I'm going to be addressing two or three issues with this one, and I warn you, now, that it has some regard to politics.

    1. What is a lie?

  Let's start with a dictionary definiton, courtesy of Merriam-Webster.

    1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive

       b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

    2 : something that misleads or deceives

  Basically, if you offer something as truth, and you know it's false, or do not know if it is true, then you have lied.

  I recently again heard someone claiming that George W. Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, which brings me to my second issue.

    2. Did Bush lie?

  I'm not going to claim to know for certain about what exactly he said; his precise wording. I have no complete, direct quotes of him to reference, but what this will come down to is whether or not he made a direct and certain statement indicating that Saddam did, with certainty, have WMDs. Whether or not any were found is completely and utterly irrelevant. I'll repeat that.

  Whether or not WMDs were found is completely and utterly irrelevant.

  Now, one thing I have is no essence of a memory of Bush stating, with certainty, that Saddam did have them. What I also do have is the essence of many memories of various people saying there was evidence that suggested that Saddam had them.

  What I do NOT have is any memory whatsoever, even after all this time, of anyone providing a direct quote of sound bite of him stating it with certainty.

  So, while I cannot state with certainty that Bush did or did not lie, I can state that you must know his exact wording before you can personlly make a claim either way.

  Another aspect of the lie claim is regarding whether or not Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. Well, it was proven some time ago that he did have ties to them. But then, I've not heard that particular argument against Bush for quite some time, so I guess the majority of those nay-sayers have finally accepted it.

  Now I move on to my third issue, which is sort of a half-tangent.

    3. Should have we invaded?

  There are a few different directions to look at this. One is the "lie" direction, which in my opinion, whether he did or not, is really weak, petty, and highly ignorant.

  Major intelligence agencies around the world, meaning other countries, had evidence that put a high probability on Saddam having WMDs. In America, the president does not have the power to souly decide to go to war. He must be backed up by the senate. After looking at the evidence, enough of the senate did back him up, including John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. They looked at the evidence and decided that the invasion was justified. They did not make their decision based on what he told the public.

  Although after the fact, but no less to the point, at least one of Saddam's own officials said that although Saddam did not have any WMDs, he wanted people to think that he did have them, one method being not allowing U.N. inspectors access to areas which he had previously agreed to allow access.

  Saddam wanted it to look like he probably had them, and he succeeded with flying colors. Congradulations. You got your reward for success.

  But let's forget, for a moment, the vast evidence and the senate support. Let's assume, for a moment, that Bush did make a statement of certainty to the public while he did not have the certain knowledge. Let's say he did actually lie.

  In an ideal world, no one would lie, no one would feel the "need" to lie, and no one would "need" to lie to keep people from behaving like idiots.

  I generally disapprove of lying. I think it's a sad statement on humans that certain truths would need to be concealed, whether by lie or simply lack of statement, in order to prevent them from doing completely stupid things. That said, if a person of authority did have to go so far as to actually lie, I might be willing to let it slide, but I would still be extremely disappointed, all depending on the details of the matter.

  If, however, Bush did lie about Saddam having WMDs, then I would say he absolutely should NOT have lied. Plus, I would really wonder why he did when he had vast evidence and the senate supporting him. Again, I do not know for certain if he did lie, but it just seems so improbable that he did.

  Let's look at another direction. Let's consider a combination of humanity in general and on what America was built. Have a look at a small part of the Declaration of Independence.

  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

  That does not say that all Americans, or all New Englanders, or any other specification of race or border, are created equal. It says that all men (and you don't even need to interpret that as "mankind" or "humans") are created equal. If we are to truly believe that, and live by it, then we must uphold it for all people in as much as it is within our ability to do so, as a country, regardless of where any other human lives in the world.

  Saddam was a dictator, who kept for himself the vast majority of the money that was given to him by the U.N., intended for his people. A man who gassed his own people by the thousands as test subjects. A man who genuinely took pleasure, actual pleasure, in the torture of his own citizens. A man who condoned the torture, rape, and murder of his own citizens. A man who had the Iranian soccor team tortured for not winning the Olympics.

  Is this a man who should be allowed to maintain power, because of beaurocracy or political correctness, or because some other countries might disapprove of action against him?

  This is why I'm not all that concerned with whether or not Bush actually did lie. This is why I just say simply, "It's about damn time. Which dictator is next."

  Hollywood puts out movie after movie of people fighting against evil in one form or another. Be it armies, regular citizens, or even less-than-moral fighting against utterly immoral enemies. Violence and bloodshed and torture and mayhem and defiance of authority to stand up for something more important than some kind of rule or law. And these people are called heroes.

  But what happens when it happens in real life? A great big hypocritical BOOOO!

  AMERICA FIRST, while regular people, politicians, and celebrities are asking for money to send to other countries.

  And the newest one, THIS IS A USELESS WAR. Let's forget, for a moment, the enormous strategic advantage it has been on the "war on terror". Let's just ask the Iraqi citizens who are enjoying their new freedom if it was useless. Let's ask all the people who may have spoken a word against Saddam, and then were punished in the form of a member(s) of their family being tortured and/or killed... let's ask them if this is or has been a useless war.

  Any person who claims to care about humans and opposed the invasion of Iraq, needs to be careful that they don't choke on their own hypocracy and cowardice.

  This has been all about the invasion of Iraq, but I do want to touch on the "war on terror" for a moment. It's just a little bit of trivia regarding the "terrorist" (just so we're clear, the qotations are not for sarcasm).

  From the mouths of these people -not from the news, political speeches, or commentaries,- but from the words the "terrorist" have spoken in their own videos, wire-tap recordings, and interviews, any person not of their religion must die. Their intepretation of Islam cannot tolerate the existance of any other religion.

  In a particular documentary that was on PBS some years ago, a well-known (in England) "terrorist" recruiter was interviewed. He mentioned a particular section of the Koran, and his "clarification" (those quotations are sarcastic) was that Islam is the only religion in the world that cannot tolerate the existence of any other religion. It cannot stand along-side any other religion.

  As this was some years ago, I have forgotten the vital details that allowed be to look up the section of the Koran, but I read what it said, and I could not see how any sane person could make the interpretation that he had presented.

  From the mouths of these people, it is their duty to kill people who do not follow (their interpretation of) Islam. It does not matter what country they are from. Politics are irrelevent. Their religion demands, and claims to reward, the killing of all people who do not follow that religion, and if you can kill said people (the more the better) and yourself in the process, then your reward is greater. And brutality is encouraged without limitation. Mercy is considered weakness.

  This is a war that was declared, by their interpretation, when Mohammad first spoke the words. It took 9/11 for someone to finally acknowledge it.

  I'm left wondering how many people are actually aware of these facts, because if most people are aware of them, then these facts certainly don't seem to be making an impression on those people.