Wednesday, 18 June 2008

No lies

I love the pithiness of Aussie blogger Tim Blair:

Just for the record
George W. Bush didn’t lie.


  1. Hold the presses. Here's the real story.

    The LA Times of all things published an editorial defending George Bush.

    Sometimes, there is actually reason to hope that the winds of change have shifted a degree.

  2. Absolutely Jeff!

    Why give it a little while and we'll even be able to forget about the 100,000+ people dead because the CIA are clueless and Dubya didn't think to actually ask any questions.

    Seriously though, it was never about WMD, so whether Bush conciously lied or not is beside the point

  3. Hey, check the Guardian. It's basically saying Bush is an idiot and dissembler but he got the big decisions right.


  4. From "The Economist". An opinion I wholeheartedly agree with. Bush didn't lie, but he was if not criminally then certainly morally negligent in the war's planning and execution.

    Is "lying" the appropriate benchmark?

    In the business world the benchmark is "due diligence". In issuing a prospectus, for example, it is not sufficient that it contains no "lies". On the other hand, it is not necessary that the undertaking be guaranteed of success. The required standard is that those responsible for promoting the undertaking demonstrate that they have exercised due diligence before selling it to the public.

    It is odd that a country may go to war on a standard of diligence lower than that required to float a company.


Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

(Off-topic grandstanding and trolling is moderated. If it's not entertaining.)