Originally Posted by patteeu
Yes. Of course it does.
Let me run this one past you. The reason for invading Iraq was either Saddam had active WMD programs or he had plans to reconstitute his WMD programs after sanctions crumbled. Really, what's the ****ing difference? Does it change anything whatsoever?
I don't understand this question. Either or it's was a bogus reason to go to war.
The problem is the Bush stood in front of places like the U.N. and the American public and lied his ass off about the intelligence. (not to mention being the first president to put not one, but two wars on a credit card).
It is a false equivalence to compare what a President says at the end of intelligence gathering and presenting those findings in front of the U.N. to the information giving during an on going investigation
to satisfy media retards.
Not to mention one lie led to the Death of 4,000 Americans, the other "Lie" was on the motivation of people who killed four Americans. There is a big difference.