Jesus, I have to argue for it? Have you not been reading the news, lately, Dugger? We invaded Iraq without enought troops to secure the country and without a plan for handling the reconstruction. Now the country is falling apart. What began as a local insurgency, assisted by outside terrorist forces, against US troops has exploded into a sectarian religious war between Iraq’s rival Muslim factions with US troops caught in the crossfire. Three years after our initial invasion we still have not secured Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country. There is simply no way to put a happy face on what it happening there.

Our invasion of Iraq is such a monumental failure we are compelled to ask some serious questions about the Bush administration’s leadership. They absolutely insisted that we had to invade Iraq to keep America and the world safe. And yet, if the invasion was so important, so crucial to the success of the war on terror, why did not they fail to send in enough troops to secure the country or adequately plan the reconstruction? None of the administration’s efforts in Iraq match the fervor of its rhetoric. How is such a disonnect even possible, given the stakes that they themselves laid out? Are you not even the least bit curious why Bush would allow something that he truly believed was so important to turn out so fucked up? There really is no excuse. And the responsibility rests entirely with Bush himself. One hundred percent.

Not one person.

In history.

That’s simply how crazy the right wing can make a guy.

Well then, argue for incompetence – not the virtually unprovable, and demonizing ‘lie’.

Dugger, And Still Not One Lie by Pres Bush has been proven

It is very easy for a politician to lie. Thye do it all the time and get away with it. The big reason they can get away with it is that by the time the lie is discovered the subject they lied about is old news so they don’t take the political hit for it.

In my opinion, it is a sign of immaturity to think a politician would not lie to promote a policy they want. I mean weren’t senior Bush officials claiming they knew where the WMDs were?

Of course they lied. They promoted the WMD angle because they could scare the public into the war. They were probably sure they’d find WMDs. The problem was they didn’t have any solid evidence so they promoted any unreliable shit they could believing it wouldn’t be relevant because they would find the WMDs.

No it revolves around incompetence.

Dugger is unable to give an example of a real lie, by his standards, told by any human being in history.

Nobody has ever given me an example of a real lie by Pres Bush .

“it is the purpose of the words to create a false impression.’

And, please, no BS, how precisely do you know this? Signed statement? Bush confession on tape?

And I guess you are aware that Snopes, among many others, has debunked the 16 words ‘lie.”

Duros, the way we can do it is to debate seriously or snipe. We are sniping now. I snipe back. If we debate seriously, we have aw hole diffrent set of rules. I can do it either way. Do I think Bush has lied in his life. Yes. Do I think he is some kind of serial lair. No. Do I think he lied to draw us into war. No (and if you were to answer yes to this , in a serious debate, I would want to know why he would lie, what about , how he could get away with it – as a Presdient lives a very public life and is surrounded by thousands of advisors, and if Democrats who said a lot of the same things were lying also).

It is, IMO, a sign of immaturity to think policy like the Iraq war revolves around an issue of lying.

Dugger

George W. Bush, liar, who did not watch the airplane hit the tower on TV before going into the classroom.

Liar. It was false when he said it, he had to know it was false when he said it. That equals lie. I can’t even begin to care about his pathological motive.

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

16 words, untrue statement with intent to deceive, creating a false, misleading impression. LIE. The intention in the definition is not, as Dugger tries to confuse the issue with, Bush’s murky motives, it is the purpose of the words to create a false impression. Bush’s motives for telling the lie are a different can of worms altogether.

I’ll give you frame’s citation again, because it has been proven to be demonstrably false.

BUSH: Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires  a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we re talking about chasing down terrorists, we re talking about getting a court order before we do so.

Clearly Bush knew this was untrue because he authorized the program to go around the courts, as required by law, well before he gave this speech. But he went ahead and said it anyway:  Nothing has changed.
That wasn’t true when he said that. I can’t believe that even he believed it to be otherwise. That would be a falsehood, or, using Webster’s Thesaurus, A LIE.
I’m beginging to understand what you mean when you say that liberals hate. It isn’t hate, man, it is sheer frustration.

And there you have it. Clinton truly “did not have sex with that intern”. There goes your desparation debate strategy, Dugger.

Dugger

Get real. His misinformation and untruths always support the policy or goal he is trying to push, that is motive. Means, opportunity, and motive. A lie is a lie.

Hey, Tom did you notice I didn’t assert that Bush definitely had good motives, or say that it is a given fact that he has good motives. I ‘opined’ that he did. Did you notice I said the same about other presidents. But you know what, that is not rocket science. Almost everybody has good motives – from their own internal perspective. I mean, inside his own head, Pol Pot thought he was doing the right thing, right?