JULY 2003 - The debate is supposed to be whether or not President Bush would or did exaggerate the intelligence he was given for political or practical purposes. I don't really understand the question, because things are pretty clear and simple.

A couple of weeks ago the President stood in Poland before you, me, and the world, and said, "We have found the Weapons of Mass Destruction." The press tried to figure out if he misspoke, what he was referring to, covered for him. But he himself never said he misspoke, and said essentially the same thing the next day, using unclear evidence about two trailers that may or may not be related to a weapons program - he used this little bit of unclear intelligence, exaggerated it massively, and flat out, openly, and boldly lied that this shows we have found what we were looking for, “..the Weapons of Mass Destruction.”  There is not a single piece of even doubtful intelligence that even remotely suggests we have found any WMD's.  But the President stood before us and the world and said twice, "We have found the WMD's."

So what is the question?

President Bush is not educated, but he is shrewd in his own way.  His genius is knowing how to lie and get away with it - how to fail and fail and fail - in life and in office - and never be held accountable - not for his possibly checkered past, not for his business failures, not for the economy he presides over, not for the things he says.

In reality, he is the typical addict type, like addicts we all know, who can keep stealing, using, etc. and keep people co-dependently supporting him.   He gets people to cover for him- in this case, he stands before us - in the middle of a debate about whether or he lied about and exaggerated intelligence - and tells a lie and exaggeration so big, so brazen, that people think he couldn't possibly have meant to say what he said, rather than seeing yet another, clear example of what they are debating whether or not he did.

President Bush never apologized for what he said – in fact, he repeated the same assertion the next day - yet still there supposedly is a debate, did he exaggerate and misrepresent the intelligence he was given for political ends?

What is the question? What is the debate about? Did he lie and exaggerate intelligence reports for political purposes some months back?  He still, clearly, obviously, and without possible other explanation, is doing it now.