I agree that obfuscation of the sources of information is necessary to ensure that the flow of information continues. However, the manipulation of the public into supporting a war by keeping classified information which disagrees with your pre-conceived notions seems underhanded.

How is it that when President A lies about his activities with an intern the country is going to hell in a hand basket. Yet when President B lies about the known capabilities of his enemy in order to attack and destroy him we are complacent to just believe?

If only I was not one of the above complacent believers, then I probably would feel better about all this.

When 42 did the stuff he did, I was outraged and pissed off about it. I felt when he was caught he should have come clean and not drag it out as long as he did. He should have never done it in the first place.

Yet, before 43 attacked Iraq, I did not see the evidence. I hoped that somewhere, somehow there was real evidence that Saddam had illegal stuff. Turns out that we “Knew” without having any evidence. When we had to justify the intention, we scrambled for anything that might help because there was nothing. When we found more evidence to show that he did not, we classified that opposing evidence and only presented the supporting evidence.

We deserve to be told a balanced view of the facts at some point. Preferably before the action. Yet in some cases this is not possible.

My hope is that WMDs have been or will be found. My hope is that these news stories are wrong: the government knew all along where the weapons were located and have done or are doing something about them. For some noble reason they are pretending to have not found them in order to protect us (and not all along deceive us).

Preserved comments:

• 6/7/2003 6:53 PM by freekycheek: I beleive all politicians have been guilty of telling white lies, and even multi-colored lies – they are human.The major difference between your comparison regarding the presidents is simple: one tells a lie UNDER OATH to a grand jury, and the other does not.
• 6/14/2003 3:10 PM by sneezypb: See, I don’t think being under oath matters. I don’t feel the only time to trust a President is when they are brought up before a grand jury.