’)You already knew that, but it’s good to have more data to add to the pile
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile “biological laboratories.” He declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
Not that I see it happening, but wouldn’t it be great if we could get one branch of the legislature back into Democratic hands so we could subpeona these bastards for the travesty they’ve done to our country?
It would be also great if, instead of asking how great the President is, if the media asked Bush to explain this lie and actually get him to answer the question no matter how much straw he throws at them.
And for the cons who will say “Bush never said that”, the transcript of the interview is right here on the White House website.
THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.
But of course, we should trust everything these people say about Iran.
Riiiiiight.
I don’t know – maybe he was just wrong, maybe they just thought and hoped that it was their WMD – maybe he was hedging his bets that there just had to be some there.
Can’t we give him the benefit of the doubt here? Has he not at least earned that much?
Can’t you see that you are only making it worse by trying to find the truth here?
That bastard! How dare he listen to the official reports from the intelligence community!
From your link (on page 2)
BTW, I still haven’t seen a retraction from Oliver on his assertion (lie):
Harsh, ugly, rheotric and a demonstrably unproven charge.
Are you so afraid to debate actual policy that you have to result to cheap smear tactics?
Dugger, Not One lie documented, not one
And so are you, Oliver. So are you.
What’s your point?
Hey, give Oliver a break. He’s actually come out and supported an agenda. If Dems gain control of either the House or Senate in November, their first (and only?) order of business is to go supoena crazy.
Go ahead, run on that. We’ll see you at the ballot box.
It s good to have more data to add to the pile
Of course. And the reason for that is?
It’s really a terrible position to defend–either ignorance or flat-out deception. Neither makes the President look good.
At least we all agree that if the president is faced with a choice between saying something true or false, he will decide on the basis of what is more convenient to him politically. That’s Texas courage for you! These colors don’t run!
Basically, the con defense to any charge that bush lied is that he didn’t know. We’re about 176 deep in charges of him lying, and at this point they should hope he was lying because if not HE DOESN’T KNOW ANYTHING!
When has a president ever been considered “ignorant” because he followed the official reports from the intelligence community? The WaPo article to which Oliver links even reports (below the fold) that both the CIA and the DIA reported to the president that the labs were for WMD.
Of course the documents corroborating ‘lies’ remain classified (and no
doubt will remain so for decades to protect us from the truth) but it
is time for some to stop overdosing on the Absinthe. If you smell
enough smoke, it is logical to assume the possibility of fire.
Note that this was a ‘lie” that turned out to not be a lie (thanks JWG) and the True Believers have yet to address substance (and why should they, it has blown up in their faces). MJB drops the specifics on this item (conveniently) and resorts to vague general smears of Bush while Semant explains, regardless of specifics, that if you smell enough smoke, there’s fire: meaning there is no standard of proof and that all that is necessary for progressives to prove ‘lie’ is for them to scream the charge a sufficent number of times to create a lot of smoke.
Dugger, Not one lie documented, not one
What an incredible article. Of the teams that were sent to inspect the dicsovery, two of three initial teams of analysts came to the conclusion that the trailers were moblie weapons labs and they all report back to Washington. The President makes an announcement based on the “first formal assessment” of what the teams reported.
Oh- wait. Didn’t you read that far into the article?
Nice talking point though.
I don’t know- is it just me or news rehash week in the media.
I must’ve missed where Bush was presented with official intelligence that the labs were not for WMD. Can you point that out for me?
And if Bush declassifies them, everyone can scream about how he did it for political gain (ala NIE declassification).
I agree. It would be nice if someone could come up with some evidence.
Maybe that explains Oliver’s claim of “Bush authorizing the leak of Valerie Plame s identity”?
“Within the first four hours,” said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, “it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs.
News of the team’s early impressions leaped across the Atlantic well ahead of the technical report. Over the next two days, a stream of anxious e-mails and phone calls from Washington pressed for details and clarifications.
The reason for the nervousness was soon obvious: In Washington, a CIA analyst had written a draft white paper on the trailers, an official assessment that would also reflect the views of the DIA. The white paper described the trailers as “the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program.” It also explicitly rejected an explanation by Iraqi officials, described in a New York Times article a few days earlier, that the trailers might be mobile units for producing hydrogen.”
