Len - this applies to you too.

You need to wait for proof that Kerry lied - at the moment there is really only Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (hardly unbiased) say-so that he didn't.

I know Glenn thinks, and I think you also think Len, that WMD will still be found in Iraq, because none have been found yet.

As far as I am concerned, you will only have to wait a little while and the truth about Kerry will come out on this subject. This was no slip of the tongue from Kerry --> logic suggests there must at least be some foundation to what he said (or it really is a whopping great lie).

Thanks Lendaddy, Ya see all politicians are liars, but in this case GW is just so condescending, like we're all third graders and he can put one past us, that it makes hard to believe him even when he says something in the form of a complete sentence(which is rare). I just want a president that is a good liar, someone you can really put your faith in whilst getting it in arse. I don't know for sure but its good bet that Kerry won't refer to himself as a dictator anytime soon.

'68 was 36 years ago. A person's memory is bound to be fuzzy.

I find that only the rather aged on this board concern themselves with Kerry's and Bush's Vietnam-era past. In "Logan's Run," a 36-year-old wouldn't be able to vote because they'd already be dead .

But I digress: to me, all things concerning the Vietnam war stopped in 1975 when we pulled out. Knowing our inability to be effective during that conflict, but our continual visits back to it particularly in light of a presidential election, is very sick and ironic. After all, we did lose that war. Now we hold it up as if the losing cause that was Vietman is some rite to passage for the most powerful leader in the free world; i.e. the president.

Very odd. :confused:

I would expect that Bush's advisors are there to advise him on issues that they know more about than he does. I can't believe that an 'advisor' fabricated this misinformation & passed it along to him to spew out.

That would be a logical explanation. But the Whitehouse's response to criticism of Bush's statement isn't consistent with that theory. It was claimed that Bush was merely “imprecise” & left at that. No other report existed that reached those conclusions hence the Whitehouse was able to offer no defence.

Can it be proven that Bush knew that he was using an imaginary report to justify actions in Iraq? I guess not. If he asserted that he saw fairies living in his backyard then that could never be considered a lie either on those grounds. But the only alternative explanation is that he is terribly confused.

"I spent Christmas in Cambodia" is a lie under your definition?

it is if he didn't

Cam,

If you read my posts I said IF it is proven that he was not in Cambodia it would be a lie. And for the record I don't require absence of doubt before I would consider it a deliberate lie, rather within logical reason. I mean if the other guys on Kerry's boat say "we never went to Cambodia" then even though I wasn't there it would be a logical conclusion that he was lying. Also, if a couple of people in the cabinet said " Bush knew they hadn't set a timetable" I would consider that evidence as well.

I just wanna stress the IF.

I found yet another article - http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

in which he refers to patrolling further up the river. I'm finding it very difficult to decide who to believe here.

How about if he didn’t enter Cambodia, but believed that he did? I doubt that all the river passages had ‘Welcome to Cambodia’ signs at the border. How about if he was relying on inaccurate information- ie. WW2-era maps, a fallible navigator etc? Would he be responsible for relying on bad information and deemed a liar because of it when Bush is pardoned for the same fault? Why would the word of the Swift Boat Veterans, none of whom were on his boat, be considered ‘proof’ when Kerry’s word, as someone who was on the boat, is not?

Good point, it would have to be proven to me that he knew he was deceiving us/the country.

Good point; Kerry does seem to be confused and lacking direction. . . .easily run amuck.

However, .. ..

A bit more on this. . ...
So you are right, the sign didn't say "welcome".:cool:

lmao. this wasn't some lone frontier with three men stationed there for 12 minutes. everyone knew exactly where the Cambodian and Laosian borders were. this was critical, considering the political situation at the time. to add, US officers are rigorously trained in proper map usage, and a 55 mile error would be quite hard to fathom (npi) unless the parties involved were totally and utterly incompetent

hehe. looks like Island beat me to it :)

I am going to have to rub it in before I leave...I am on a psychological mission to make as many liberals implode as possible (think Hannibal Lector).

Wrong len, he knew, he was the President of the United States...Inhofe has proof, "Buzz" Patterson was there.

...funny, I find it quite hard to fathom that the President of the United States would 'confuse' the clearly stated conclusions of an IAEA report with some other 'report' that has never existed. That screams competence.

Ah, your Christian role model, Hannibal.

So how many liberals do you think you have imploded so far (think Don Quixote).

sorry, I'm not defending Bush in this case, I'm criticizing Pinnochio Kerry. and if you are willing to compare the possibility that Bush misspoke, as you dems are so fond of pointing out on a regular basis that he is very capable of doing so, with an egregious attempt by Kerry trying to convince us that he is somehow able to physically occupy two different areas of three dimensional space at the same time, then perhaps your competence should be called into question ;)

You have kept your twisted head on your shoulders pretty good, thus far...I am not going to tip my hand as to my gamesmanship, although it is more than evident that Lynn went over the deep end at one point.

:p

LOL . . .point; Mul.