He is merely saying that it is worded ambiguously, so that one possible interperutation is that the president sent 150,000 to thier death. this is common in all inflamatory rhetoric on both sides.

What I have a problem with though, and this is something I'm sure you won't answer (that ok, I already know why anyway), is that if this really was an intentional lie to the american people, then why? If the president knew it was false, then what was his plan for when no weapons of mass destruction are found? He's just sitting there looking stupid? Was that part of his premeditated plan? to sit there and look stupid when no WMD are found? In that case it looks to me more like a case of someone caught off gaurd.

But you don't want him to be caught off gaurd. You want him to be a liar. Damn the any fair judgement, you just want another reason to spout against him. You can't trash him on the tax cuts, they worked, you can't trash him on the economy, it got better, soon you won't be able to trash him on jobless numbers, now he's got a space initiative(albeit with some flaws, but better than any other democrate exluding Kennedy; btw: which democrat candidate has proposed thier own counter to bushes space initiative?) and all you want to buy into this 'craz' among the democrat extreme that bush lied to get oil as much as it does not make any sense to.

(how are we getting oil again? how were we suposed to get it? where are the mystery accounts? can any one show me evidence fro a "War for Oil" stronger than the evidence for WMDs?)

I'm not some blind Bush lacky, but I'm not a blind attack dog either. Until you start targeting your arguments to people with more intelect, then they aren;t going to convince anyone.

Maybe you are just targeting yourself. I have noticed that people of one political extremem tend to target their arguments so that they only create this reinforcing cloud of their own views around them and thier type, alienating the other side, and thus getting understanding for the other sides views nowhere.