Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, did just that on Hardball last night (12/4/07) when he said we were lied to and that the Iraq invasion and occupation was and is about seizing oil and establishing a permanent military presence to militarily control the middle east oil lanes.

As a foreign policy expert, he also pointed out how greatly this ill advised policy has damaged our reputation in the world today. He said it has also given the terrorists more members and the most clear mission they have ever had.

O.T. "huckabee dumond 08"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The phenomena of giving the other party the "benefit of the doubt" (as my Mom would have said) is how many people excuse the Press in these instances. And the Press merely says, "I was just playing-back what they said like a the disinterested tape recorder I really am. It's not up to me to support or defend them." I think Tim Russert has come the closest to actually saying this--almost verbatim.

The more we jump on the Media for not doing its Constitutionally-inspired job, the more we encounter opposition who says, "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Press has the obligation to challenge the veracity of whomever they report about."

It's kind of the like the argument Conservatives present about differences in the literal wording of the Constitution (or the Bible) and "what the Founders (or God) intended". I think that distinction is like the one lawyers make about the "letter" versus the "spirit and intent" of a law.

My point is that during this past 30 years, a substantial portion of the American public has been inclined to favor the "letter of the law" kind of thinking, and that the Press adopts it too for its own defense against slovenly reporting and "denial of service" ---Constitutionally-inspired service---to the citizens.

Date it back at least to Nixon-Kissinger and Woodward-Bernstein. The "if the President says it, it must be true; if the President does it, it must be legal" position of Nixon---that somehow, being elected President by a majority of the people places you beyond reproach. Truth apparently gets elected right along with the Office-holder.

What bothers me in the final analysis is that so many citizens actually accept this Unitary Theory of Executive Truth, not merely from a weasely President, but from their pastors and bishops, their corporate CEO's--- it seems that people prefer eliminating the discomfort of truth or fact by relying on Emily Post and "benefit of the doubt" etiquette.

Thanks for those thoughts, GTash.

I listened to an interesting discussion a few months ago on an NPR show with members of various news services' editorial boards, in which they explained why they stay away from the word "lie." Basically, the argument had to do with their being accused of using character defamation in place of substantive argument. Accusing someone of "lying" or of being a "liar" can be legally interpreted as libel. Hence, all the word parsing.

The "benefit of the doubt" should have expired 5 yrs. ago at the very least.

Linda, while that may arguably be true for the word "lie", it doesn't work for the word "false". When something is demonstrably false, it should be labeled as such. While I agree the word "lie" also implies that they knew what they were saying was false (which I contend can be shown with much frequency these days), the WaPo won't even use "false" when it's beyond a shadow of a doubt!

NPR stays away from it too, along with so many of the "academics" they call in for interviews as "experts". Which is one of the reasons NPR drives me nuts too!