[ QUOTE ]
Where have I distorted and/or rewritten history?
************************************************** ********
Where? By this quote:
"But it was his own false charges that are responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 Americans. Shame on him."

Here are the facts:
1. Both the US Senate and US Congress have intelligence committees.
2. The members of these intelligence committees are given access to SAME intelligence that the PRESIDENT OF THE USA HAS.
3. The when the polls showed public support for the war in Iraq was high, Kerry, Kennedy, and other prominent Democrats stated Iraq had WMD and must be stopped. They voted to give the president authorization to invade Iraq.
4. NOW....that the polls show flagging support for the war in Iraq these same democrats who previously claimed Iraq had WMD are claiming Bush tricked them.
5. Inquiries into the pre-war intelligence show that there was no political pressure to alter intelligence.
6. Bill Clinton is on record stating SEVERAL times Iraq had WMD.

QUESTIONS:
1. How can the Dems claim that Bush lied when the Democrats had the ***SAME*** intelligence that Bush43 had to make the assertion that Iraq still had WMD? Were the Dems also lying about the intelligence?
2. Was Clinton lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
3. Was Kerry lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
4. Were other Democrats lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
5. Why do you assert Bush43 is a liar while failing to call Kerry, Clinton, and other Democrats liars?

I would love to see you answer these questions. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you will answer these questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I think the issue whether Bush distorted and cherry picked the intelligence, and that the House and Senate relied on this intelligence. When Bush says things like "We've found the weapons of mass destruction" and Cheney on Meet the Press says things like "There is no doubt they have weapons of mass destruction" there is good reason to believe they are lying. This is because they didn't find the WMD, and there was considerable doubt. There's also using discredited evidence, 10 year old research papers, etc. There is more than ample evidence pointing towards Bush misleading the US into a war; at the very least it can be debated.

2. I don't give a [censored] about Clinton. I don't like him all that much, and he may have been lying. Wouldn't be the first time. I don't understand why you included this here, as Clinton's opinion on anything (and ironically enough, on terror) is not/has never been seriously considered in any of Bush's policies. I guess you are just banking on everyone that hates Bush loving Clinton and thinking him a paragon of honesty. Also, Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

3. Who knows. He got the same cherry picked and distorted (in my opinion it was, although I guess you can haggle over the definitions of 'cherry picked' and 'distorted' and 'lying on Meet the Press' if you want) intelligence as everyone else. He may have been playing flip flop all along. His stance is that he received distorted/cherry picked intelligence. He also says if he'd known the extent to which Bush was doing this he wouldn't have voted for the war. We'll never know. I don't particularly care either. I was protesting the war when the drums were beating.

4. See numbers 1 and 3.

5. See numbers 1, 3 and 4.

It's not as if Bush shared every single bit of information and intelligence in a completely disinterested manner. Quit making it seem like every bit of information was disclosed to all parties in a completely honest fashion, because it just wasn't.