>
>Well if no one really cared then why were they asking him about it in the first place? See if they had not asked the question to begin with (which they should not of been) then the lie would of never been told. I think this is a little different than say...lying about weapons of mass destruction for example...

Victor, this has been debated again and again.

Please provide one piece of documented evidence that the administration "lied". Remember, to accuse Bush and related leaders that they were lying, you have to prove that they knew there weren't WMDs, but still told the country that they existed.

At least once a week I correct my daughter when she says that someone (teacher, classmate, etc) lied. I try to explain to her the difference between deceit and false statements.

Candidly, I think it's sloppy logic to accuse someone of lying when there is no proof of deceit.

Regarding WMD, you can say the intelligence was wrong. You can say we were too quick to believe Hussein when he boasted of a large stockpile. That's not lying. There's a major difference between lying and being wrong (or even grossly wrong). And remember - other nations (even those who didn't want to join us in the Iraqi war) believed that Iraq held large stockpiles of WMDs.

And even the generally held view these days that WMDs didn't exist is itself (possibly) debatable. Over the last 2 years, some (arguably weakened and archaic) WMDs have surfaced. Some have stated that Hussein managed to move what little WMDs he had to Syria and Russia, though it's never been proven. But what WAS found by both the U.S. and Czech secret service was schematics and plans in abandoned Iraqi warehouses for WMD systems that were probably about five years off.

You can say many things about the strategy in Iraq. But this "Bush lied about WMDs" just does not hold water.