So what do we have here? Bush in a bubble it seems. It took the technical team four hours to conclude the trailers weren’t used for biological weapons, and two military teams couldn’t figure that out but found the opposit?. I wonder if some of those inspection teams could have had a political agenda?
It goes back before the war where the US government listened to one source that said these were mobile biological weapons labs and discounted every other source and informant that said they were for making hydrogen. Which turned out to be true?
“I agree. It would be nice if someone could come up with some evidence.”
Perhaps if we had a WH which didn’t willy nilly classify docs that it wants
hidden (divorced from security issues) and declassify docs that it finds
convenient for it’s purposes, we’d have some evidence.
Because time and time again the “lies” that you claim to have Bush dead to rights on turn out to be … not lies at all, as this example indicates.
Just like the Plame explosion that happened last week. Turns out it was Fitzgerald who got his facts wrong. So far the best thing Bush has going for him is that his political opponents are miserable failures.
I found this quote telling and sad: “”At several points, members were questioned about revising their conclusions, according to sources knowledgeable about the conversations. The questioners generally wanted to know the same thing: Could the report’s conclusions be softened, to leave open a possibility that the trailers might have been intended for weapons?”
Bush is in a bubble that keeps him ignorant. That’s the best defense his apologists have. But what defense is there when Bush built the bubble himself?
I will retract my statement that this proves Bush specifically lied in this instance. What it shows is that the administration buried evidence that undermined the WMD rationale for war. The politics, as always with this administration, took priority over governance. Who specifically is responsible for burying this report? It will take a Congress willing to exercise oversight over the executive branch to make that determination. What is crystal clear, however, is that this war, allegedly part of the “long war” against global terrorism, has primarily been conducted with attention to domestic politics and an emphasis to loyalty to the president, rather than with openness with the public or willingness to discuss the reality on the ground. When military commanders express politically inconvenient assessments (later vindicated), they are demoted and silenced. When political underlings express dissenting views (later vindicated), they are pushed out the door. When politically inconvenient reports are written (later vindicated), they get buried — in this case, for two years.
The president, whether he expressly lied, or simply created an environment where truth tellers were silenced or punished, and dissenting information suppressed, is ultimately responsible for misleading the public. That is why Bush’s disapproval rating is at 60% — because people feel misled about every element of this war — why we got into it, how we’re conducting it, how we’ll finish it — and they know he’s the one responsible.
The good news, at least for Pedro, Frank, Dugz, Marty, JWG, Farris, Glenn Reynolds, etc., is that while some people had to sacrifice their lives on behalf of this dishonest, manipulative administration, you only had to sacrifice your credibility! Keep on typing for the Long War!
Funny you should bring up clenis Ollie.
Lets see if we can find a difference between clenis and monica, and bush and mobile weapons labs shall we?
Clenis: Had personal knowledge (VERY personal) about the event in question. Event in question happened about 6 inches from him (on average…). Only one other person in the world had a better “perspective” on the “issue” (god I love double entendre!)
Bush: No personal knowledge of bio weapon manufacture. Events happened about 6 thousands miles away from him. Depended on multiple sources to determine veracity of information. Each source interjects a new level of potential error. Passed along information that was passed to him.
Anyone see a difference in the personal responsibility here?
I’m sure you’ve got a link to back up your charge.
Oops…link.
Because that always seems to be you peoples’ defense of him, that he didn’t know or that he doesn’t need to know. I don’t know about you, but if Clinton had this track record (and if I were a liberal at the time) I’d have been shitting myself thinking that there were warring factions which the president had no control over because he didn’t even know about war.
KEEPS lying? Here is Bush in Oct 2004:
and
Please provide evidence that Bush continues to “lie” about WMD in Iraq.
You’re right.
JWG and Dugger remind me of a client I once represented who robbed at gunpoint a busload of immigrant workers. There were more than a dozen eyewitnesses who positively id’ed him. Come time for plea negotiations and the client was adament – all that eyewitness testimony was just “say so” and wasn’t really evidence. There was a trial and he was duly convicted and he was sentenced to a lot of years in prison (many more than if he had copped a plea).
