So you’re saying what? That Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 because Saddam threw out inspectors in the 1990s? And there’s no overwhelming evidence that Bush intended to deceive, since after all no one can read his mind? That’s positively O’Reillyan. Use reverse logic and there is no way you or anyone else can produce a single documented TRUTH uttered by Bush either.

The question concerned past events (actually events prior to the 16 words speech which was also not alie) – well prior to the Kofi appearance. And in the past Saddam had clearly denied inspectors access. Its that simple. Try again.

And keep in mind, that even if you do find a disparity (you didn’t) for it to be a lie, there has to be ‘intent’. So when you find a disparity, then find some overwhelming evidence of INTENT TO DECEIVE and then we’ll talk lie. See, I don’t trust you to be a good mind reader.

Dugger

As quoted on the White House Web site, Bush said,

“The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power…”

The Truth:

Saddam Hussein allowed a fully-equipped team of UN inspectors to comb every inch of his country – including previously off-limits Presidential palaces – for months.

George W. Bush knew this because he demanded that Iraq allow inspectors to return in 2002.

He knew this because millions of citizens around the world took to the streets to demand continued inspections, not war.

He knew this because he spoke about the inspections repeatedly, almost daily.

He knew this because he specifically urged the inspectors to leave Iraq when he issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Iraq on March 17, 2003.
____
Saddam did not throw out the inspectors. It was at Bush’s “urging” that they left.
Question for Dugger: What’s your definition of “documented”?

you allege Bush lied. I challenge you to document ONE LIE, which you have abosultely failed to do, and your response was to come back sputter
something about documenting a truth. nope. You screeched lie and have failed miserably to back up your accustaion. ty and chanhge the subject all you want. You failed.

Dugger, Not One Lie Documented, Not One. Buma failed. Anybody else with a ‘lie’?

https://www4.sss.gov/regver/register_nc.asp

And I was already in the military. The closest you ever got to the military was getting boned by a sailor.

Nice try at changing the subject. You alleged lies and when called on it – changed the subject. Typical.

Dugger, Still NOT ONE LIE documented, not one.

You don’t get away with that w/me. Not one lie has ever been documented. No one has even made a comvincing case for a lie. its all just stuff you don’t like, that causes you to lose grip and charge ‘lie’ rather than try to analyze and figure out the best policy. And it was a vote for war and we always have war plans, already drawn up, at our fingertips for just about any conflict you want to imagine – so I strongly doubt the veracity of your allegation.

Dugger

So we can leave now right?

“Every adult knew it was a vote for war. It was a bi-partisan vote for war.”

This in spite of the fact that Bush said war was the last resort. In spite of the fact that Bush said he had no plans for war. Even if “every adult” knew he was lying, the were still bald-face lies.

This is not really a strategy document from the Pentagon about fighting the insurgency,” said Christopher F. Gelpi, Dr. Feaver’s colleague at Duke and co-author of the research on American tolerance for casualties. “The Pentagon doesn’t need the president to give a speech and post a document on the White House Web site to know how to fight the insurgents. The document is clearly targeted at American public opinion.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/politics/04strategy.html?hp&ex=1133758800&en=eded032aae63bdcc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I say go ahead and try to sign up again boys. The military may take you now so you to can be sent to the desert by a bunch of incompetent clowns.

Welcome to the real world dugger where the Bush administration pays more attention to polls than the oft scapegoated “commanders on the ground.”

Online? Another 101st Fighting Keyboardist!!

Regardless, I seriously doubt the services would take you, Frankie, on the basis of your advanced age and mental incapacities. But the point that escapes chickenhawks like Jay C, Frankie, Ian and Brandon is that you don’t have to serve in Fallujah. In fact, if you join the service–there’s a better than even shot you won’t ever see duty within 2,000 miles of Iraq. But you will be helping the war effort you demand others to sacrifice for.

And we realize some folks may not be physically and/or mentally suited for military service. But there are a ton of options open to these folks as well; contractor jobs both in the US and overseas is one of many avenues.

But as we’ve we seen–even that small sacrifice is too inconvenient for the Chickenhawk Brigade.

As a result of AWOL George’s idiocy, we’ve seen many men and women called to active duty. Many of them have lost their lives or been wounded and will never again live a ‘normal’ life. Almost all have suffered financially–their service has stalled or retarded or sometimes ended their careers in the civilain sector. And all of this doesn’t take into account the more subjective hardships placed on their families. That’s real sacrifice.

Yet, our chickenhawks talk about taxes, roads, bridges and online recruitment to obscure why they won’t make any of the sacrifices they so cavalierly demand of others.

Nahh. Every adult knew it was a vote for war. It was a bi-partisan vote for war. To pretend otherwise is to not understand our system of government. You’re trying to protect weaseling Democrats who were afraid to vote against the war but really didn’t want to vote for it.

The vote authorized war at the president’s discretion. It didn’t authorize a “prudent way to give inspector’s free reign.

Get a grip and come into the real world.

Dugger

Oh yeah, I was wounded in Viet nam, and spent more time there than M’sieu Kerry, and I didn’t get to run for President — it’s not fair!

Why do you need to call me that? Does it make your opinion more valid? Does it give you a stiffy?

Just think about it. Who knows, you might learn something about yourself.