow to leaders of other countries. They are on par. Oops. Take a look, there's the President of the United States bowing to the Emperor of Japan.

DOOCY: You know this is a long standing precedence going back to the founding of the Republic, American Presidents don't bow to anybody. But the President, there he is, bowing. He bowed to King Abdullah earlier in the year as well. The administration said, look it's just protocol, its one of those things they do. You've been in an administration where a President has faced-look there's Abdullah right there. He's going down-why doesn't the, when you look at this, what do you think?

ROVE: I think it was inappropriate.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911160014

Now you can see from the link that I once again get my kindling from mediamatters.org. KeithO picked up on this dialogue last night.

There was a statement made. But the statement was by Doocy, not Rove. So I cannot call Rove a liar on this one. To say something is appropriate or inappropriate is not a statement. It is a straight out opinion. Rove's opinions, as always, stink. But let us move on to Doocy. And I do believe that Rover is a compulsive liar but I am not discussing his other misgivings here.

Doocy made a statement. He says that there is a long standing precedence going back to the founding of this Republic not to bow to leaders of other countries.

Doocy made a statement that for two hundred and thirty-three years  Americans do not bow to leaders of other countries.

Now there is an issue over Doocy's use of the word precedence. I do not know for sure what that means. A legal case may provide precedence for a rule of law, like Roe v. Wade. And we can argue for three hundred pages about what Roe v. Wade says just like we can argue for three million pages about what the bible says.

And just because there is precedence, does not mean that precedence has not been broken from time to time. Just a thought.

So the statement was made.

Was the statement incorrect at the time it was made? Well here are the links I find that seem to dispute what was said by Doocy.

First, Presidents have bowed to foreign leaders. And so have our ambassadors.

Barth tells a wonderful story about John Adams at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/esaslaw/2009/11/whining-about-bowing-and-other.php?ref=reccafe

Wiki tells us that:

In 1785, John Adams was appointed the first American minister to the Court of St. James's (ambassador to Great Britain). When he was presented to his former sovereign, George III, the King intimated that he was aware of Adams's lack of confidence in the French government. Adams admitted this, stating: "I must avow to your Majesty that I have no attachment but to my own country."

So we know a man who would become Vice-President of the United States and a man who would become President of the United States, bowed to the King of England three years before our Constitution was adopted. And that man did so as the official Ambassador to England even though we were not yet the United States of America.

Keith O played two videos; one  showing Ike bowing to DeGaule and one showing Nixon bowing to the Emperor of Japan. The video of Nixon is really something since the Japanese Emperor had been Emperor at the time of the attack upon Pearl Harbor.

The DeGaule video is highly emotional to me. DeGaule had been leader of the Free French, exiled to England during most of WWII and Ike had been Commander of the European Theatre of Operations for the Allied Forces. I mean who the fuck would criticize the man who won WWII for greeting his old friend in such a manner?

George W. Bush is shown in another video kissing and holding hands with one of the Saudi Sheiks. You add to this the context, historically speaking. I mean w and his family for generations made a ton of money from Saudi oil fiefdoms. Ha

W also bowed most humbly to the sheik:  http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33289_Bush_Bowed_Too

Now I can move on down through the rest of the test rather easily. The statement that was made was material to the issues surrounding Obama's use of protocols during his Pacific tour.

I will also state that Doocy knew or should have known about w's own bowing during his presidency. And he should have done enough research prior to making a statement like this. Of course Doocy always looks like an idiot, but that is not the point.

Knew or should have known should always be the standard in deciding whether someone lied or not.

Now we come to the issue of intent here. Matthews and other asshats will state that they:

Cannot read what is in another man's heart.

Well that is bullshit; just patent bullshit. And, as anyone can see, it pisses me off.

And Doocy, as always, had an evil intent to mislead his audience.

But in my humble opinion, he did not lie. The word precedence qualifies his statements enough to take them out of the ambit of lying.

So let us move on.

Rather than let McCain and Palin get away with their lie, anchor John Roberts played a videotape of Sarah Palin in a 2006 gubernatorial debate in which she endorsed the bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island saying, "I'm not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation and the position of strength that they have right now." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/the-mccain-palin-lies-and_b_125240.html

Well during the 2008 election campaign, Palin claimed that she had been against the 'bridge to nowhere' all along.This was a statement made by Palin. The statement was false. It was clearly false. She knew it was false EVERY SINGLE TIME she made it. And she made the statements with the specific intent of misleading her audience. It was a straight out lie.  I do not know how you debate this issue.

PALIN: Welcomes last year's Supreme Court decision deciding punitive damages for victims of the nation's largest oil spill tragedy, the Exxon Valdez disaster, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve victory. As governor, she says, she'd had the state argue in favor of the victims, and she says the court's ruling went "in favor of the people." Finally, she writes, Alaskans could recover some of their losses.

