Here is a rich sample of the funniest chat-room I’ve seen in a while: Dr. PETER HERTZ, urologyTo: Lord of FliesIn response to: Excuse me?Are you trying to tell us there is something unacceptable about lying NOT under oath about a consensual relationship that did not include the act described as SEX in Maryland law?Or are you just putting up a smokescreen that implies somehow it is alright for Bush to lie America into committing war crimes because Clinton did not want to damage his marriage?Or are you only attempting to put it all into a "They all do it" black bag, ignoring the 320 Americans and 12,000 Afghanis and 7-10,000 Iraqis MURDERED thanks to Bush's lie? Message: I am on call for my colleague and partner, Dr. Burns, today. I believe what he would suggest is that critics ignore uncomfortable facts such as this from President Bush's (btw, no relation to Dr. Hunter Bush of the OB/Gyn group of Dr. Seymour Kuntz, Dr. Hunter Bush, Dr. Roland Finger, and Dr. Sawyer Beaver) speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002 wherein Bush mentions weapons of mass destruction briefly, and then cites Iraq's support for terrorism, its persecution of civilians, its failure to obey Security Council resolutions, "release or account for all Gulf War personnel," return the remains and return stolen property, "accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions." Bush cited the Oil for Food program, which turned out to be Kofi Annan's private Enron. In addition: "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq, and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis." On March 17 of 2003, Bush delivered his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. The president talked a lot about weapons of mass destruction in that speech, but he also addressed all these other concerns from supporting terrorism (Has the left also forgotten the Salmon Pak terrorist training facility?) to repressing the Iraqi people. When the president addressed the Iraqi people, he didn't mention a word about WMD. He talked about freedom. Those focusing exclusively on the WMDs are simply desperate, out-of-power people seeking to inflict any damage they can on Bush. What's shocking is that they're the same people who always honored themselves by speaking out in favor of human rights, yet they would've left the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of Saddam's thugs rather than see them liberated by this president.