Well if I feel like I've been lied to for invalid reasons (there are good reasons to lie, especially for the government, very especially for a goverment at war, scary to admit but true, I don't want telling me the truth to cost soldiers their lives) just the once. So far I don't feel lied to in any of the situations that have been outlined.
If a lie
results in the death of one military man ... or in the death of one innocent civilian, would you still support that lie? What if that 'lie' precipitated an 'undeclared' (and therefore unlawful) war? Would you still support the lie because someone attacked us and you were too angry and impatient to ask for a lawful declaration based on overwhelming evidence
before launching that war?
Reminds me of the old joke about the old bull and the young bull standing on a ridge looking down on a pasture full of young heifers. The young bull nudges the old bull and says 'lets run down and get one'. The old bull looks disgusted and says 'how about if we walk down and get 'em all '.
In other words, I don't trust this rush to judgement, because there are possible other reasons for attacking Afghanistan, such as control of caspian oil and pipelines that were already in the planning in 1996, but were being rejected by the current Afghan overlords.