“Stay the course” is possibly the worst description of our tactics since engaging in the occupation of post-Saddam Iraq. Our goals have never changed: a stable, capitalist, human-rights-friendly democracy. When the storm has blown us off course, we’ve adjusted. The surge is such an adjustment.

“Stay the course” is just words, poorly chosen for their apparent description of stasis and repetitiveness, but in context and excellent description.

Duros:

The Ship of Fools bids no adieus
Until the last wave ceases-O.

Wow. The only person I can think of who is this delusional is… Wait a minute. Dick? Dick Cheney, is that you? I think you need to check the oxygen content of the air in your bunker. It seems to be impairing your already questionable reasoning skills.

Dugger is cutting and running and declaring victory. Classic Republican strategy.

-ND-

They wanted the American public to think that Iraq was a “grave and growing” danger when there were many authoritative sources out there saying the exact opposite.

Accordingly, the Bush administration itself found unreliable people like “curveball” to go on the record about things that weren’t true at all. They then leaked this “evidence” as top secret classified information to the New York Times.

The administration then used these “leaks” to inject, in response, apocalyptic imagery — “the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud” — into the public debate to scare people.

They used fear to forestall the rational debate that Dugger now claims he wants to have.

Most egregiously, they then failed to plan for the post-invasion reconstruction which lead directly to the clusterfuck that we are now in.

History will not be kind to this administration.

Um, Actually I did. reposted here.

As for your question, I honestly don’t know how stupid the President is. Considering what he told Stephanopoulous, I’m thinking pretty stupid. Maybe he doesn’t remember what he tells people from one day to the next.

Also, when you said The issue is not whether the staement is or is not correct,

I asked you whether the statement was true or false. Not whether it was or was not correct. If you’re gonna parse language, so can I.

Midder has proven a documented lie. Nihilist has proven the fallacy of your logic.
Deal with it.

Dugger. Gives a lot of maybe this and maybe thats without making a case for any of them. He then complains of people not having an honest debate. So which is it Dugger, are you too lazy to do your work, or just plain dishonest?

“That wasn’t Bush that said those things! Yeah, that’s it. Bush is really in a secret location and that was just an actor portraying Mr. Bush! That’s the ticket!” — Dugger “Tommy” Flanagan.

And for the FINALE!!! Dugger, Tommy Flanagan, whoever you are, he was not lying about things of public record! He made his statement about the US always getting warrants for wiretaps, wait for it, BEFORE his secret warrantless wiretap program was revealed to the public! OOPS. You lost again. Besides which it is easy and less damaging for politicians to lie about current events. People are paying attention then and that is when the damage has to be controlled on the front page. Later, when it is revealed the politician isn’t telling the truth, the public’s attention is somewhere else and you may get a little news blurb on page ZZ94. Also, supporters will always grab on to the lamest excuse and scream it loudly, over and over.

Bush is a liar. Now, how much credibility does he have left. Help him salvage it. Your president needs you Dugger!!! Put together that list of Iraq Claims that turned out to be true!

Nihilist, “intent” in the proof of whether Bush is lying or not is strictly limited to whether he intended to be believed or not. The motives of why he pursues this policy or that policy he is (alledgedly) lying about is irrelevant to whether what he is saying is a lie or not. He may even have good reason To lie. It doesn’t mean he isn’t lying.

I see from your last post that your defense of Bush’s lies has turned to “why would he lie?” A legitimate question, I suppose, for one to ponder. However, the problem with debating something like that is that you are asking about Bush’s intent. And we all know that the one thing in the universe that can never ever ever be proven is someone’s intent.

So while it’s nice to see that you’ve returned to posting on Oliver’s blog, your last line of argument is one that (by your own logic) can’t be argued. Nice try, though. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

And as for this other bullshit: If a rational, reaonable debate is called for, progressives can’t hack it. And: You tucked your tail between your legs and ran.

Dugger, Dugger, Dugger. Have you forgotten that you still haven’t finished this debate? I certainly didn’t tuck my tail and run from it. You did. I don’t want to say that you’re a coward, but…

Dugger, An island of garbage in a river of intelligence.

-ND-

So much for the debate. You did not address my single question as to ‘why’ Bush would ‘lie’ about stuff on the public record. Didn’t touch it. Just whined and dodged. And that is what I get every time. If a rational, reaonable debate is called for, progressives can’t hack it. Just remember this next time I remind you that not a single lie has been documented. You tucked your tail between your legs and ran.

midder,

No I just made the defense. You are trapped by the allegation of ‘lie’. The issue is not whether the staement is or is not correct, it is much more specific. It is ‘lie’. The word progressive haters have chosen. And if it is so obvious, exactly why would Bush lie about public- records-matters knowing that five million leftist haters in the public arena could pick up on it in an instant? Thre are many alternative expanations and logically, ‘lie’ does not make sense.

Anybody care to address these points? Anybody able to address these points???

DUgger, An Island of Civility in an Ocean of Hate

“A wiretap requires a court order”. The definition of wiretap Bush may or may not be trying to use in a following statement is also moot. He authorized, and therefore had knowledge of, a program that engaged in wiretaps without court orders. The existence of that program is an established legal fact. It wiretaps, it doesn’t seek warrants, established legal facts.

Bush is therefore a liar.

And the lame ass, “his every word is recorded, why would he lie” just screams out your intellectual dishonesty.

Also, if you want to argue Bush was not intending to deceive, after it is established the statement is false and Bush knows it is false, YOU have to offer a plausible way in which his statement was not supposed to be believed. Such as: was he telling a joke? Was he delusional? Mentally incompetent? Professionally incompetent? We can rule out he was joking which would leave us with a man unfit for office, or a liar.

And did I write “grave and gathering”? I meant “grave and growing.”

It’s abundantly clear from the facts that the Bush administraion cherry picked which bits of intelligence to hype and which bits to downplay all to convince the nation that it was facing a grave and gathering threat from Iraq. They did these things deliberately with the intention to distort the public perception of the Iraqi threat.

They downplayed the findings of UNESCO and the Iraqi Survey group. They dismissed the less alarmist findings of foreign intelligence services in France, Russia and Germany all while asserting again and again on national television that if we didn’t act soon we the next smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud.

All of which is to say that the Bush administration set out to shut down the kind of rational debate before the war that Dugger insists that we have now.

Dugger likes to repeat his mantra of not one lie proven. It helps him to forget that not one statement made by the Bush administration and its supporters about Iraq turned out to be true. Not one.

I happen to believe that Bush was lying when he spoke about the wiretaps requiring warrants. He knew that he had ordered the exact opposite of what he said was happening.

On the war I tend to believe his crimes are crimes of serious distortion and obfuscation. Maybe he didn’t technically lie, but he certainly intended to deceive.

Otherwise, you don’t repeatedly tell the American people that they may be facing a nuclear holocaust when there is ample evidence to suggest that no such threat exists. But that’s what Bush did anyway.