I dare you to read the documented lies that Kerry has told.<br><br>I know you won't because you're not interested in the truth. <br><br><br><br><br>

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. No truth- handler, you. Bah! I deride your truth-handling abilities." (sideshow Bob)<br><br>

"Good evening, I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies, so in the end, isn't that the truth? The answer is 'no.'" -- Leonard Nimoy from the Simpsons<br><br>

"I'll be back. You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever, and when they get in, I'm back on the streets, with all my criminal buddies." -- Sideshow Bob<br><br>

Oh, I suppose you could say that last April was "middle of the campaign" season, if we're talking about the same press conference? But, I don't think that's the reason why he didn't list any mistakes. I think you're closer to the mark when you say he really doesn't believe he's made any. If you believe Pat Robertson's recent statements (and why shouldn't you, he's a devout christian ), then Bush didn't think we would suffer *any* casualties in Iraq. That's pretty incredible and Pat never retracted his statement.<br><br>No, but the thing that surprises me is not Bush's weird idea of reality (that he doesn't make mistakes), but that as a politician he still didn't have a good answer at the debates. The end to that, fairly positive, press conference last spring was a debacle because of that one question and so I just expected that six month's later Rove and company would have come up with a good canned answer for him to use in that situation. Instead he seemed almost as confused about what to say in the debates. I can think of lots of positive spin he could have said and I don't even like the guy! This is like interviewing 101. "What are some of your weak points". "Well, for starters, I work too hard." <br><br>

[T]he Associated Press has made public at least a portion of their own interview with Col. David Perkins, who commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division. As reported by the AP, the interview is quite different from what the Times has represented:<br><br>The infantry commander whose troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot where 377 tons of explosives disappeared said Wednesday it is "very highly improbable" that someone could have trucked out so much material once U.S. forces arrived in the area.<br><br>Two major roads that pass near the Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area, said Col. David Perkins.<br><br><br>Perkins' description seemed to point toward the possibility that the explosives were removed before the U.S.-led invasion to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, rather than during the chaos afterward.<br><br><br>[T]he Pentagon said in a statement, "The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd I.D.'s arrival at the facility."<br><br><br>According to Perkins, his 2nd Brigade arrived in the area near Al-Qaqaa on April 3, 2003, as part of the first large coalition combat force to come so close to Baghdad. His troops were attacked by Iraqi forces based inside the installation, he said. Al-Qaqaa had more than 80 buildings in a walled complex.<br><br><br>Perkins estimated there were a few hundred enemy fighters. He sent the 3rd Battalion of the 15th Infantry to secure the base and the surrounding area, he said. A company of mechanized infantry and a mortar platoon entered the installation and defeated the Iraqi forces.<br><br><br>As the rest of Perkins' brigade moved on, the 3rd Battalion spent two days in the area looking for other Iraqi forces, Perkins said. The Americans did not specifically search for any high explosives, although they were aware that Al-Qaqaa was an important site for what was believed to be Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.<br><br><br>Some troops found a white powdery substance on the base. But it was tested and determined it was not a chemical or biological weapon, as had been suspected, he said. Perkins did not know what it was.<br><br><br>Troops found other weapons, including artillery shells, on the base, he said. They didn't specifically search for the 377 tons of high explosives, HMX and RDX, that are missing.<br><br>More on this story here.<br><br>

Let me add to that... Al-Qaqaa has an area the size of Manhattan.<br><br>

seems there is a video shows stuff was there, by embedded reporters<br><br><br>I would rather die free than live in fear, and without liberty.

a summary and comments by expert David Kay on that video here<br><br><br><br>

Flash from Drudge:<br>FLASH 10.29.01 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al Qaqaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Developing..<br><br>Now, if this is on Drudge's site does that mean if there is a Pentagon briefing it is not to be believed? <br><br>This is becoming a neat story with all the back and forth.<br><br><br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .