Why has no one confronted him on this.

Because everyone knew he wanted to get WMD and was dicking the U.N. around on inspections for years after losing a war against a majority coalition of nations. He was always there, a bitter, angry dictator, threatening with the possibility of having WMD and letting others have access to them in a part of the world where Osama's movement resounded.

Seems like as big of an issue as pointing fingers and saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

The majority of Americans were not angry about that either.

I think most Americans expect their presidents will lie from time to time.

I was against the war from before day one but I can easily understand the lack of anger about the "no WMD" thing. Many thought sanctions and no fly-zone had gone on too long, time to put foot down because Saddam was allowed to play footsie too long. If you thought that way, it doesn't appear as a blatant lie but a mistaking cherry-picking of facts to fit what you already believe. Not too different from arguing about the meaning of "is." If you are a relativist, you don't see lying as the problem, as in a lie is a mortal sin, you look to see whether you agree with the intent and the result. Hence, the majority is angry with the handling of the war and the bad judgments made in getting into it, and not about "thou shalt not lie." And hence, the majority was not angry about lying about a blow job when it related to evidence in a bogus politically set-up of a sexual harassment case.