I guess it’s true to say (at least we can’t prove it’s not true) that this president relied on the PUBLICLY released position paper JWG mentions in an earlier post. I guess we really can’t expect the president (or anyone in his administration) to be privy to the reports and conclusions of members of the intelligence community who were specifically sent to investigate, in this case, the “mobile labs” if those reports aren’t made public. Neither the president nor anyone in his admistration would be interested in the results of that investigation and I’m sure they didn’t even know that such an investigation was occurring. And it’s not like the president actually has meetings with staff to discuss intelligence findings and reports that the public isn’t privy to. That just doesn’t happen of course. He doesn’t rely on secret or classified information. And so what if neither the president nor anyone in his administration didn’t hear about this report for at least a year while the claim that these buses were proof that Iraq had WMD’s and thus a justification for the war was being made. None of that is evidence of anything. Not even circumstanstial evidence as my former client would say. But it made me wonder – how did the president know about the CLASSIFIED NIE report in order to release it Judy Miller? Since he obvioulsly doesn’t hear about or much less care about secret non publicly released reports. Then I remembered, he only released that portion that made the admistration look good to counter the claims that were coming out about the Niger uranium hoax. It then became clear – this president only hears about and knows about news that is good for the administration. Which is bad for us of course. And clients whose take on evidence is not based on reality.
“MJB drops the specifics on this item (conveniently) and resorts to vague general smears of Bush”
I didn’t intend to comment on the specifics, just to ask how many times does the leader of the free world have to be ignorant of facts or kept in the dark by his subordinates before you worry that there is a Constitutional crisis afoot?
Yes, Bush was telling the truth when he connected Saddam and Al Qaeda, he covered us with a mountain of truth when he said we found the WMDs in those trailers. Silly us, why won’t we just bend our brains around so we can see the truth?
DRDoper, in your differences between Clenis and Bush, you left out several thousand dead people and soldiers, $250+ billion and counting, and the US losing trust and credibility.
So, pedro, are you arguing that there is a small amount of personal responsibility for Bush to tell the American public the whole truth about the threat we actually faced as a nation and that Clinton has a large amount of personal responsibility to tell the American public the truth about fondling of genitals or whatever the heck it was they did? Do you want to know every time George fondles Laura? Why was Clinton’s shenanigans in any way an interest to the American public?
Using Dugger’s logic, you can’t prove he lied because maybe his intent wasn’t to deceive. He simply couldn’t remember what happened that (those) night(s)/day(s).
Personal responsibility. Ha. That’s funny. And you say he has no personal knowledge, so he just had to trust the reports he was given. So, why does the right continually deride Kerry and any lefty Congress-person for making decisions based on crap intelligence from the president? Is that not another source of potential error? (Especially when dealing with this president!)
When I first ran across dugger’s mantra (which is repeated loudly with hands covering ears) about ‘no Bush lie documented, not one’ I wondered who is required to document the lie. An ordained priest? The SCOTUS? A wingnut on talk radio? But the answer was right here all along — it’s dugger himself.
Dugger, not one lie documented yet — haven’t got around to it.
Here’s the difference, Pedro. The initial reports made by the military were done 6,000 miles away, and were conflicted in their assessments (though they were presented as unambiguously supportive by the president in a knowing lie). The purpose of the report that’s the subject of the Post article was to send people specifically to do an on-site inspection of the trailers themselves.
That report, the best report, the only on-site report, the report that was unanimous in its conclusions, the report that turned out to be correct, far surpasses the intitial reports in its authority and expertise. Still, the right wing brays “OMG they were all equivalent! How was Bush to know which was the best report?!? OMG YOU WANT TEH TERRORIST TO WINN”
And yet that report was somehow buried, kept from David Kay and the public for — how long? Two years? Again, that is a result of the Bush administration’s willful suppression of politically inconvenient truths. Because they are willing to manipulate and mislead the public in order to get their way. The public is now aware of this, which is why Bush is at 60% disapproval.
