Quote Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Where the Bush administration clearly did lie is in claiming that they 'knew' Saddam had WMDs, that they knew where they were, and that this knowledge was certain. Cheny and Rumsfeld were particularly dishonest in this. At one point, they claimed that they 'knew' Saddam had WMDs and that they 'knew' where they were. That is a lie. They didn't know; they suspected. And that is therefore just as much a lie as any other.
Now there we go get into the spefics of the allegation - not just throwing out buzz words because you don't agree with a politicial motiviated decision.

For instance I can rightfully state that in 1991 I know from experience that Saddam's Regime had WMD because I saw the international chemical markings on Mortar and Artillery rounds. I can truefully state that I had access to information in 1998-2000 that would lead me to conclude that the Iraqi Regime was with holding information and playing cat and mouse with the investigators. After that I could only draw conclusion based upon information provided soley from the media and the government. I could conclude safely from what I have read that Saddam's Regime was not being truthful in their reporting and destruction of programs involving WMD - and could even still say that - since that is exactly what Duelfer Report states.

Now when some states they know where they are - one must then really examine what is being stated and where they base their information off of. For instance did they know from human eyes seeing the physical evidence of the WMD - or were they basing their knowledge soley on the electronic intelligence that was gathered. In one you can actually get to proving that a lie was stated - with the other the adminstration can still claim that the intelligence was faultly and lead them to the wrong conclusion.

Lots of grey - which makes it very difficult to prove that an intentional lie was told verus just bad information.

If I claimed, "I know Redleg will agree with me here", that would be a lie. I may have my suspicions one way or another, but I really don't (and cannot) "know" how he will react. My statement is a lie. If it is a lie that leads to war, it is a reprehensible lie.
Its only an reprehensible lie if you were using the statement to promote a war that you intented to happen regardless of what the evidence really was. In other words if you understood at the time of making the statement that you were indeed making a false claim of truth.