>>ask me why I'm not a liberal, that's the #1 issue I have with liberals - the way they justify lies.
>>
>>
>>How about "fight 'em over there so that we won't have to fight 'em here."
>>How about Condi's evocation of the mushroom cloud?
>>
>>The libs can lie for decades before they catch up with the horrible effects of just those two lies.
>
>And here's where I make the distinction between being wrong (and even horribly and tragically wrong) and lies.
>
>If you can offer some proof that the Bush admin knew there were no WMDs, that would be a different story, and I'd accept the statement that Bush and Rice and his administration lied.
>
>The problem here is that some of our allies also believed in the WMD theory (even ones that did not want to actively participate). Hussein himself boasted that he had WMDs.
>
>
>Now...there has been a much-debated theory that the inspectors found schematics in abandoned Iraqi warehouses for future plans for WMDs. Some believe Hussein had bigger plans for WMDs and was boasting about something he didn't yet have. I tend to place a tad more stock in that theory than the theory Hussein shipped off weapons on trucks to Syria and other countries.

The weapons were never the lie.

You and millions of others accepted the BIG LIE -
that the US should invade Iraq if it had them.

The mushroom cloud that Condi evoked was one of the most cynical pieces of prevarication I've seen.

"Fight 'em over there so you won't have to fight 'em over here" had nothing to do chemical weapons.
It propagated the real lie - that Saddam was a threat to the US mainland and therefore should be invaded.

You can keep you doctor was clearly a lie, but it seems a bit tame in that league, doesn't it?