Again, it's simply an acceptance of reality. We've never had a perfect president. Before you consider that a straw man, what is the alternative? Someone who is imperfect, human, capable of deception, etc., etc..
False dichotomy. Your model accepts only two alternatives, neither of which is relevant. The third alternative (a morally balanced president) is intentionally omitted.
Calling it war doesn't make it good for the human species. It certainly doesn't make it moral. The human race has probably never found a more pernicious fallacy.
There
was a time when war was good for the human species, but if that ship hadn't sailed before the birth of William T. Sherman it surely did shortly afterwards.
I believe Obama has lied. He's human. I believe Obama has had to face moral dilemma where he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Such is the basis of evil. Something I've been studying from an academic perspective this past year.
This, like your original statement, smacks of moral relativism. You are stating, in effect, that since
all presidents "lie" and "kill civilians" then
any act of lying and killing civilians is therefore justified.
Example:
Leader1: Madam Prime Minister, you look lovely today.
Truth: She's 50 pounds over weight, cross eyed, balding and buck toothed.
Leader 2: The greatest threat to our way of life are the Bogomils. They should be eliminated.
Truth: The Bogomils reject my belief system and represent a threat to my personal authority. I need to eliminate them.
Both are lies, therefore the second is no different from the first.
You may not have meant it that way, but
that is the position of a fanatic.
