JWM,

I appreciate your ability to hang in there. I am tired and we will never convince a true Bush believer of anything. We see things from different angles. Thanks for your support.

Yes I agree with pickle. The thread has become tiresome at best. I think I will rest for awhile and check in later.Thanks to all of you for a lively debate.

Thanks to those of you who offered intelligent debate. Reading other sources and opinions with an open mind is the key to knowledge.

John WM

Is this a Hitlerian use of the "big lie" technique "Repeat a lie often enough and the people will believe it. The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." or did the Bush administration actually believe that these things existed? And if it were a matter of lying, is lying about war any better or worse than lying about sex? When Clinton denied that he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski, his position was that there had been no penetration. Of course, he lied under oath, which is not the same thing as lying in a speech or a press conference. But if the lies add up to what can be called an "abuse of power," it starts to become something much more troubling than the inability to acknowledge that fellatio is indeed sexual, the major difference being that in the case of abuse of power, it is the country and its people who are violated. And abuse of power is abuse of power!

Here is a possible answer for you.

White House knew there were no WMD CIA - The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 US-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said, according to CBS. - "The (White House) group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested." - "We said: 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said: 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change'," added Drumheller, whose CIA operation was assigned the task of debriefing the Iraqi official. - "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," the former CIA agent told CBS.

Another laugh :-P

You're saying Bush continued the Clinton policy of regime change as outlined in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf

And don't bother with your repeated complaint about it not authorizing use of military force. We all already know about PL 107-243, AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Fromz: You just keep wanting to belabor the fact that force was authorized. It was. But, under false pretenses. Sorry, you have proved nothing except that you are a "die hard" fan of either war or GWB.

You keep swinging and I will be right there. It is a matter of principle for me. I am not a Clinton fan. But, neither can I just let you ramble on about the justification of a war that is severely effecting the lives of US citizens.ALL politicians bear scrutiny.Not just Bill Clinton and/or GWB. For a person to continue to deny the fact that erroneous data was used to start a military conflict is just NOT acceptable to me.

Have a nice day