Lie (v.i.): To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he has a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.

--Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

The question arises: when is it appropriate for the President to lie to the public?

Why does it arise? Because we have so many recent examples. In today's news alone, I've seen two articles that finger the President for outright lies and misuse of information; a third for stifling speech. And of course, there are the aluminum tubes, the tax cuts benefiting the "average citizen," lies about labor unions and more.

Today's reports involve--predictably--Iraq. In the first, Hans Blix calls Bush a liar. Follow the link to read the specific lies--there are three--but the upshot is this: he doesn't think a war is warranted and he's peeved that Bush is using his report to justify one.

The second report is far more disturbing. I haven't had a chance to roam the blogosphere today, but I'll be amazed if it isn't buzzing with news from the Times editorial asserting that Saddam didn't gas the Kurds. According to the author, Stephen C. Pelletiere (no random peacenik--a professor at the Army War College with access to classified material), the Kurds were caught in the crossfire between Iranian and Iraqi fighters and, based on analysis done of the dead, it appears more likely that Iranian gas killed the Kurds. In any case, the gas was employed during war. This is a very different story from the old "Saddam gassed his own people" saw. Furthermore, Pelletiere elaborates on the ulterior motive argument, adding water to the oil mix. It's absolutely shocking news.

Bush has never made a strong case for going to war against Iraq. He's argued two points--that Saddam's a very bad man and that Iraq's a "gathering danger." Most of the arguments he's made about the "gathering danger" have been questioned or proved to be lies. And so he was left with the moral argument, which no one has seen the need to refute. But this evidence (if true, always if true) throws even that into question.

It's always been the case that presidents lie. Sometimes it's necessary to protect the republic. In these cases, no one would argue the truth-at-any-cost line. Sometimes it's to cover up health problems or a seedy rendezvous. After eight years of blue dresses, I'm willing to let these go by, as well. But if the lies are to advance a secret agenda and subvert the intent of the constitution and undermine the republic, they are clearly the most dangerous threat to the US. One doesn't want to go too far on this, but even reasonable people are beginning to wonder about the constant stream of lies. I think it's time to start demanding answers about the President's intentions.

(On a more amusing note, Laura Bush's love affair with books may have hit a bump in the road. After inviting a group of poets to a White House symposium, she learned that they--shockingly--were not high on the whole dead Iraqi kids scenario. Turns out they were even going to use the event to voice their displeasure. Thus was the event scuttled.)

“As our nation moves troops and builds alliances to make our world safer, we must also remember our calling as a blessed country is to make this world better.”

This is a very different persona from the bump-along Governor of 1999 and 2000. The good ‘ol boy George of that era was distingushed mainly for being a nice guy. Buddy George, the kind of guy you’d like to drink beer with or catch a ballgame. If I were getting paid to blog, I’d do a little research into the adjectives reporters used then to describe him—I suspect they’d be in the “genial” cluster. (Of course I’m not, so we’ll just have to guess.)

But Buddy George died somewhere in a plane on the way to Nebraska on September 11th, 2001, presumably while he watched Rudy Giuliani bestride rubble and wreckage, striking courage into the hearts of shocked Americans. You see, this is the fascinating thing—the President has been a leader for less than a decade. Whereas most politicians polish their images in the relatively dim glow of state legislatures or on city councils, Bush is doing it before our eyes. September 11 accelerated the process, and from it emerged General George, “smoke ‘em out” George. This is the "bold" George about whom so much has been made since 9/11 (surf on over to the Daily Howler for the annals of boldness)--certainly a far cry from Buddy George.

Two nights ago, things got even more interesting. General George, who admittedly was getting a bit tedious, morphed into something new. General George was having to muck around with polls and allies, both of which seemed to indicate that they were wishing they could have Buddy George back. Instead, they got Preacher George.

Preacher George don't need no stinkin' allies. Preacher George doesn't care about polls. Preacher George has gone beyond politics and into faith.

"In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances and by the might of the United States of America.

Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility."

Preacher George is confident in his policies, sure enough to be a true leader. Allies, polls, they may not reflect support, but that doesn't mean the support won't come. Of course it will come, once Preacher George shows the way...

"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

We Americans have faith in ourselves but not in ourselves alone. We do not know - we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life and all of history.

May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America."

Can I get an Amen!

"Iraq imported the same aluminum tubes for rockets in the 1980s. The new tubes it tried to purchase actually bear an inscription that includes the word "rocket," according to one official who examined them."

We must bear in mind that this information was what Bush offered to the UN when he made the US's case against Iraq. And also, that this isn't the first time the white house has "embellished."

