Lies from the other side don't seem to bother you at all. Climbing on a "holy horse" standing on shit is something I have zero respect for. The fact is the French and Russian policies prior to Bush were leading to removal of sanctions on Saddam with no proof he had complied with UN requirements and Clinton's policies were totally ineffectual in countering that push. France's and Russia's refusal to unequivicolly support the use of force for failure to comply meant Saddam would not comply and the US had to choose to go along with that or use force based on the vaguer "severest consequences" language of UN resolution 1441.

Those that lie claiming the invasion was illegal seem OK with you.

Those that deny France and Russia were undercutting the UN Resolutions on Iraq seem OK with you.

Those that claim severest consequences meant something other than war seem OK with you.

You yourself seem to be in the camp of those that lie about Bush lieing about wmd. Being wrong is not the same thing as lieing and any one with a true strong sense of morals would know that. Hillary and Bill Clinton have both stated they believed the same major conclusions about Saddam and wmds as Bush.

Bush's camp has mishandled the aftermath of the war and the prewar postwar planning as well as the domestic economy. Clinton totally mishandled Al-queida. It's time for both sides to face their failures and work together to do something more effective fighting terror than slinging false accusations at the other side.

Regards,
Mark