What the intel branches were telling Clinton in 98, 5 years ago, is one thing... What we killed 10-15,000 people over in 2003 IS quite another. Shit happens, things change we all know this.

If you can come up with ANY plausible scenario for Saddam's WMDs and production programs "evaporating" between then and now, and after that, while surrounded by armed force, having him stonewall the U.N. when they ask for proof of its evaporation, I'd love to hear it.

And lets stipulate that we could have been mistaken in 1998 AND mistaken in 2003.

Possible, sure. I don't buy it though. Given all the data and reports I've seen that are publicly available, it's hard to believe that all of what I saw was misinterpreting innocent activities. In any case, you would still have to discard the "Bush lied" scenario. A mistake is not a lie.

We were wrong that WMD existed- the claims that there were sure terrorist connections were neither sure nor connections.

No WMD existed in the time just before we started moving in on Iraq last year? This is proven to your satisfaction now? Absolutely? Gee, even though the odds are slim, I'm still willing to think I might be wrong.

I know you to be mostly rational, so I must either conclude that you are ignoring events that conflict with your political beliefs or are acting upon total faith that WMD and terrorist connections will come to light.

It isn't faith, it's common sense. Given Saddam's past history of building and deploying WMD in aggressive moves against his own people and other nations, given his history of concealment in the face of U.N. and other attempts to shut such programs down; unless he was replaced by a Pod Person when we weren't looking, it would be difficult to imagine that, unless forced, he would suddenly decide in 1999 never to do anything like this again.

We know Saddam had connections with terrorists in general, even if specific connections with the Al Quaeda group have not been solidly proved. While this alone isn't enough to warrant attacking a nation, combined with an active WMD program, and a known history of expansionism, it gets to be a problem.

Seems to me, that unless there is a sexual organ involved, it just doesn't matter to you. 1 phallus trumps 10-15,000 corpses? 10-15,000 shattered families? A Semen stain is more profound than a blood stain?

I couldn't give a rat's ass who Clinton got to smoke his cigar. The fact that he cheated on his wife, and in the Oval Office, says something about his character, and would affect how I might vote, but isn't something worth impeachment. The fact constantly dodged by Clinton supporters is that he lied in his teeth about it, not only to the American people on nationwide television, but to a Federal Court under oath.

I don't care if it was about sex, about shoplifting a candy bar, or about what age was printed on his drivers license. If he would lie on camera to America and to a court of law under oath about something like this to serve his own interests, he would lie about anything under any circumstances. When he tells you about defense issues, Social Security, or anything else, you are listening to a person who would lie in his teeth to save and promote his career. That's the problem I have with Clinton, and trying to deflect it into "it's all about sex" isn't going to work.

This is an objectively proven lie, under serious circumstances. You have nothing to prove Bush has deliberately lied about anything on Iraq except speculation.

BTW, it's interesting how the number of corpses keeps climbing. Are you sneaking over there and killing Iraqis when nobody's looking? Even the <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.net/"anti-war groups only tally up an absolute maximum of about 7,200 civilian deaths, and considering the tendency of the Iraqi military to dump their uniforms under duress, this is fuzzy at best. I've seen civilian minimums as low as 1,300. No doubt the real number is somewhere in between, probably closer to the higher end. I have no clue on the number of military deaths, and if you have a link, let me know.