"It's a very uncomfortable thing to question the honesty and motives of your leaders. I'm saying that the men who are controlling our destiny are lying. Not many journalists or many people want to confront them."

"Probably a majority of reporters are registered Democrats or vote Democratic,. But a heavy majority of editors are Republican. The corporations that control most media are Republican. There are operations like Fox News which are unabashedly part of the Republican enterprise and operations like CNN which are carefully evenhanded. The Times is actually -- it's clear the editorial page is mildly liberal and most of the staff must be mildly liberal. But in reporting on issues, most of the time it bends over backwards to find two sides to every story."

A couple of interesting sites are his Princeton homepage, and a fan page that has an archive of all his times articles, as well as other writings and links.

JED BABBIN: (On the significance of France's concerns about invading Iraq) Well, it's not significant at all. Frankly it's merely a repeat of what the French and the Chinese and the Russians did in 1998 when with Kofi Annan they agreed to basically block the effectiveness of the inspections that were going on at this time. The process of the U.N., the president is right, has a finite amount of time. It would be tremendously ironic to see a nation like France, which has really no other voice in the world other than its vote on the Security Council, to have this sort of an effect and basically deprive the U.N. of legitimacy in the future because that is what they are really approaching if they veto a resolution that we present for military action against Iraq.

and later...

GWEN IFILL: I guess my question is does it matter that [Britain is the US's] only [remaining] staunch ally?

JED BABBIN: Not really. At this point who else really could matter? The others don't have the forces. They do not have the influence, even the economic influence to really try to shape matters. We need to proceed as our interests dictate.

and later still...

JED BABBIN: Well, that certainly would not scuttle the Atlantic alliance. The Atlantic alliance is very well and strong. It exists between London and Washington. The rest simply are irrelevant to our calculation.

Link

"The marches in Washington and San Francisco were chiefly sponsored, as was last October's antiwar march in Washington, by a group the Times chose to call in its only passing reference 'the activist group International Answer.'

International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union's 1956 invasion of Hungary -- the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion. International ANSWER today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam Hussein and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas."

This isn’t just false, it’s a blatant lie and slanderous. “It supports Saddam Hussein . . . North Korea . . . the mullahs of Iran and the narco-gangsters of Columbia and the bus-bombers of Hamas.” This isn’t rhetorical flourish, it’s not metaphoric whimsy, this is a serious charge. According to Kelly, ANSWER is an umbrella group for terrorism.

But of course if that were the case, ANSWER wouldn’t be organizing marches on Washington; they’d be in Cuba, rotting without representation and charged with terrorism. No, it’s very clear what ANSWER is up to: holding the United States accountable for its actions.

Kelly also failed to mention that ANSWER is supported by hundreds of organizations, including such dangerous radicals as the Pastors for Peace, Jews Against the Occupation, and San Francisco State University.

Kelly’s shtick generally amounts to harmless Bush boosterism. Today’s screed may also be harmless, so obvious is its mendacity. Nevertheless, it wildly exceeds even the most optimistic definition of journalism. Let me be the first to exhort the Post to can this joker. It’s a stain on the newspaper.

"The Bushes see the world through the prism of class, while denying that class matters. They think as long as they don't act "snotty" or swan around with a lot of fancy possessions, that class is irrelevant.

They make themselves happily oblivious to the difference between thinking you are self-made and being self-made, between liking to clear brush and having to clear brush."

and

"If you don't acknowledge that being a wealthy white man with the right ancestors blesses you with the desirable sort of inequality, how can you fix the undesirable sort of inequality?"

It is fitting that we honor the life of a great American in a church who derived his inspiration from the church. It is fitting that we honor this great American in a church because, out of the church comes the notion of equality and justice. (Applause.) And even though progress has been made, Pastor -- even though progress has been made, there is more to do. There are still people in our society who hurt. There is still prejudice holding people back. There is still a school system that doesn't elevate every child so they can learn. (Applause.) There is still a need for us to hear the words of Martin Luther King, to make sure the hope of America extends its reach into every neighborhood across this land.

So it's fitting we're here in a church that has got ministries aimed at healing those who hurt, and fighting addiction and promoting love and families. It is fitting we meet here in a church because in this society, we must understand government can help, government can write checks -- but it cannot put hope in people's hearts or a sense of purpose in people's lives.

And so as we remember the dream of Martin Luther King and remember his clear vision for a society that's equal and a society full of justice, this society must remember the power of faith. This government of yours must welcome faith, not discriminate faith, as we deal with the future of this great country.

