I also take this opportunity to correct myself. The legal test is call ‘the reasonable man doctrine”. In that regard, Vince’s observations might prevail.

Those words and that behavior led me to the point of view that Bush and his team deliberately lied, hid the truth and misled us.

There may be a diversity of opinion about this administration, but there should be NO disagreement about the facts; they constitute the objective truth.

As Casey Stengel said, “you could look it up.�

You said: “it’s always a pleasure to hear someone speak the truth about these criminals….”

I responded accordingly. We’re not talking politics nor philosophy. We’re talking point of view.

There is a legal test called “the ordinary man”. I would accept that as a common denominator to support your position regarding the above. However, there is likely enough diversity on the matter such that your contention that Steve has, indeed spoken the truth, would not be met.

Who said anything about “absolute” truth?

We’re talking politics here, not philosophy, at least at this point.

Besides, I don’t believe it’s within the scope of puny humankind to apprehend “absolute” truth.

I’ll tell you one thing, though. I know a liar when I see one, and George W. Bush is one of the biggest liars I’ve ever seen.

Too bad the only way he can be “big” is by stepping on the ‘little’ guys who are shedding their blood in Iraq.

One’s ‘truth’ is another’s propaganda. Steve presents an analysis and expresses opinion based upon observations of fact as he sees them. We argue this to and fro. Absolute truth?? Open to debate.

“Arbiet Macht Frei” did not!!

What a breath of fresh air– and it’s always a pleasure to hear someone speak the truth about these criminals who inhabit the White House. Somebody has to do it, because the press certainly isn’t.

Karl Rove’s resignation is the best news I’ve heard in years, but Joe Lieberman’s call to attack Iran is perhaps the worst.

The link here is intent – the deliberate nature of both actions.

And if U.S. forces have unintentionally killed civilians, those deaths are no less final and horrible than the deaths of those who were deliberately targeted for mass slaughter. And those who “unintentionally� caused those deaths are no less guilty.

It may not be novel or unusual for other governments to use force or coercion. But the U.S. is supposed to be the standard for morality. So when OUR government lies to us and distorts the facts in a deliberate attempt to frighten us into waging war, we cede that moral high ground and become no better than history’s despotic, amoral regimes.

That’s what the Bush regime has done. And it makes his administration not only despicable but highly unusual.

Secondly the essay seems to find it novel or unusual that the US government, specifically the Bush “Regime” uses coercion internally (you give no example of direct force). As George Washington well said: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.” Force and coercion have been fundamental tools for most all government throughout history. Did you cry out against the forcible seizing of Elian Gonzalez? The siege and mass slaughter of people of marginal religious faiths at the Waco compound? The military style slaying of the family members at Ruby Ridge?

If there is a link toward terror against US Citizens, a case lays more strongly against the Clinton administration than the Bush administration. My point however is keep rolling back through history, and in most any government everywhere we will find examples just like these. It is not a unique feature to any particular administration, it occurs amongst humans in most all structures of power at some time or another, and there is little that is usual or even remarkable about George Bush in this regard.