I'm not going to rehash Bush-43 all over again except to make clear that one lie had devastating consequences, whereas the other only puts alittle egg on the face of an Administration. More to the point, I used the WMD briefing before the U.N. Security Counsel to add some perspective to this issue. Towit, if you're going to get all upset over being lied to OR having information manipulated by a sitting President (and/or his Administration), then at least be consistent with your outrage! Nevertheless, as I stated in my post which you quoted, "...the WH (whomever is in office) manipulates the media..." It happens on both sides of the political isle no matter which party is in office. But if I'm going to be lied to, I'd rather that lie be in pursuit of peace than it be a prelude to war.
Now,
you can can keep telling
yourself that the pre-Iraq War evidence was real and substantive all you want, but when an
Administration draws up war plans to invade a country within months after taking office*, it makes me wonder who exactly has been more willing to swallowing the big lie more readily?
*Also see the following articles:
1)
Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
2)
Newly-Released Memo by Donald Rumsfeld Proves Iraq War Started On False Pretenses
3)
Emails reveal Tony Blair's deal with George Bush over Iraq war was forged before invasion started* | Daily Mail Online
Note: Pay particular attention to the date/timeframe the meeting in Crawford, TX was to take place, read the specifics of the memo where Sec. Powell makes clear the U.S. and Britain are on a war footing with Iraq, and then recall exactly when
military authorization was granted by Congress. If you're still convinced the pre-Iraq War evidence was sound after reading the above linked articles, then there's nothing I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise.