The Bush administratiuon did not say it

John H. Lederer – 6/

The opponents think they should have because it fits their view of what the other side should have said. Therefore they said it. and when they deny saying it, they are either lying or engaging in a calculated program to imply it while maintaining deniability.

Do you dispute the fact that the president (or any public figure) is capable is giving an impression without being factually inaccurate?

I think there was more likely than not Iraq support for 9/11 though I would definitely label my view “uncertain”. Why do I think that? Because I don’t believe that Samon Pak was for training Iraqis on how to oppose highjackers. Because no one seems able to explain Atta’s prior trips to Prague or his withdrawal of $8000 immediately before the hypothesized trip. Because it fits my view of Saddam’s animosity towards the U.S.

Mr. Mahan, You raise an interesting point, which is if I am not mistaken, that anyone capable of being manipulated when the truth could be sought after deserve what they get.

However, the literature on the president’s power to persuade is extensive. The “rhetorical presidency,” the “bully pulpit” and various other studies have been conducted and demonstrate time and time again that presidents can and do influence the public by their words and actions more than any other government actor. There has also been a great deal of research demonstrating how the truth, when properly crafted, or selectively used, can create an impression that is not truthful.

You say that so long as information is factually correct, the president is absolved of any other responsibility and the burden is now on the public. If the American people are comfortable with that, then I hope they act responsibility and vote that way. For those Americans who believe that deception is all too possible, even in the absence of outright lies, this is a serious matter. Deception need not be factual, but can be based on omission of fact https://rksloans.com/installment-loans-oh/ as well, or how the facts are selectively put together.

The simple matter is that sadly, most Americans do not follow politics closely, and do not research what public figures say and do all the time. This is a truism in much of the world, and always has been. So to answer your question, yes people need to be informed, but no, being informed does not necessitate cross checking data when you trust the president of the United States to be forthcoming and honest. In other words, in short, the obligation of the president is not simply to be factual correct, but for the overall message to be honest as well.

To address some specific points you make: 1) “Not to insult but this lack of responsibility is in line with the liberal, entitlement philosophy that “others” that have caused their pain, never themselves. (a paramount difference between Reps and Dems).”

You are mistaken. Part of the liberal philosophy is that people must take responsibility for their actions, and that includes presidents. Bush ran his campaign with the slogan, “I trust the American people.” Perhaps it should have been, “what I tell the American people should be enough to absolve me of any conclusions they may come to.” Finally, I find your comments to effectively eliminate the debate over the so-called liberal media bias. If you are correct, than the media should not be criticized in any way for being bias (of course, evidence of outright lies are excluded from my point) since the American people have to take full responsibility of analyzing the data themselves.