Share this comment
Doesn't your definition include lies to get the country into a war? Most recently, nukes and chemical weapons in Iraq. Or what about carbon dioxide emissions NOT causing global heating? (Or previously, tobacco companies claiming smoking was safe.) I would say that these examples "make large swathes of other Americans worse off", wouldn't you?
Doesn't your definition include lies to get the country into a war? Most recently, nukes and chemical weapons in Iraq. Or what about carbon dioxide emissions NOT causing global heating? (Or previously, tobacco companies claiming smoking was safe.) I would say that these examples "make large swathes of other Americans worse off", wouldn't you?
James K. Polk lied us into the Mexican-American War. I don't say that was a good thing overall, but it accomplished his goal: Acquire California. I think it's pretty clear that, 1) this was classic imperialism and 2) California was a big plus to the Union.
GW Bush's lies to get us into war with Iraq look shallow and petty by comparison, with maybe an equal death toll, and far fewer benefits for America.
The third war based on outright lies would be the Spanish American War, but there the main liar was WR Hearst, as best I can tell.
Lying is part of a politicians job, as far as I can see. But how they do it, in what circumstance, and to what effect matters a lot, and your first comment did not seem to recognize that.
Which is what I was responding to.