We know their "evidence" for Iraq was multiple kinds of shit. They didn't even go out of their way to conceal that once they got into there. Why should they worry about protecting the lies of a disgraced ex-president this time?

And I believe the reason that you are being down-voted is 1) you sound like a wingnut, 2) your claims are unclear. It is quite hard to work out what exactly you are trying to suggest.

And comparing rolling eyes at 9-11 conspiracy theories with denying evolution probably isn't helping you either...