Henry,

I have called Bush a liar as well, but you only directed your reply to Val. Am I an agent of Al-Queda, Henry?

When did Clinton bomb Iraq? I am not being sarcastic nor do I doubt it for a minute, I am seriously asking a question. When did that happen? I am not certain that he did so to stop the production of WMD's, but rather may have done so in enforcing the no-fly zone, or in response to some other action by Hussein against the Kurds for example.

The problem with Bush and the intel in question was not that Bush lied about the intel that he was using to make his case. No one is suggesting that he did not have the intel he claimed to be basing his case upon. The problem is that I, and others, many others, believe that Bush influenced the information contained in that intel, that he and others knew much of the intel was outdated and inaccurate, and that he embraced it, and manipulated it, and used it to suit his purpose, and ignored any evidence or suggestion to the contrary, in order to take us prematurely into a conflict which was politically convenient for him and others. Anyone who questioned or doubted the information that he wanted to see, or who furnished any information which raised any such doubts or contradictions, was ignored or dismissed.

Kerry and others only saw the intel that Bush and the administration allowed them to see. Kerry and others did not vote to go to war, they voted to authorize the President to use force if and when other measures proved fruitless. They certainly did not vote to do so on that timetable, or under those conditions. They were under the understanding that more would be done before using force and they trusted Bush to use his authority wisely. He abused that trust and acted rashly, and we are now paying the price for his rush to war.

The difference is that you trust him and believe he has acted in good faith, while I and others disagree. I don't trust him, and I don't believe he has acted in good faith. He found evidence to support the outcome he wanted, and ignored evidence or doubts to the contrary. He failed to act in a fair and unbiased manner, to conduct a fair and unbiased investigation. I don't believe that he did not know better than what he used to make his case, and that he did not give other measures a fair opportunity to prove otherwise. I do not believe his motives are or were pure, or that he had no choice but to use force when he did.

Having grown up in the 60's I remain very skeptical of the government. Perhaps that is from growing up during the years of political assassinations, (JFK, MLK, RFK), the Vietnam War, and real political scandals and government cover-ups, like Watergate, the Iran/Contra affair, Abscam, etc., not tawdry, meaningless media smear campaigns and witch hunts, conducted for political reasons, like Whitewater and Monica-gate. I tend to be very distrustful of men like Bush, who repeatedly tell the people the sky is orange, and who take us to war, only to find out that the sky, is in fact, blue after all.