probably isn't really at issue here, only because it is an extremely subjective concept.

The question involved is was Bush & Co. telling the American people a "medicinal lie" that he considered for the best interest of those being lied to? In this case his integrity would remain inviolate even though he was lying through his teeth. The elite of the Republican party think this is proper and was endorsed by Plato in his "Republic."

This must be the context those apologist for Bush have to rely on, because daily it becomes more obvious the American people were lied to, and misled into attacking and effecting the occupation of a smaller, weaker nation that had no chance of withstanding the might and technological superiority of the US. This made Bush and the gunslingers of his party feel big, tough, and important. Lying to get there was considered a small price to pay to get rid of that baaad man and his bad sons that had the gall to defy his (Bush's) daddy. That is the Texas way, lie, justify, wave the flag when you do it, and spin the information to support what you do.

History will be a harsh judge on the Bush mis-administration, and indeed it probably will be ungenerous concerning Dubya's integrity.

BTW, "it is difference of opinion that makes horse-races." Actually it is the horses and the guys riding them that make the race. Different opinions only make the betting line before the race.

Publius