The benefit of a doubt may have applied before the war, but no longer. We're talking about real evidence now. So far, the evidence supports Saddam, not Bush. Prove otherwise. I'll settle for just, say, a few dozen viable chemicallly or biologically loaded artillery shells even if it's not the tens of thousands of shells and rockets and thousands of tons of chemicals and hundreds and hundreds of gallons of biological agents I was led to believe Saddam had in order to get my support for the war.I don't like being lied to. By anyone, Saddam, Bush, Blair, or anyone. If the lie was deliberate it is heinous to me. If told honestly because the teller was deceived, it needs to be admitted and addressed as such.
This whole d*mn war thing is starting to look like a plot from Twenty Four that didn't have Jack Bauer in it.