"John Smith" wrote in message
news:%sffc.144028$JO3.84998@attbi_s04...

You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one
can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound
bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than
politics
to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that
Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD.


Here's the thing:

A) Clinton didn't use that information to invade Iraq, Bush did.

B) Just because there "were" weapons in Iraq in 1991 and maybe in the
late 1990's does not mean there were any weapons there in 2002 or 2003.

Just last night Bush said something like, "We know Saddam had those weapons,
we know because he used them on his own people." True enough. But that was
HOW many years ago? 10? Does that mean he still has them? Does that
mean that the best way to get them (if they are there at all) is to send our
troops in to invade?