Bush continued to state with certainty that Hussein had WMDs even when the data he had in his hand was iffy at best, negative mostly. I don’t excuse Clinton misleading about Lewinsky. It was wrong. Not only as president but as a husband and father. But to you guys, Bush maintaining to this day that the cause of invading Iraq for nonexistent WMDs and a mythical connection to Al Qaeda (oh look, some right wing newspaper says its true, it must be) – is not a reason to doubt the veracity of a man who lies without trying, it is a cause to be celebrated.
Talk about your personal responsibility.
Oliver, I don’t care if Bush told 1, 2, many lies…
That doesn’t mean he’s lying now.
Unless, of course, you’ve got your psychoanalyst’s hat on, and you’ve diagnosed a man you’ve never met or spoken to, as a pathological liar.
Being deliberatly obtuse again, I see.
The “connection” was that to wait for Saddam to pull off his own 9/11-style attack before doing anything about the problem would be too late. It’s the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that you and others use to force action NOW when it comes to global warming.
The connection was taking out someone before he could do something he couldn’t do with something he didn’t have? I bet Farris’ neighbors feel safe.
Actually, SaveFarris, it’s not the same argument at all when it comes to global warming. Comparing a preemptive military operation to attempting to slow global warming by reducing emissions over time are absolutely nothing alike. Maybe if you compared the left’s position on global warming to using diplomacy for a little longer without the need to go into Iraq and rebuild the country from the ground, you know, doing something reasonable and actually being patient while doing it, you might have an argument.
There’s still some haggling over whether Bush technically lied on this one count, but it’s nice to see that all the cons on this board have conceded the point that the administration buried the report because it was politically inconvenient. It’s just detail work at this point. That’s what happens when the conservative trolls bring nothing but invective to the table…
“It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides,” said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. The technical team’s findings had no apparent impact on the intelligence agencies’ public statements on the trailers.”
The article makes it pretty damn well clear that before the President made his public statement about the labs there was a serious debate about the nature of the labs and what they were used for. In May of 2003, however, the President and the CIA felt compelled to publicly disclose only one side of the debate, the side that rpoved totally wrong. That is fundamentally dishonest if not outright lying. If Bush and the CIA had come out publicly and said, “We don’t know yet what these trailers were used for, there’s evidence on both sides and were weighing that evidence carefully” there wouldn’t be a problem. But they didn’t do that. They played games with the truth in an effort to deceive the American people.
It’s abundantly obvious now that the Right wants to be lied to, wants to be deceived, wants to live in fantasyland.
buma,
My method for determining what is and isn’t a lie is that horrible right wing device, a “DICTIONARY”. BOOO!!! Hope that didn’t scare you too much. Dictionaries can be scary to young progressives. Words with meanings and stuff. So much more comfortable in Progressiveland where words mean what you feel like they ought to mean.
Dugger
“It s the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that you and others use to force action NOW when it comes to global warming.”
And here comes Save doing his best to imitate Ben Domenech while totally twisting a comment I made yesterday in another thread. You guys are so fundamentally dishonest it’s hard to know what to even say. I mean, damn.
OMG! We have been talking about global warming for almost 20 years!
small correction to 4:30 pm post: without the need to go into Iraq and rebuild the country from the ground *up*…
Claiming unambiguity when there is known to be ambiguity is a lie, Dugger.
So, Dugger, We’ve been over the dictionary definition of a lie for about, waht is it, 2 months now? I’m just curious. How do you know when someone is lying to you?
I mean, has anyone ever lied to you, Dugger? That you know of? Have you registered intent on the part of the person who may or may not have lied to you?
“Dugger, Not one lie documented, not one.”
But enough rank dishonesty and corruption to make Judas blush. No so big deal.
Claiming it’s a war of necessity when you know it’s a war of choice is a lie, too, Dugger. Even Wolfowitz admitted the real motivation was an attempt to remake the Middle East, rather than a preemptive strike against WMDs. Even Instapundit admits that.
duros,
Best question I’ve been asked here. The answer is I usually don’t but I usually do know when somebody has done something unwise.
