A change in rhetoric? A morphing of the message?

Am I the only one who has noticed this change in rhetoric?
Saddam has gone from having (or nearly having) WMD to having a "Weapons Program".

Wouldn’t we expect him to have a program? Whether its purpose was to create or to control or to destroy weapons is not mentioned. The type of weapons could have been spears or rocks by this new wording.

If the word "program" was used before I think it would have been used in the context of, "Saddam has a program to create WMD and is very close to accomplishing his goal."

I see this as an effort to morph the original message.

It's something they always do. They got nabbed on this one right away, at least on the blogs. The media as usual is useless in pointing this out.

was that they are saying, hey, it doesn't matter if we lied in the SOTU, Sadaam was trying to get weapons and eventually we'll find the weapons. Yeah, right. This thing isn't going away. All of us who were ticked off by the relentless right's persuit of Clinton are going to make sure it doesn't go away. Clinton's lie embarrassed his family-Bush's lie caused a lot of people to be killed-and that number keeps growing. An Iraqi-American friend of mine said that his family in Iraq (mom and a sister) hate the occupation because no effort has been made to get utilities going or get people jobs. Funny, we war protestors were asking Shrub & Co just what their plans were after 'victory', and all we got as a response was 'shut up'. Now's the time for us all to shout loud, "The Liar should be impeached!"

If you mean, "I didn't have Sexual Relations with that woman,,,", they have morphed that too. If I remember it correctly, it was technically not a lie. Sexual Relations means intercourse to a lot of people.

The neo-clones have morphed "Sexual Relations" into "Sex" to make it a lie. His words are misquoted all the time now.

I don't know what he said in the legal papers, so I won't comment on that.

Bush lied, people died.

It's worse than that really. There whole case was that Saddam was hiding something so he must have a weapons program. And we know he had weapons and didn't tell us where they went, so he must be handing them off to terrorists. Never mind that any bio/chem materials would be degraded. Never mind that inspectors were in the country for years. Never mind that Clinton bombed the hell out of every suspected weapons site. Never mind that the IAEA said there was not a shred of evidence of a nuclear program. He might be lying so we have to kill him... and thousands of Iraqis while we're at it. If lying is a cause for war, we're in ALOT of trouble!!!

n/t

this bait and switch game for at least a month now. Like, all of a sudden they were looking for DOCUMENTS, fer Chrissake. Like Saddam was threatening to bombard us with paper & smother us all in red tape or something.

after all, you could say Saddam "sought" weapons if all he did was mention to someone on his staff that he might be interested. It's even more vague if you claim you heard somebody said he might be "seeking."

Of course this is childish parsing of words and no one except the most partisan grovelers could possibly believe it. It ought to be easy to throw the Pukes accusations against Democrats (that THEY are the ones being partisan) back in their faces. In fact, the Pukes knee-jerk protection of their own in the light of such obvious wrongdoing is the real partisan frenzy. The Dems are being extraordinarily careful, IMO (so careful it makes me MAD!)

It's unAmerican to refuse to investigate. If Bush is so F*ing innocent, an investigation shouldn't hurt him at all, right? Let's clear the air and quickly, before the election (this should be our mantra on the Dem side.)

The GOP just doesn't want to loosen their iron grip on the debate agenda, and eventually they must, since they are the ones lying, obfuscating and avoiding accountability.