If Senators Knew Then What Pres. Bush Knew Then, Enough Say They Would Change Their Vote to Result in No Approval of Bush's War

Today, it was announced that if the vote were taken again knowing what they know now-which is only slightly more than what Pres. Bush knew then-so many Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, would change their vote that the decision to go to war against Iraq would be voted down. In fact, some have suggested that the evidence is so slight it would never have made even made it to the Senate floor for a vote. (By the way, just so's you know, John McCain is among those who has said he would NOT change his vote knowing what he knows now. Remember: A Vote for John McCain is like a third term for Pres. Bush.) Every time I write that Pres. Bush has lied-and often-about the war in Iraq I receive an assault on my ratings from the right-wingers and I am told to stop spreading lies myself. Apparently, Bush's hardcore supporters refuse to believe that their hero is quite simply the closest thing to a pathological liar we've ever had in the Oval Office. Herewith, some basic factual evidence that Bush has lied-repeatedly-about his plans, policies and actions concerning Iraq even before he was appointed President by Scalia and his lapdogs.

Lie number 1: In a 2000 Presidential debate with Al Gore, Pres. Bush infamously said, "I don't believe the US military should be used for what's called nation-building."

The evidence is in from members of Bush's own advisors that even before making this statement, his crackerjack team was drawing up plans to invade Iraq and remake it into a democratic county. It is unfortunate that he didn't present those plans at the time, because his plan for nation building apparently was limited to: Get rid of Saddam Hussein and the rest will take care of itself.

Lie number 2: In October of 2002 Pres. Bush made this statement. "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death"