THE FACTS: That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the long-running case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion. Environmentalists and plaintiffs' lawyers decried the ruling as a slap at the victims and Palin herself said she was "extremely disappointed." She said the justices had gutted a jury decision favoring higher damage awards, the Anchorage Daily News reported. "It's tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision," she said, noting many had died "while waiting for justice."  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/palins-book-goes-rogue-on_n_357682.html

Again, here we have a statement being made that was false at the time it was made. Palin knew or should have known that it was false when she made the statement and she did it with the specific intent of misleading her audience. Now the argument against my take is that Palin was only stating that the case was a victory, and that it provided some recompense for the disaster and that therefore it was not a lie. But in the end she is claiming that she had more than a hand in getting that verdict, that final result.  That certainly is a lie. She had nothing to do with nothing. She had nothing to do with the original trial, of course, she had nothing to do with 19 years of fierce court battles, she had nothing to do with briefs provided by the State of Alaska, she never even read one brief from Alaska's files, she had nothing to do with oral arguments, she had nothing to do with nothing. So it's not just a lie, it is a damnable lie.

PALIN: Describing her resistance to federal stimulus money, Palin describes Alaska as a practical, libertarian haven of independent Americans who don't want "help" from government busybodies.

THE FACTS: Alaska is also one of the states most dependent on federal subsidies, receiving much more assistance from Washington than it pays in federal taxes. A study for the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that in 2005, the state received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington. Ibid

I recall this one. Again, a statement made that was incorrect when it was made with Palin knowing that the statement was false when she made the statement and making the statement with the sheer intent of misleading her audience.  This is one of the clearest examples of a straight out lie that I can think of.

For a look at ten more lies see mediamatters.org: http://mediamatters.org/research/200911150010

And today her book formally goes up on the shelves and there will be hundreds of other lies revealed by a thousand sites contained in that book.

1.     A declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc. by one;

2.     An express assurance on which expectation is based;

3.     Something that has the effect of an express assurance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promise?db=dictionary

A promise is a transaction between two or more persons whereby the first person undertakes in the future to render some service, gift or assurance to the others or devotes something valuable now and here to his use.

This next segment comes from George W. Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 2000:

We will confront the hard issues -- threats to our national security, threats to our health and retirement security -- before the challenges of our time become crises for our children.

And we will extend the promise of prosperity to every forgotten corner of this country.

To every man and woman, a chance to succeed. To every child, a chance to learn. To every family, a chance to live with dignity and hope. For eight years, the Clinton/Gore administration has coasted through prosperity. And the path of least resistance is always downhill.

But America's way is the rising road.

This nation is daring and decent and ready for change.

Our current president embodied the potential of a generation. So many talents. So much charm. Such great skill. But, in the end, to what end? So much promise, to no great purpose.

Little more than a decade ago, the Cold War thawed and, with the leadership of Presidents Reagan and Bush, that wall came down.

But instead of seizing this moment, the Clinton/Gore administration has squandered it. We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence.

Our military is low on parts, pay and morale.

If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ... Not ready for duty, sir.

This administration had its moment.

They had their chance. They have not led. We will.

This generation was given the gift of the best education in American history. Yet we do not share that gift with everyone. Seven of ten fourth-graders in our highest poverty schools cannot read a simple children's book.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123214&page=1

Every single promise made in this speech failed to materialize.  A promise in this context assumes commitment on the part of the one making the promise. Although a promise is not a guarantee, it assumes responsibility; that is that the person making the promise will take on a responsibility to see the promise through.

Now here are a series of statements made by George W. Bush nine years ago. Every single one of those statements was false at the time it was made. George W. Bush knew when he made those statements that they were false--or he should have known they were false when he made them. These statements were certainly all relevant to the forthcoming election and they were made with the single purpose of getting his audience to vote for  him so that he could carry on with an agenda that had nothing to do with these statements. An agenda that in fact would work against all of the sentiments contained in these statements.

Bush never intended, never in his entire life intended, to work to see that every man, woman and child would have a chance to succeed. He never intended to give every family dignity and hope, or even a significant percentage of families dignity and hope.  Nor had he ever endorsed or helped, in any manner, someone who did have that intent.

Bush never intended to protect retirement funds, or the health of the American People or our children. And he certainly never protected our national security.

The 'leadership of Reagan and Bush' HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL.

I could go on. But the point here is that IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT EVERY GODDAMN THING CONTAINED IN THIS MAN'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH PROVED TO BE A GODDAMN LIE. And he knew at the time when he made these statements they were false and he made the statements with the intent to mislead the American People--that is all the people with the exception of his true constituency. http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=George+W.+Bush+and+the+have+mores&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS324US325&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=uhwDS9G8Cc6FnAfpjaBo&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQqwQwAA#

And you watch, whoever wins the Republican Nomination in 2012 will MAKE THE SAME FUCKING SPEECH.  And the nominee will make these statements, knowing they are false with the single evil intent of getting his or her audience's vote.  And with no intent whatsoever to take responsibilities for the promises made. And the media, as always, will not do one damn thing about it.

So much for lies and promises.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wwttxW5hMg