I'm afraid our dialogue must be near ending for this thread. You're asking me to do something I can't do--listen to the State of the Union WITH YOUR EARS. I heard that speech when it was delivered and I heard no lies, but that is using my ears. But you are asserting that there was a lie, yet unwilling to state what it was. You continue to paint the whole administration with a very broad brush without any data forthcoming. Methinks you are not ready for a rational analysis of your lying assertion. State the lie and we'll discuss it; 7 years of basing your emotions on it won't be lost.
Every statement made connecting Saddam Hussein to WMD and Al-Qaeda by Bush and his administration (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Rice and their surrogates) to support the invasion was a lie. The statements were made to sell a policy of aggression against Saddam because it was the most believable story they could concoct.
There are literally thousands of events where one of those people repeated the untruths about "without a doubt we know Saddam has WMD" to "we have evidence of a relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda" that was made in the framework of linking Saddam in a supporting role to Al-Qaeda is now known to be untrue. It becomes a lie when it is apparent they knew it was untrue when they said it. And based on the information available today provided by Wolfowitz and his peers, the WMD story was selected
as the one to run with because it was the one least likely to generate meaningful opposition, which means they thought they could peddle it to us with the most certain probability of success. All to achieve an end that still escapes me.
When you do that it, you direct people to find wisps of data that can be presented to support your case. Which Rumsfeld did with Cheney's support when they established their own private intelligence group in the DoD to counter the answers they were getting from the CIA. What you have in the end when you only look for data that can be construed to support your preselected story is akin to weighted dice in a craps game, or marked cards in a poker game, or rigged roulette wheels. The outcome is not based on an assessment of the facts. It is cheating, and when it is presented as an assessment of the facts, that is a lie.
The aluminum tubes and the nuclear materials Iraq was purchasing for their nuclear pogram were all lies. Calculated statements made to instill fear and loathing of the Saddam regime. Calculated in that they were believed to be well enough supported by wispy, bogus data to allow the Bush Administration to make the claims and point the finger at the "data" later when and if the truth became apparent. These lies were key elements of the 2003 State of the Union Address that dealt with the upcoming invasion of Iraq. Spoken by Bush, but said earlier and repeated afterwards as deemed necessary by Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld and his cronies, Rice and Powell. Cheney still says stuff he knows isn't true about WMD and Al-Qaeda.
In the end, Saddam was being truthful. He did disarm. He couldn't show what he had done with the mobile labs because they didn't exist. Ever. And the other stuff he destroyed was either destroyed or also never existed as described by the records Bush was using.
We had UN inspectors guarding his nuclear materials, until Shock and Awe, at which time they went unguarded for months, disappeared and were recovered on the black market. Seems we must have known just what he had if we knew when to stop looking for his stuff after recovering it on the black market.
I know, you won't buy that he lied, your excuse is he was misled by the intelligence that the "plumbers" in the Pentagon cellar gathered for him at Cheney's and Rumsfeld's direction. In that case he lied when he presented himself as qualified to be President of the United States.
The sad thing is you know all this, as you noted, but can't face it. You think owning up to it is somehow unpatriotic. I think failing to own up to it is unpatriotic. And so would failing to learn some lessons, as we apparently failed to do after Vietnam.