I am taking a directed studies class and our teacher wrote an article in the paper and recieved a few responses and we have to defend/attack his stance. Well I got defend, so I don't know what to do... here's his article, it's pretty well written, however I do not agree. "On the one hand, consider a man entrusted with the most responsible position in the most powerful nation on Earth who receives oral sex from a young female intern and commits lewd acts with bizarre sexual prop. On the other, consider a man in a similar position who, convinced of the justice and political advantage of his stance, presents as fact intelligence known by his advisers to be exaggerated and quite possibly false about the nuclear threat posed by a despised and ruthless adversary. The first lies to deflect moral censure that will sully his presidency. The second lies to gather support from his people and the world for an overwhlming armed invasion. The folly of the first leads to a stained dress, a notorious cigar, and the narrow and contested defeat of his heir apparent in a national election. The misinformation of the second leads to the deaths of nearly 300 American and British troops and untold numbers of Iraqis (many the intended recipients of liberation), billions of dolars in debt, an unconvinced world, and a military occupation with no successful-or even acceptable-end in sight. How will the scales of history balance these two lies and the liars who told them? How will the American electorate weigh them? The final judgement is, for reasons, that boggle the mind and shake the very foundations of democracy and common sense, not at all certain."