Is an Error Better Than a Lie?

There was an editorial in today's Dallas Morning News regarding when a misstatement by a politician represents a lie. A lie, according to the author, is "a willful misstatement of fact, uttered with the intent to deceive." The case in point was, once again, President Bush's claim that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. After the war, it was concluded that there were no such weapons, and no plans to produce or acquire them. Although prior to the war there was some plausible evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing, and perhaps even possessed such weapons, there was also considerable evidence that this was not the case. For whatever reasons, Bush chose not to take that evidence into account and demand more information. He was content with the information he had. Therefore, either President Bush lied about the existence of such weapons as a pretext to invade Iraq, or that he allowed himself to be misled into believing that such weapons existed or were actively being pursued. This leaves one with a choice; either Bush knew and lied about it, or he did not know, and was being misled. In short, either he lied or he acted in error.

I have long been uncomfortable with the assertion that President Bush was misled and so acted in error. It is the job of the president to know such things and Bush didn't. If it wasn't deceit, it was incompetence, either on the part of Bush, his staff, or the intelligence community. Why we should be more comfortable with incompetence than deceit eludes me.