To a large extent any of us can judge someone is lying but it is just that – a judgment and not something we can state honestly as a fact. We would have to factually know the person knew the truth (not that we ‘think’ he ’should’ have known) and stated something otherwise – to intentionally deceive. I wonder why the left resorts to the lie smear so often with Bush when there is plenty enough to question him on without pretending you know something about the man’s psyche you can’t possibly know.
Dugger
So what is the purpose of a lie detector, then? It doesn’t register brain waves or whether the subjects knows the truth.
Can you point out someone whom you know beyond a shadow of a doubt has lied?
Bill clinton
For some reason, the White House will not answer the simple question, did George W. Bush know that the trailers were not mobile weapons labs. That is curious and suspicious because Bush has twice claimed that Saddam did not let weapon inspectors in when they were, in fact, in country; and George W. Bush claimed that no president wants war after it was revealed definitely that Bush wanted war so badly that he was devising hair brained schemes to provoke one.
The Lies of George W. Bush. Twenty lies. Some Blatant lies. Still
more lies. Top Ten Lies. Some Katrina lies, and more lies.
“We would have to factually know the person knew the truth (not that we think he should have known) and stated something otherwise – to intentionally deceive. I wonder why the left resorts to the lie smear so often with Bush when there is plenty enough to question him on without pretending you know something about the man s psyche you can t possibly know.”
This pretty much sums up why Dugger’s seemingly rational commentary is little more mushbrained twaddle masquerading as moderation.
In this story there are only two possible scenarios: Either the president made a public statement about WMD without having all the facts at his disposal or he had all the facts and deliberately left out the ones that proved too “inconvenient.” So either Bush is incomepetent or a liar. To suggest that he is one or the other, however, is to be accused of trying to “read Bush’s mind” or trying to guess what his “psyche” is.
At the same time, Dugger suggests that there are plenty of things to question Bush on but then fails to point out a single one of them or to explain why, in the face of this plentiful pile of doubt, he still supports/defends Bush with such vigor.
There’s absolutely no question AWOL George lied on this issue and many others.
No question whatsoever.
Let’s remember what AWOL George said. He said, conclusively, we had found WMD.
The wingnuts are trying to argue that AWOL George wasn’t lying–he was just wrong. But the flaw in that argument is that it is also a lie to conclusively assert something that isn’t true when you know there is dissent as to what you are asserting.
In this case, you had two reports that disputed whether or not these trailers represented WMDs and one report that was unanimous in saying they did not.
The connection was that to wait for Saddam to pull off his own 9/11-style attack before doing anything about the problem would be too late. It s the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that you and others use to force action NOW when it comes to global warming.
Wrong. Noone has to die to address Global Warming. You guys were better off sticking to the “Clenis” argument.
Bill Clinton, no? he knew the truth and didn’t tell the truth.
Either the president made a public statement about WMD without having all the facts at his disposal or he had all the facts and deliberately left out the ones that proved too inconvenient
Actually it should be all AVAILABLE facts. You see, he can only know what is available at that time. And he can’t be expected to sort out every conflicting statement. It also it really very good leadership to stand up and say “Well, Rodney thinks there WMD’s, but Clifton isn’t sure. Of course Gordon is CONVINCED they are, but Chauncey, well, he doesn’t believe it”
Of course you leftist can always come back 3 years later after parsing every last detail that was gleaned over the years and then say “The president lied!”
You guys are maroons….
“he can t be expected to sort out every conflicting statement”
An honorable man would not represent conflicting statements as being unconflicted. And if you are actually interested in defending Bush here, you should start by responding to the specific claims of misrepresentation that are made above by Frame, Jade, Java joe, myself, and others.
Plausible deniability. These two words are why I doubt Bush.
From the whole “we had no idea this was coming” 9-11 fiasco, to “there are WMDs in them thar hills” Iraq fiasco, to the “who could have known the levees would break” fiasco – the recurrent theme of blaming anyone and everyone else is beyond tired – and to expect the American people to swallow it is insulting.
And yes, in this case shit does roll uphill – this man is the “face” of America, the leader of the executive branch, and we’re covered in mud because of his regime.
