"Vito" wrote in message

You cannot provide one scintilla of evidence that he lied about
WMDs.
He
was wrong, .... But he
lied? Show me the evidence, not just your left-wing dogmatic
opinion.

By that logic, Clintoon didn't "lie" about the BJ - he just didn't
consider
a BJ "sex".

Bark up some other tree, Vito, or is it Guido? :-) I accepted
Clinton's
explanation at the time. Sex, as most people define it, is sexual
intercourse. He didn't do the nasty with that hog, so his statement was
accurate in the modern vernacular.

Then we agree. Clinton was smart enough to choose true words to cover his
ass and Bush was stupid enough to believe there were WMDs in Iraq - but
neither lied.

I think we've found common ground. I'll go one step further and state my
belief that Bush was searching for an excuse to attack Iraq. WMDs were a
convenient gambit, good intel or not, and he ran with it. I also stated on
this NG before we entered Iraq (for the second time) that if WMDs weren't
found, Bush's credibility and his chances for re-election would be damaged.
I believe that to be the case currently. Ousting Saddam was a good thing,
but at a huge cost to the US in terms of both lives and funds.

Max