Reply to thread

Even if it is/were true that he promoted selective intel, that they knew was questionable, embellished other intel, and invaded a country that was boxed in, that would not mean that he lied. 

If people were to spend their time building a case for what you listed above they would have made far more headway than they did making a case for a falsehood that a lie was told.

Of course they choose to create the illusion of a lie because they could make it stick with the ignorant electorate and because the smaller reality of what could be made from the accusations above would not add up to too much. Don't get me wrong, I think some of those accusations are true to a degree. I just don't think they are very powerful accusations.

Whereas the accusation of a lie was very powerful just not true.

The main problem is that when people choose to focus on creating the illusion of a powerful lie rather than the reality of a less powerful truth they hurt the country as much a they damage the opposition party. So many are bemoaning the opinion other countries have of us while they were in large part responsible for creating it. I see the promotion of that falsehood as almost traitorous.