We all know the White House jimmied the intelligence and lied to the world about Iraq, trumping up what a great imminent threat Saddam was. The British have released a secret internal memo from the pre-war days which accuses the Bush Administration of doctoring the facts and intelligence to support the drive to war.

One-half of the American people don’t give a damn whether Bush lied. He’s a Republican and they support him no matter what.

Or maybe those same one-half DO give a damn that Bush lied, but they still like him.

The rest of us disliked his politics before he lied, and we are even firmer now in our dislike for his politics. To us, Bush has no particular claim to being a great moral and spiritual leader. We don’t care how much he tries to seem holy, he got us into an immoral war of aggression and caused the needless death of perhaps more than a hundred thousand people.

Bush should be impeached for lying the nation into a war, and greatly diminishing the USA’s reputation and moral authority worldwide. But he won’t be - his buddy Republicans are in control of the impeachment process.

Which is worst - Clinton lying about a blowjob, or Bush lying about Iraq? I think we all know the answer. Clinton was impeached, if you will recall (but not removed from office), for lying about a blowjob. So what should happen to Bush, for lying us into war in Iraq and needlessly killing thousands of American soldiers and maybe more than a hundred thousand Iraqis?

I know my words seem harsh. But how else can we describe what Bush did? He doctored the facts and intelligence to create the propaganda required to convince the public to support a war of aggression. He lied, for the purpose of cheating us into supporting a war that we would not have supported had we known the truth. Now that we have come to learn the truth, less than half the public supports the war.

CNN.com - Bush asked to explain UK war memo - May 12, 2005

Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said “intelligence and facts were being fixed” to support the Iraq war in mid-2002.

The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.

The Times of London newspaper published the memo — actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 — on May 1.

British officials did not dispute the document’s authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain’s Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been “irresponsible” not to prepare for the possibility.