Addressing administration lies.

Thanks, Hobitbob--

#1--
Bush was obviously stating an overview to what led to the war.

He started by saying it was obvious that Saddam had possessed WMDs. This was long before the run up.

Then, the supposed lie is supposed to be that Saddam wouldn't allow the return of inspectors. This is true.

...as evidenced here.

Then, he mentions our reasonable request. That is UN Resolution 1441.

No lie. Just a matter of context.

although it was a valiant try on your part.

The progression of his statements is factual.

The jury is still out on #2. You can say he hasn't been proven correct, but you cannot say, truthfully, that he has been proven wrong. The labs could have been used for WMDs.

With much suspension of disbelief. I am curious the process by which you were able to come up with something that would verify such a whopper.

I read your quote, and saw that it was an overview of events preceding the war.

I knew there was a time (before US and UN pressure) during which Saddam refused the return of inspectors.

#3 is the same unsatisfying response as to #2.

It is entirely possible that the administration had strong evidence that WMDs existed in the area Rummy says. They could still be hidden there, or could have been moved after the intel was shared, but before we could get there.

This answer most likely won't satisfy you. I don't find it satisfying, either--but a lie has not been proven. Therefore, Rummy's comment could have been based on fact.

Sofia, in the short amount of time I have been at A2K, you and Timber haev been paragons of decency and intelligence as far as the far right has been concerned. Therefore I am baffled by the way you and Timber defend this scurrilous administration. I do, however, respect your opinions, and if you feel these are adequate explanations, then I will accept that you fell they are adequate explanations. Come visit the rest of us in the "re-education" camps when your little buddy Bushy buys his re-election, eh?
Of course, being an Arab, I will probably be summarily executed, but oh, well...

I would wade into any group of rednecks alongside you, Hobit.

...and thought it looks like a defense, it is actually a patience for the facts. If they are proven wrong, I will not hesitate to admit it.

it appears to me that the offered explanation for Bush's statements is based on his intention or lack of intention to lie. be that as it may, what statements he did make were not wholly truthful and therein lies the rub in my eyes.

The Bush lies are blatant and indefensible, in my view.

edgar, It seems it depends on which side of the fence is more comfortable. If any administration makes the claim that they know where the WMD's are hidden to justify any war, I'd expect them to produce within a reasonable period of time. Since Rummy made the claim they knew the location of those sites, I'd expect it to be found within a month or two. How long are other people willing to wait? It seems to me that the "urgency" issue is long past if that was used as the case for immediate war.

I'm not sure how you explain that to the over three thousand dead innocent Iraqis. Give us more time, please! If found too far into the future, the question becomes, who buried them? With the US denying UN inspectors, it becomes a big credibility problem.