OK, so you want to give the Bushmen a pass on the so-called intelligence failures. You want to believe that the impossibly sketchy case they layed out was somehow good enough to justify the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of U.S. troops. You see no deception in it, just a charmingly naive belief in erroneous CIA intel. Fine. Apparently Bush could nuke Denmark based on unsubstantiated reports that something shiny was seen there in 1995, and you would find some way to excuse it.
But what about this:
Originally posted by caltour:
1. Bush said Iraq had purchased uranium for nuclear weapons from Nigeria in his State of the Union Address. But he had been informed by intelligence officials months before his speech that the documentary evidence had been forged. U.S. embarassed by fake documents
6. Bush said that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Energy Department and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches.
The tubes were never a threat.
So far as I know, nobody here has even tried to explain away these points (which I made on page 6 of this thread). Nobody has explained how those bolded sentences do not demonstrate outright lies by the Bushmen.
These are just two of the many lies I documented. They stand on their own as proof of the Bushmen's campaign of deception. They also show a pattern of amorality and ruthlessness. They show that for Bush, the ends justified any means at all, no matter how illegal or immoral (just like our own JaTo!).
Note: The uranium and the aluminum tubes were centerpeices of Bush's case for going to war, so please don't bother saying these lies were no big deal. That would get me mad. 
