I don't understand your post.

Who knowingly made false claims about WMDs in Iraq?

I believe that Bush and Cheney both knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before we invaded. Obviously, they would not have been the only people with such knowledge.

LOL What record is that, GG?

Is there a specific clause that was written in the Authorization for use of Military Force against Iraq that you are interested in?

Furthermore, every one of those clauses that did mention WMD, were fully supported by post war intelligence.

-- Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
-- Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

-- Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

-- Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

-- The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

-- The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Please, stick w/ me here...The ACTUAL LAW that was passed by congress and signed by the President had many reasons for going to war, only a few of them even mentioned WMD, and NO WHERE in this law did it give as a reason for going to war the reason that Iraq had large stockpiles of modern WMD.

Please read IT.

Not the authorization agreement. I was replying to your statement:

I am asking you how you see that the post war intelligence report (which you cited) supports all points of the Authorization agreement? Have you read the post war intelligence report? Can you tell me how these conclusions support your position, that intelligence was no manipulated or twisted to suit Bush's objectives, when the report says the exact opposite?

Well, if you read your link, you'll see that it's full of references to Iraq's stockpiles of WMD's. None of those were found, and no programs were found to exist.

These are two separate issues.

The Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq laid out the reasons for going to war.

Those reasons/clauses had ZERO to do w/ what the President or his administration said.

The clauses that spoke about WMD were supported by post war intelligence, therefore the President couldn't have "twisted it".

The cornerstone for the claims that Sadam possessed weapons of mass destruction wasn't even collected by the United States, it was gathered by the German intelligence agency.

Please be specific. Pick a clause and let's look at it.

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security
of the United States and international peace and security in
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations by, among other things,
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations

The clauses that spoke about WMD were supported by post war intelligence, therefore the President couldn't have "twisted it".

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated;

"Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered."

"Initially, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety, as he did with Iraq's BW [Biological Warfare] program. Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program. In the wake of Desert Storm, Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community."

You can keep believing this all you want, but your own links clearly contradict this position.

AGG

Notice the useage of the verb HAD?

NO WHERE in this law did it give as a reason for going to war the reason that Iraq had large stockpiles of modern WMD.

The bottom line is that there was no good reason to go into Iraq, and the blood of every US troop who has been injured or killed is on the hands of every politician who supported this war, especially the President.