Letter: Bush’s WMD lie more destructive than Clinton’s lie

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 | 8:48 a.m.

President Clinton lied when he denied having sex "with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." However, it was an insignificant lie of no real consequence to anyone but himself.

President Bush, on the other hand, allegedly lied about something of great significance and great consequence to all Americans. His lies cost lives, involved us into a pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation with no involvement in 9-11, changed the rationale for war from destroying WMD to liberating the Iraqi people, alienated long-standing allies, increased worldwide resentment, didn't make us safer, gave terrorists an excuse for revenge and pale in comparison to Clinton's sex lies.

Nothing Bush said about the Iraq/al-Qaida connection, the Iraqi nuclear capability, or the imminent threat of WMD has been proven true. He conveyed a false sense of urgency, frightened us about mushroom clouds and refused to give U.N. inspectors the time they requested to find WMD and avoid war. Instead, he rushed to war and has yet to find any evidence of the WMD he guaranteed were there.

In a perfect world, a Republican Congress would investigate a Republican president's lies with the same enthusiasm and determination with which they investigated the whereabouts of Hillary's billing records, but they and the president are, of course, resisting an independent, in-depth investigation.

This investigation is needed to determine if Bush misled us by repeating intelligence information he knew was unsubstantiated and untrue to gain public support for the war.

Bill Clinton was impeached for a heck of a lot less.

JOYCE SEGAL