What ever. All I was discussing was this particular accusation of lying. No matter how guilty you think the Administration is of something else, it doesn't automatically make them guilty of this "imminent threat" crap. You don't get to ignore the facts because they're inconsistent with what you want to believe.

As to the pre-emptive strike thing, maybe you can help me with that. See what's confusing me is this Clarke guy who says "your government didn't do enough". From what I've read what he was proposing was a pre-emptive strike on Afghanistan prior to 9/11, you know on a poor country that had never done anything to hurt us. It wouldn't have prevented 9/11; the people responsible for 9/11 were already in in place and would have used an attack as a justification of what they intended to do anyway. The international community wouldn't have been in favor of a pre-emptive attack on Afghanistan; the UN would never have gone for it, nor would most of our allies prior to 9/11. So the Administration is damned for rejecting the military force Clarke proposed, and trying address the problem diplomatically.

Seems you argue the opposite for Iraq. How do you reconcile the two?