>We've had the discussion on governments lying to THEIR PUBLIC before.
>
>Except in times of war - and related directly to that war - there is NEVER an instance where outright lying by government can be tolerated. That's the biggest part of what a DEMOCRACY is all about.

Ok.


>If lies were acceptable in day-to-day governmental activities we'd never know when something was truthful or a lie. We cannot allow ourselves to be put into that position. Period.

Right.


So what can be done about Bush's lies?

Does charging him with a crime and then proving that he's guilty sound remotely possible to you?
Does undoing the Iraq war, presumably letting Saddam go and take back control of the country sound like the right thing to do?

After thinking about all of this, I've realized the best thing to do is understand and appreciate the truly great things that are happening as a result of what has already happened.


>Now President Bush has stated that Bin Laden's capture/killing/death is incidental to him and that it wouldn't have much effect on terrorism in general. And the fact that he accepts that Pakistan forbids U.S. troops on its land and is taking the lead on the search confirms that to me. So there is no need to lie about Bin Laden and the effort to get him (or not).
>Your theory lacks in another area, Mike, in that Musharrif(sp?) is himself a dictator.

Not sure I follow. Can you explain the problems a little more clearly?