home | blog

George W. Bush, affectionately called W (or "dubya" to the enunciation challenged), has justified his invasion of Iraq by lying. Obviously. This is such a startling thing, that the "president" of the USA could lie so blatantly and continually, that many people are unable to believe it despite volumes of evidence.

Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is well known to be a big fat liar. Which gives us a transitional position:

• "Saddam Hussein set out to deceive the USA about having WMD by feeding spies, defectors and covert surveilence false information, to increase his standing in the middle east. W fell for it, a bit too much actually. Hussein never thought W would invade without hard evidence, just get mightily pissed. Oops."

Once this is accepted, it is not so hard to go the extra step of thinking W wasn't just a fool but a liar.

We shouldn't let up on the "Bush is a liar" message in the meantime. It is after all the truth, and giving up on telling the truth would be a really bad idea. So how about a sort of debate between the "liar" and "fool" camps? This would keep the TV journalists happy, lots of nice "he said, she said" to keep up the appearence of balance. It's a strategy the right used to great success for years after all.

See also The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq.

[æ]