Not always. Sometimes.

By definition, a lie is an explicit statement, known by the speaker to be untrue, and said with the intent to deceive.

The word deception is a much broader term which can include all kinds of omissions, suggestions, and nonverbals.

Deception is part of the human condition. Anyone can deceive, or be deceived. "Successful" deception gives the deceiver an advantage.

Thus, society counter-balances this advantage by placing strong injunctions and penalties against deception: legal (perjury, libel slander); moral (sin, guilt), and social (embarrassment, shame, loss of trust).

Two common reactions to political lies are vague indignation ("something ought to be done") and cynical resignation ("nothing can be done").

Both extremes can be avoided. Deception, like violence, has always been a part of the human condition. To recognize this does not endorse deception, nor justify inaction. We do take action to control violence, to reduce the degree, to limit the kinds, to reduce the causes and ameliorate the effects.

So also, we can take action to control deception. In a democracy, we can reward genuine honesty and candor of political leaders who admit to doubt and difficulties. We can support laws which encourage openness and penalize deception. We can value the role of a free press, as a gadfly, in their job of uncovering problems and exposing deceptions.

In 1999, the Monica Lewinsky Case involving President Clinton's deceptive behavior stirred up new interest in the ethics of lying, in the varieties of deception, and in the complexities of intent and consequences. In 2003, President Bush's pre-war statements about Iraq's WMD may not have been lies, technically; but, many people believe they were deceptive because of their indirect suggestions, innuendoes, evasions, and omissions. For a detailed account, see the Center for Public Integrity which published (in 2008) Iraq, the War Card: Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War.

Rarely, did anyone lie (technically), but during the Bush 43 administration (2001-2009), longtime observers agree, deception relating to many crucial issues took the form of omissions, suppression, and delays. Or, as the New York Times (June 4, 2008) editorialized, as "The Science of Denial."

The Bush administration has worked overtime to manipulate or conceal scientific evidence — and muzzled at least one prominent scientist — to justify its failure to address climate change.

Its motives were transparent: the less people understood about the causes and consequences of global warming, the less they were likely to demand action from their leaders. And its strategy has been far too successful. Seven years later, Congress is only beginning to confront the challenge of global warming.

The last week has brought further confirmation of the administration’s cynicism. An internal investigation by NASA’s inspector general concluded that political appointees in the agency’s public affairs office had tried to restrict reporters’ access to its leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen. He has warned about climate change for 20 years and has openly criticized the administration’s refusal to tackle the issue head-on.

More broadly, the investigation said that politics played a heavy role in the office and that it had presented information about global warming “in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate-change science made available to the general public.”

Meanwhile, the administration finally agreed, under duress, to release a Congressionally mandated report on the effects of climate change on various regions of the United States. Some of the report’s predictions, like the inevitable loss of coastal areas to rising seas, were not new. Others were, including warnings of a potential increase in various food- and water-borne viruses.

What was most noteworthy about the latter report was that it made it to the light of day. A 1990 law requires the president to give Congress every four years its best assessment of the likely effects of climate change. The last such assessment was undertaken by President Clinton and published in 2000. Mr. Bush not only missed the 2004 deadline but allowed the entire information-gathering process to wither. Only a court order handed down last August in response to a lawsuit by public interest groups forced him to deliver this month.

This administration long ago secured a special place in history for bending science to its political ends. One costly result is that this nation has lost seven years in a struggle in which time is not on anyone’s side.

For a good background, a well written historical overview of how moral philosophers have dealt with deception, see: Sissela Bok's Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life.