We use "lied" and "misled." What is wrong with "deceived?"

[gulliver]

Bush didn't necessarily "lie" us into war. He has the perfect defense. He doesn't know much of anything, so it is not possible for him to "know with certainty" that that the things he said in the run-up to war were false. The meaning of the word "lie" has become so technical and slippery that it is practically impossible to definitively convict someone of lying.

A few Dem partisans have no problem saying Bush lied us into war. But our mainstream leaders have settled on the term "misled." The problem with that term is that it doesn't convey the deception and political cynicism of what Bush did. It sounds too close to mere leadership incompetence, like he simply led us badly.

I would like to make a pitch for using the words "deceptive" and "deceived" more often when discussing what Bush and his Republicans did in the election year of 2002 to stampede us into Iraq in 2003.

Simply put, someone who is deceptive in persuading people has deceived those people. And someone who has deceived people has lied to them. So there is a syllogism there that, to my ear, manages to bridge the gulf between misleading and lying. Bush was deceptive, so he deceived. He deceived, so he lied.

[DogPoundPup]

1. I have always referred to lil bush as the deceiver/just like Satan n/t

[tularetom]

2. I dunno - "deceived" sounds too gentle and perhaps unintentional

"Lied" "Liar" That to me sounds harsh, brutal and unambiguous and far more descriptive of what these asswipes have done. "He's a fucking liar" sounds so much more appropriate to the actions this administration than "He deceived us".

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Good point. n/t

[AdHocSolver]

4. How about the "complete fraud".

According to my dictionary, it implies a "cheat", a "trickster", a "deceiver", and an "impostor". Also the act of fraud implies illegality.