I don't think any sane person still asserts that WMD's were found in Iraq. Of course, that may or may not include Teribus.

I'd still, however, like Teribus to explain just what Cheney meant by his 8 Sept 2002 statement that since his clear statement-- on 16 Sept 2001-- that there was no evidence tying Saddam to 9-11, as of 8 Sept 2002 "new evidence has come to light".

If all Cheney meant to do in 2002 was reiterate that, just as in 2001, there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11, why mention "new evidence" that had "come to light" at all?

Also, I hope Teribus has paid a visit to his local library to learn about propaganda and also signed up for an elementary "civics" class, as it's called in the US. I refer to his brilliant observation that the general (US) populace has "no say in the matter" of whether the US goes to war or not.

In fact, the "general populace" had to be convinced, lest they toss out their elected representatives at the first opportunity for voting to give authority to Mr. Bush to go to war without a fig-leaf of justification.

What you do in Bush's situation--( in a democratic country)--is mislead the electorate to they will OK their legislators' decision to support you. I suspect you may have heard this before.

That is exactly what Bush did. He admits now the intelligence on which he made the push to sell the invasion of Iraq was faulty --(try reading at least a few recent headlines, Teribus, if you read nothing else).

The only question remaining is whether he misled the US public intentionally or from incompetence.

By the way, for the record, I'm utterly convinced, despite Teribus' serious financial problems and the fact that he has been seen with known arsonists, that he is not guilty of arson in the burning of his house.