1. The premise that is being put forth in the media, in Washington, and elsewhere is that Bush has either deliberately altered intelligence reports, or in some other way has "cooked" them to give the impression that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and/or the means of producing them before the second Gulf War. The word "lie" is being thrown down with no reservations.

2. In 1998, Clinton and others, using their own intelligence resources, came to exactly the same conclusion, that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and/or the means of producing them, and was a threat worthy of military action.

3. Obviously, this latter situation cannot have been the result of Bush and Blair distorting or inventing evidence, yet the same conclusions were drawn: Saddam had WMD and was a threat.

If Bush is lying, EVERYBODY was lying before the war started.

Is anyone else having trouble with this?