Why in the world would anyone take this man’s “intelligence” as valid now when it has been so bad throughout his term? Because THIS time he’s right? How do you know anymore? Please don’t go the “because lord and master says so” routine – this isn’t the United States of Mindless Sheep.
Is he “The Little POTUS That Cried Wolf” or just a “Baaad Boy”? (Sorry I just couldn’t help myself there – the sheep thing and all – too easy – like declaring war or lying to an entire nation.)
I wonder when the claims that Iran has been secretly smuggling in laxatives and swingsets so they can make bio weapons and nuclear materials. Those push-cart falafil stands will morph into mobile weapons labs any day now too. I don’t think Condi Rice will have any qualms about going before the UN with cartoons.
Lets not ignore that the “facts” that we were working under in the run up to Iraq were agreed upon by the entire civilized world and the UN include Clinton, Kerry, The French, The Germans, the UN etc etc.
It isn’t just a bush “lie” if there was any lying involved…but nice try with the historical re-write
Duggersez: “So much more comfortable in Progressiveland where words mean what you feel like they ought to mean.”
We have found the weapons of mass destruction. — GW Bush, 29 May 2003, upon the discovery ot two truck trailers, already reported by US intelligence to be not true.
If I say those exact same words I would be lying. Why is this not a lie in duggerland? Because you haven’t got around to ‘documenting’ it.
Bill clinton
Nope, sorry.
Dugger has already admitted that no one can know whether Clinton intended to deceive, so we cannot know whther he was lying or not.
Unless, Pedro, you have that Oujia-board hat that can see into a person’s mind and know what they are thinking.
Really? The facts, DRDoper? Aluminum tubes, play stations, vacuum cleaner motors, mobile bio-weapon ice cream trucks. Everything you read about agreed to that, sure, but there were plenty of people debunking those claims. When Bush screamed about inspections he got inspections. Then he heaped the scorn on them when they didn’t find anything. Their lesson was his intelligence was bunk. Did he reevaluate then? No, just tried to smear the messengers. And pressed on with his war.
Say your wet dream came true and Hussein did have a stockpile of bio-weapons, what then? Hussein would have been driven to sell them to terrorist groups and we couldn’t have stopped him because the one fact is: we had no clue where they were. Boom New York. Boom Washington. Boom USA.
Another point: If the President was simply mistaken and said things before all the facts were in and analyzed, he would feasibly say that he was wrong.
But he has never done that.
As far as he is concerned, he has never been wrong.
He, and those sycophants surrounding him have convinced themselves that they speak the truth, no matter what evidence surfaces to the contrary.
If he was wrong, he should say so. If he doesn’t, it’s lying.
Pedro
Lets say your boss finds out you’ve cheated on your wife. He happens to ask you about it in front of her. What is your first reaction? Do you say, “Yes, I cannot tell a lie, I banged that skank from Hooters”, or do you deny it automatically? Are you lying? Are you lying now or were you lying then?
Still waiting, Dr.
The dailyhowler touches on this item today. It’s the last item Somerby discusses.
“Actually it should be all AVAILABLE facts. You see, he can only know what is available at that time. And he can t be expected to sort out every conflicting statement.”
pedro, the whole story is about how the truth about the trailers WAS AVAILABLE days before Bush made an emphatically unqualified statement that was totally wrong.
And let me just add this:
There are the facts and then there is what Bush says the facts are. Time and again these have been two totally separate and distinct things. However you want to explain away the difference — he’s lying, he’s incompetent, he speaks before all the facts are in, a combination of all three — this president has a track record of being wrong himself, relying on wrong information and depending on people for advice who are also wrong. This is what conservatives call success.
duros62 Says:
April 13th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Still waiting, Dr.
Are we done here? I don’t want to waste much more time here waiting for Dr.Pedro to answer my question. I know he must be busy on other threads hounding people to answer his questions.
Or saving someone’s brain. Or getting a kitten out of a tree.
Or….something.
straight denials…all the way
Still waiting, Dr.
(sitting in this freakin’ waiting room for 2 days) Hey, can i get dressed now?
Oh, there you are.
So you would deny, right?
With intent to deceive or to protect your marriage from undue harm?
Gone again. oh well..
Bill Clinton. not one documented lie.