Bush.
BTW, I've better thing to do then to argue the semantics of lying, with a Bush-Bot.
I'm sure you do. You can spend hours, I'm sure, yearning for the return of the only-just-as-corrupt-as-Bush Clintoon administration (remember, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary!) and planning your upcoming trip to Mexico.
BTW, nice dodge there. Watch the cards:
You make a material claim that the VP lied about a fake nuclear program.
I present facts that show that the Iraqi nuclear program (and other WMD activity) was real and moving along smartly.
You call that "semantics," even though semantics is argument over terms and I refuted you in the material. In other words, I refuted you with real facts honestly presented and you waved your hand and declared me part of the world of "what 'is' is."
Very handy. Very Clintonian. Or, in your case I'm sure you'd prefer to call it "Bushian."