For those scoring at home, I got 1) faith-based initiatives, 2) opposition to "quotas," 3) compassionate conservatism, 4) veiled props to the Bible-belt boys. And what's this? "Out of the church comes the notion of equality and justice." Theocratic promotion?

"Just as Ronald Reagan was accurate in calling the Soviet Union the evil empire, it's important to people inside those three countries who want to be free to know that the United States has not forgotten their cause."

So, what are the odds the President will use it again this year? Fleischer says, "Tune in," but I have a bridge to sell to anyone who thinks the President's going back to that particular catch phrase.

Admiral Poindexter would not comment for this article and has been forbidden to respond to his critics by his superiors at the Defense Department. But he has told a number of people that he believes the attacks on him by civil libertarians are based on a distortion of the way the Total Information Awareness technology would operate.

“. . .the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.” [Italics added.]

White House Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. said in a speech Wednesday that the Bush administration expects to run deficits of 2% to 3% of the gross domestic product in the next few years, substantially more than the deficit the government ran in the last fiscal year.
...

White House economists briefly posted on the White House Web site an analysis that showed the plan would add $33 billion to the deficit this fiscal year, $113 billion next fiscal year and $359 billion over the five years from 2003 to 2007. But they quickly removed the document, saying it needed to be reworked.

So much news, so little time to stew in your own bile.

"I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity, in higher education, but the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed. At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students based solely on their race."

What's interesting to me isn't his position particularly (in fact, had he gone the other way, that wouldn't have surprised, either). Rather, it's that he chose to issue this public statement, which is obviously intended to influence the judges. According to the Washington Post article about the announcement, it was specifically aimed at giving the swing vote, Justice O'Connor, cover when she votes.

Three thoughts on this. First, by making the announcement public, Bush makes it his own political issue. Selecting the "anti-quota" argument lines up with the wink-wink nod-nod language of the Southern Strategy. Looking at two constituencies--Hispanics and segregationist southerners--Bush decided there was political advantage in staking out territory. Time will tell.

He also signaled the Supremes about which way he wanted this thing to go, which politicized the decision. The politicizing of the judiciary isn't new and it certainly isn't solely a conservative strategy. And yet most Americans would like to think that, as a matter of law, there is some greater guide than politics in the Michigan decision. Whatever the outcome, we have yet another brick off the wall separating the judiciary from politics.

Finally, race. Potentially lost in all this is the actual issue at hand--whether the University of Michigan has the right to consider race in admissions. Race has become a political scalpel, used to carve up constituencies. I think Americans would also like to see decisions like this lead toward something more democratic, more fair. By removing that central goal and replacing it with political advantage, the country is robbed of the chance to hear a genuine discussion and participate in that process.

[Addendum] Ah yes, he might also have defered, citing Michigan's right to determine this kind law.

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea rejected as "pie in the sky" U.S. offers of talks and possible aid in exchange for abandoning its nuclear ambitions, accusing Washington on Wednesday of staging a "deceptive drama" to mislead world opinion.

Keeping up a stream of anti-American invective - even as it agreed to more high-level meetings with South Korea next week - Pyongyang declared it would accept no U.S. offer of dialogue with conditions attached.

Washington's "loudmouthed supply of energy and food aid are like a pie in the sky, as they are possible only after the DPRK is totally disarmed."

Whoops.

Prior to joining the Bush Administration in August 2001, Mr. Everson served as Group Vice President – Finance of SC International Services, Inc., a $2.2 billion privately owned, Dallas based, food services company with leading market positions in both airline catering and home meal solutions. For ten years, from 1988 until 1998, Mr. Everson was an executive with the Pechiney Group, one of France’s largest industrial groups. While with Pechiney, he held financial and operating positions in Chicago, Illinois; Manisa, Turkey; Marion, Indiana; and finally at the group’s headquarters in Paris, France. While in Paris, he served as Senior Vice President – Control, and was the only non-Frenchman to direct a corporate function (budgeting, management reporting, and preparation of the multi-year plan) at Pechiney.



Mr. Everson served in the Reagan Administration from 1982 until 1988. For three years, he was at the U.S. Information Agency, the public diplomacy arm of the government. In 1985, he moved to the Department of Justice where he served as Special Assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese III. He was subsequently Executive Associate Commissioner and then Deputy Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. While at INS, he oversaw implementation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, landmark legislation providing for sanctions against employers hiring undocumented aliens and granting amnesty to millions of qualifying illegal aliens.