Bush's Iraq Lies: Some Still Trying to Spin It All Away

I've been way too busy to deal with this kind of ridiculousness (the example here being an editorial from the New York Sun, apparently penned by one Eli Lake, and favorably referenced by Andrew Sullivan) in any detailed way, but I probably won't be able to hold out much longer.

The defenses of the administration in the wake of the final report of the Senate Select Committee are--bafflingly, yet not at all bafflingly, since predictably--more or less exactly like they have been all along. Roughly: Bush didn't technically lie, and he was probably honestly deceived about many things, so...well, so what? Usually the conclusion is left unstated, since it is supposed to be: therefore the case for war was not dishonest. But that so obviously fails to follow that even most Bush dead-enders apparently cannot type it with a straight face. Lake claims that Democratic "talking-points" have been "demolished" by the report--which is either false or irrelevant, depending on what's actually meant. If what's meant is something like this: those who have said that the case for war was dishonest were wrong, then Lake's claim is false. In fact, that is exactly what the report confirms--not that evidence was wanting before the report was released. If, however, what's meant is something more like what Sullivan seems to be thinking--something like: of course the administration's case for war was dishonest, but the bumper-sticker version/talking point was that Bush lied...and, well, that's more unclear--then Lake's point is irrelevant. (Still probably false, but that's another can of worms.)

Here's what is clear, important, and confirmed by the latest report: the case for war was extremely (and probably criminally) dishonest. Here's what's still controversial: the extent of the outright lies. It is false to say that there were none (e.g. the famous sixteen words constituted a lie, though a particularly devious one). It is also false to say that the main mode of dishonesty was straightforwardly lying. The difference, however, is that no serious critic of the administration has ever claimed that lying was the main--or even a significant--mode of deception. It seems fairly clear to everyone that the dishonesty was mainly a matter of things like cherry-picking evidence, intimidating critics, exaggerating preferred evidence and minimizing contrary evidence. So triumphantly proclaiming that most of the dishonesty wasn't outright lying does not in any way undermine any important arguments.

And, as for the fact that the bumper-sticker version of the non-Bush-dead-ender case was "Bush lied": actually, as bumper sticker summaries go, that's perfectly defensible. Intentional deception is the moral equivalent of a lie. It is no better to trick someone out of his money by twisting the evidence than it is to do so through outright lies. These are equally bad, morally speaking (though perhaps not so, legally speaking). So to summarize and shorten by saying that "Bush lied" is, actually, probably just fine. It is, in fact, pretty much on target.

It's probably worth going into all this in more detail and with more care, and I'll do so fairly soon. As I've said in the past, anyone who is still defending Bush at this point is not likely to be influenced by actual evidence, so it is not at all surprising that this newest batch is getting the same treatment all the previous evidence got.