There may not be a smoking gun, but none is needed. You can look at the statements of Bush, Cheney, and other top officials to see the lie they told, which is a subtle but important one.

What they said, in public, over and over was that they were 100% certain that Iraq had WMD and was building a nuclear program. Here are a few examples:

--"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Cheney, speech to VFW, Aug. 26, 2002

--"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

--"we know ... that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people." - White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

There were literally hundreds of statements like this preceeding the war. When one says something is certain to be true when one knows that there is only a probability based in circumstantial evidence, then one is lying. To present something as 100% true when there is only a probability, that is a lie.

That's enough for me. The President is not supposed to lie. Lying got Nixon out of office. Our two greatest presidents were known for their honesty. When the President speaks (and his highest cabinet members), we take what he says to be true. Just these statements were enough to sell the war. Bush and co. lied about WMD because they said it was TRUE when THEY KNEW that at best there was a chance it was true, and the nature of that chance was not made clear to the public.

Of course there is also the withholding of non-WMD evidence, discrediting of critics, exagerated if not outright fabricated ties or Iraq to terrorists... this was the essential nexus that in fact did not exist. Bush was so successful at this that to this day a significant percentage of the population still believe there is an AlQuaeda-Iraq relation.

The author misses the whole point. It's not about whether someone told outright lies or made stuff up, it's about the failure to be absolutely candid with the public who, through their representatives, exclusively control the right to declare war and sacfifice the lives of their young men and women. In matters of war, of life and death, utter candor is called for. War should only occur when there is strong concensus based on the best information available.

When the president gets power for war through deception, he claims the military as his own private force. All hail King George!

Seriously? Your surprised when a US President isn't completely candid about a war? Let me give you a brief history lesson, merely off the top of my head, about the major lies of each major US President:

Clinton- Well he bombed Iraq in '98 for a week claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that he knew they did. Called "Operation Desert Fox". We know now that in 1998 the Iraqi chemical arsenal was 90% destroyed (Duelfer Report). Clinton's lie (depending on what the definition of "is" is).

Bush Sr.- Not sure off hand, but I'm sure there is a big one if you look deep enough.

Reagen- Iran-Contra anyone? Mr. Reagen is technically a criminal by Congressional standards.

Nixon- Well.... you know.

LBJ- "I will not send American boys to fight a war that Vietnamese boys ought to be fighting for themselves"

Kennedy- Bay of Pigs, Kennedy denied it was an American operation, but we know it was, clearly.

FDR- He was crippled and sick, yet cleverly hid how crippled and sick he was during elections. He had people stand him up to make speeches. Then there was the whole Gov. Long episode and the clandestine support for the allies prior to '41 when the public didn't want war. (was a good thing, but dishonest)

I could go on but it would take too long (the lies that started the Spanish-American War etc etc etc)

Moral of the story is that there has never been a President who has been candid, and there has never been a President who has been honest. The government would like you to believe there has been but your just naive. This Presidency is no different from any other on the truth front. Don't fool yourself, good liars make America great. Bush just happens to be a bad liar.

I'm only concerned with wars that cost substantial lives and treasure.

Clinton's Desert Fox - that's not really an invastion.

Bush Sr? Please, this seemed pretty above-the-board to me.

Nixon - what was the lie to justify staying in Vietnam?

LBJ - a change in position doesn't seem like a lie. What lie did he tell to "sell" Vietnam? Did he even need to sell the war?

Bay of Pigs - this was not the US invading another country. If we helped Cubans to try to reclaim their country, at least US boys weren't dying.

FDR - again, the whole problem with Iraq was the false-bootstrapping of a pre-emptive war of invasion. FDR did no such thing. Cripes, Hitler declared war and then Pearl Harbor...

Spanish American War - that's probably the closest parallel, but I'm not sure how involved the presidency was. Wasn't it the so-called yellow journalism that sold the public on that war? Many truly believed at the time that the Maine was destroyed by Spain... but you've gone beyond my knowledge.

I appreciate your moral of the story, and it's wise to mistrust all politicians. But I don't agree that there is precedent for what Bush did. This was a preemptive full invasion of another country with thousands of US lives lost. What gets me most, even worse than the unequivocable statements from Bush & co. is the ulterior motive. Where is the precedent for a US President telling the public there is one reason for a war (even a trumped up reason) and secretly having another reason for the war. This is what makes it treasonous to me. Where is the historical parallel for this? I believe that we have misguided wars before, but there's a big difference between honest national mistake and executive distortion of truth while agressively pushing for war.