When Is A Lie Not A Lie?

When is a lie not a lie? If a statement contains no factual errors, can it be a lie? If a statement can't be proved to contain factual errors, even if the statement seems highly improbable, can it be a lie? And if a statement isn't a lie, is automatically acceptable? In my break from Online Opinion I've come across a number of examples of the not-really-a-lie, most of which are, to my simple mind, well, lies.

Let us start our survey with the Butler report. This, of course, told us that the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq was weak and inconclusive, the use of that intelligence was politicised and misleading, but somehow this was all nobody's fault. Is this a lie? It certainly makes no sense. Either the JIC decided all on its own to wrongly portray the intelligence as supporting the already politically decided invasion, or they were under pressure from Number Ten to do so. In fact, there is evidence that the latter was the case. How can this possibly be "nobody's fault"? Scarlett headed the JIC while the "misleading", "politicised" report was produced. He personally approved the final draft. How can he not be at fault? The Prime Minister's press office appears to have pressured the JIC into producing a suitable report, even asking for wording to be changed to strengthen the case. Were they acting on Blair's direct instructions? Or has the Prime Minister no control over his own staff? In either case, how can he not be at fault? Butler's claim that no one was to blame makes no sense. But is it a lie? Or is it just a difference of opinion, albeit an opinion no reasonable person could actually hold?

The inescapable conclusion that most people would draw from the Butler report is that Tony Blair is very much to blame. He was happy to add his name and authority to the dodgy dossier, and his staff had a hand in directing the creative process. Blair's support for both the dossier and those who drafted it remained long after it was clear to the rest of us that the dossier wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. If Blair's public and frequently-expressed support for the dodgy dossier isn't enough to convince you of his dishonesty, consider his own statements. Those of us who opposed the invasion were told that if we could only see the reports that crossed the Prime Minister's desk, we'd change our minds. Detailed, convincing, frequent intelligence, that proved Hussein's danger beyond all reasonable doubt. Well, we've seen the intelligence now. It was thin, unsubstantiated, and unconvincing. Interestingly, now Blair claims to have seen very little of the actual intelligence. Just a few high level summaries. Is this a lie? Or is this a matter of belief - he found the reports convincing, so assumed we would too? Are detailed intelligence and summaries both slightly different spins on the same actual material?

Another common technique is exemplified by the recent terror alert in the US. Sensational information was released to the press of al Qaeda agents photographing financial institutions, planning access routes, detailing locations of the police and other emergency services. Then it emerged that all this occurred before 11th September. It was old information. No, came the rebuttal, this is new information, resulting from recent intelligence work and an arrest in Pakistan. Of course, the likely story is that it is both. The information may well have been revealed or confirmed by the files found on computers belonging to Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, arrested recently in Lahore. This doesn't mean that the plans they related to weren't four years old. Nor does that mean that the attack won't still happen. What does this tell us? The revelation of the scariest information, without context, can only be interpreted as a Republican election year stunt. For some reason voters still tend to view Bush as safer on terrorism. Why, I have no idea. That he was the President who presided over the largest terrorist attack on American soil is an accident of history. That he was the Commander-in-Chief who presided over the bungled attack on al Qaeda is not. However the rebuttal is not entirely in context - al Qaeda frequently plan their atrocities years in advance. The most likely true story - al Qaeda has been, and may still be, plotting an attack on financial institutions, but there is no evidence that they are planning anything immediate - seems somehow dull compared to the two versions we've been given in the press. But are these stories lies? After all they contain the truth, just well short of the whole truth.

When is a lie not a lie? Is it possible to tell the truth and still lie? Of course it is. The recent US terror alert was intended solely to scare people into voting Republican in November. To do so, it withheld vital information to mislead the public. The only circumstance in which Tony Blair did not know exactly how weak the intelligence on Iraq really was, would be if he made it clear that he did not wish to see information that did not support his pre-decided course of action. When he told us, repeatedly, that the intelligence was compelling, he either knew it was weak, or knew he was not seeing everything. Indeed, given the scarcity of supporting evidence, he would have seen very little to support his case at all. Blair's statement before and since the war were intended to deceive us. A statement designed to deceive is a lie. While the public now expects politicians to lie, some lies are worse than others. The Republican lie is the common political half-truth, one which seems all too acceptable. Blair's deception over the case for war is different. His was a calculated deception, designed to justify what would otherwise be the murder of thousands of Iraqis; an action which also caused the deaths of hundreds of Western troops. I, for one, cannot bring myself to cast a vote that will support someone who so blatantly and unapologetically lied for such a bloody end. Only Blair's resignation will restore my support to the Labour Party.

Graham Robinson. 11th August 2004.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.