I see your point, Chant. You're saying that it's a wash, that Bush lied about this, and Clinton lied about that.

Each side can argue based on different agendas that either Bush or Clinton is the greater liar.

I myself think :
1) Clinton is a proven liar, and Bush is not.

2) If Bush did lie (if that is ever proven), his was a courageous act, opposing world opinion to do the right thing and eliminate Saddam's evil :

  • eliminate Saddam's genocide of his own people (again: Saddam killed one million of his own people, out the surviving 25 million in Iraq).
    .
  • Bush also acted, against stifling bureaucratic forces, to eliminate Saddam's proven pursuit of WMD ( chemical, bilogical and nuclear ).
    .
  • And whether or not WMD's were in Iraq at the time of the March 2003 invasion, Saddam Hussein was unquestionably (according to the David Kay report) in "material breach" of the U.N. ban of Iraq pursuing WMD's. Even though WMD's were not in production in Iraq, Saddam was poised to create WMD's when U.N. sanctions would have been lifted.
    .
  • Sanctions were not working against Iraq from 1991-2003, because nations such as France, Russia and Germany were violating sanctions to trade oil with Iraq.
    Precisely the nations that obstructed U.N. participation in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
    .
  • Saddam was also active in the training and funding of Islamic terrorism throughout the middle east.
    Saddam gave a check for $ 25,000 in public ceremonies to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber.
    And otherwise has provided training and funding for terrorist organizations in the region.
    .
  • A terrorist who gave intelligence to the U.S. said that he trained in an Iraqi camp as a hijacker, inside Saddam's Iraq, in the grounded hull of a plane.
    Raising speculation that Saddam may have trained some of the 9-11 hijackers.




So while I may question soem of the smaller details of the war (as I've said abundantly previously here), I support Bush's maneuvering for intervention in Iraq, for a situation that has festered in Iraq for 12 years and called out for a resolution.

Why did the hijackers attack on 9-11-2001 ?
Because of U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia "in the heart of Islam" ( according to Al Qaida's Declaration of Jihad on Jews and Crusaders", which I posted in the Islamic Ignorance" topic)

Why were U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the surrounding area, and in Northern/Southern- no-fly-zones across Iraq ?
To contain Saddam in U.N.-determined half-measures. Where if we'd done the job right 11 years prior (instead of just appeasing the U.N. by maintaining an ineffective status quo) the primary rationalization for terrorism on 9-11-2001 would not have existed (U.S. / "crusader" troops in the Arabian penminsula), and in the absence of politically correct U.N. appeasing half-measures, U.S. troops would have completed the job and long since been removed.





Lastly, an editorial from the current Washington Times :



Quote:



AMERICAN RESOLVE IN IRAQ





Bad news hit Abu Musab al Zarqawi on June 28.

Most Americans, it seems, want to keep U.S. forces in Iraq until civil order is restored, which 62 percent believe won't happen for several years.
A significant majority even want to increase the size of the U.S. presence or keep it about the same.

With the Iraq war in its third year -- and with America having been in a state of war since October 2001 -- this new Washington Post-ABC poll is an encouraging indication about the patience and resolve of the American people.

The past few weeks have seen politicians and pundits cherry- picking whichever bad poll seems to serve their political ends.
And they can easily do it again with this one.

For example, the poll found that most Americans do not believe the Bush administration's claims that the insurgency is losing.
In fact, what a majority of Americans (53 percent) do believe, according to the poll, is that the power of the insurgency is staying about the same (and 22 percent say it's weaker).

Critics may also point to the finding that a bare majority of Americans (51 percent) consider the Iraq war to be a mistake, even though the very same poll found that 52 percent believe it has contributed to the long-term safety of the United States (a 5-point increase since early June).

Every single one of these findings can top the headline of a newspaper, only to leave readers with a distorted view of what's really going on.

Pollster Gerry Daly, who runs the Web site dalythoughts.com, makes an important observation regarding how phrasing a question can yield different results.
He compares a recent Gallup poll, which found that a majority of Americans (51 percent) believe the United States should set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq, to the Post-ABC poll, which found that 58 percent of Americans believe we should keep our forces there until civil order is restored.

Either can be used to support a particular side of the debate, but what do they actually say about the American people?

Mr. Daly thinks the public has yet to form a coherent opinion of the question of troop pullout and that the "political battle is still winnable for either side."
That sounds about right.

It's important to note, however, that the Post-ABC poll included the phrase "even if [keeping U.S. forces in Iraq] means continued U.S. military casualties."
That's essentially the heart of the matter, and 60 percent of Americans are still committed to victory.

Progress in Iraq will continue to wax and wane, as we rightly mourn each new casualty. But, underneath it all, Americans seem prepared to see the war to a successful conclusion.







And as I said almost two years ago in this topic, quoting a Wall Street Journal poll of Iraqi citizens, public opinion inside Iraq is similarly supportive of U.S. action in Iraq.

http://opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003991