The original post that started this thread/poll was posted by flike per the following:
[quote=“flike”]The Magnificent Tigerman (change your name, willya?) has pointed out that, according to a strict, rather legalistic definition of “lying” US President George W. Bush cannot be proven to have lied about WMDs in Iraq during the runup to the recent war there.
TMTM is quite correct, too. As Muzha Man and others have pointed out, it can only be proven trivially, which means that intent cannot be shown. This may be because the data is incomplete, whether it’s known, knowable, or neither. At any rate, TMTM is quite correct in concluding that it cannot be proven - meaning beyond any reasonable doubt - that Bush lied re: WMDs in Iraq.
That is a quite separate conclusion, however, from the question of whether Bush lied or not. After all, the only people with access to all relevant information are members of the Bush administration and therefore have something less than a real incentive to share all they know with anyone. Also, the idea of proving a Bush lie is very different from proving that Bush did not lie.
Every citizen of any country that’s a member of the UN was subject to the persuasive powers of the Bush administration in the runup to war. And it’s very likely that every such citizen has had his or her life changed, however imperceptably, in that everyone’s risk from terrorist attack has changed due to Bush’s actions in Iraq - whether your country was a member of the coalition of “the willing” or not.
Therefore, I’m more interested in what the public perception is of this issue - the gut feeling. You see, that’s what Americans usually rely on when they go to the polls to vote. Bush will stand for reelection in November.
After all, Forumosa.com counts among its waigouren members something approaching 100% in a graduation rate from university, and likely among its readers here in Taiwan as well. fred smith, among perhaps others, has argued that the American ex-pat population throughout Asia can be described as significantly - perhaps even mostly - Republican or Conservative.
However, I don’t want to limit this poll to Americans only. Like I said above, every citizen of the world had, and continues to have, a stake in the actions of the Bush administration, however small.
A bit about the poll: No WMDs were found in Iraq, and the US has concluded that none were likely there even on the first day of the war. Therefore, Bush’s working assumption was incorrect, prima facie. “Bush misled” was therefore intended to mean “Bush distorted information in order to be persuasive” but it could also refer to a broader definition of leadership as well. (e.g., Bush led, or misled, the coalition in Iraq) In fact, I believe that if you find yourself thinking “what does it mean, ‘misled’?” then, for you, likely this alternative definition of ‘misled’ will work fine. It was, however, thought that everybody would understand it instinctively and vote accordingly. If I’m wrong, then, for the purposes of the poll, the closest synonym to ‘misled’ is probably ‘beguile.’
Please feel free to vote. If you choose to include comments, fine. If you don’t, then don’t. It’s all good. If you have an opinion about whether Bush lied re: WMDs in the runup to the recent war in Iraq, now’s your chance to give voice to it, even if your voice is publicly silent. So, vote anyway, ok?
'K, that said, VOTE!
Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq?
EDIT: The poll is working now, thanks to TMTM. Please vote!
[/quote]
Of course, the poll is now working thanks very much to Big Fluffy Matthew.