A false remark

[UpInArms]

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/Stories/0,1413,101~6267~1504061,00.html

A lie is a false remark intended to deceive. So when the White House says President Bush's assertion that American intelligence had discovered Iraq had been negotiating to buy uranium from an African nation was false, is that proof that he was lying to make the case for a war he had already decided to wage? Or did he base his decision on information that was incomplete and inaccurate? It's time once again to play What Did The President Know And When Did He Know It?

President Bush made the Iraq-uranium connection in his State of the Union speech laying out his case for going to war. It was an explosive revelation that made Americans worry that Saddam Hussein might be closer to getting The Bomb than we had previously suspected. The polls reflected that support for the war grew after the president's speech, and we all know what happened next.

<snip>

If the president knew of Mr. Wilson's report, then he lied to the nation in front of Congress about a matter of life and death importance. This would be a much more serious lie than the one that led to the impeachment of the last president, who could truthfully say that nobody died as a result of his lie. If the president did not know the information was false, then shouldn't he fire the underlings who allowed him to make a fool of himself, up to and including the vice president?

[IrateCitizen]

1. Which is worse -- incompetence or dishonesty?

That's the basic question here. If the President was willing to go to war over incomplete and questionable intelligence, it seems to be a question of competency. If he promoted intelligence he knew to be questionable as truth, then it's a question of honesty.

Either way, he's not really fit to be Commander-in-Chief.

Pick your poison, Georgie-boy.