The first casualty when war comes is the truth.
-- Hiram Johnson

Frankly, I have never been one to completely trust the Government, particularly during war time. If Bush did actually deceive the American people, it wouldn't be the first time a President has done so. Clinton lied about Bosnia. Reagan and Bush the elder lied about Iran-Contra. Nixon lied about Cambodia and Laos. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. Kennedy lied about Cuba. Certainly such lies should be an impeachable offence, yet what we know from history, this is never the case. The Onion, in suit with the rest of their brilliant satire, printed an article late last year titled "Presidents Washington Through Bush May Have Lied About Key Matters," as if this is news. Apparently, at the moment, it is. Do people really expect politicians to be honest?

Absence of proof is not the proof of absence.
-- William Cowper

But for now there are absolutely no facts, only accusations, that suggest Bush lied about Iraq's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. If one can remember, it wasn't very long ago, there was a lot of talk about this very thing in the U.N. Security Council. Nearly everyone believed Iraq had these weapons. There was good intelligence from several different nations. These deliberations did not regard whether or not Iraq had these weapons, but among other things, how to take them away. This included Germany and France, however, they did not support the war because they believed a diplomatic solution could be met.

But some are demanding Bush find these weapons or face impeachment or worse, a War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague. The logic behind this I can only presume; Hussein was actually complying with Resolution 1441 by destroying the chemical and biological weapons the world knew he had, but he did so quietly. Honestly, doesn't this sound ludicrous?

If there are these chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, why haven't Coalition forces found them by now? Try to remember, this war on Iraq began just a little more than three months ago. Coalition forces have only controlled Baghdad for a little more than two months. The fighting has not ended, the war is not over, and no one has claimed otherwise. The area being searched is an unfamiliar and hostile land the size of California. It is going to take a little while. Have a little patience.

People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.
-- Otto von Bismarck

Don't get me wrong; I understand why this issue is being discussed so early on. Because of the conditions in Iraq, the chance that chemical, biological, or radiological weapons will be discovered before next year's elections is fairly slim. Consequently, this is a great issue for Democratic presidential hopefuls to run on. As the election gets closer, demands to produce Iraqi WMD will increase. There's nothing new about making wild baseless accusations regarding one's adversary. Imagine if you will; the invasion of Iraq happened six years earlier under the exact same circumstances, after nine weeks and still no WMDs, would the Republicans be screaming for impeachment? Probably. This, my friends, is partisan politics. Until there is some substantial proof to back up these allegations, for now, I believe it is a nonissue.