Bush said "The occupation will end June 30."

[yellowcanine]

I distinctly heard him say this. Of course he didn't say WHICH June 30. He also didn't say what the meaning of "occupation" is. George Orwell, where are you when we need you?

[many a good man]

1. US sovereignty begins July 1

He can't possibly mean Iraqi sovereignty. The transition is from US occupation to US sovereignty. I guess that way Iraqi, not US, leaders will be targets for car bombs.

[gasperc]

2. we're not occupiers, we are liberators

'member

[Paranoid_Portlander]

3. I might be wrong,

but I think he said Iraqi sovereignty on June 30. Then in the following sentence he said: "The occupation will end", hoping the listener will assume June 30. It's a little like mentioning The Iraqi war and 9-11 in the same sentence and hoping the audience will make the connection.

[yellowcanine]

5. You may be right but the clear intent was to leave the impression that

the occupation was ending June 30. Has there ever been a president who lies as much in speeches as George W. Bush, all the while keeping a straight face? I can think of only one - Richard Milhaus Nixon. And even he couldn't quite pull off "I am not a crook."

[Paranoid_Portlander]

6. So many of his lies are very slippery.

He has made hundreds of statements that could be categorized as deliberately misleading (June 30, end of occupation), or half-truths, or exaggerations, or malapropisms, or vague, or twisted meanings ("freedom"), or ignorant use of English. Even so, out of hundreds of statements, there must be quite a few obvious or provable lies.

[TexasSissy]

4. * has admitted before that we are "occupying" Iraq.

This was noted during his last "press conf." (the one where he couldn't think of any mistake he'd made).

[adriennel]

7. he said the US does not want occupy

but we still need to send more troops.

wha????

[ProfessorGAC]

8. We Are NEVER Leaving Iraq!

NEVER! That's the whole point of the invasion. We decimated a military and drove a strongarmed dictator out of power to create a near chaotic state.

Then we'll put in a "friendly" gov't who, because they have no army, no organized militia, and no national police force, will "ask" the U.S. to provide security for the foreseeable future.

The U.S. gets its permanent base in the middle east, we get out of Saudi (Just like Osama wanted us to do! Nice going, Georgie.), and we maintain a hegemonic presence in the middle of oil land!

This has been the real intent of the PNAC neocons from day one. And, they're going to get their way, no matter how many lower and middle class kids have to be killed.
The Professor

[adriennel]

10. you're so right, Professor

I must be naive, because I don't understand how Americans can listen to the "president" say "we are not occupying Iraq" but we also "need to send more troops". This faulty logic makes my brain hurt, and I don't understand why more people aren't picking up on the hypocrisy.

[karoon]

9. So long as Iraqis aren't white

I can see Bush givin a dang about them.

[jmowreader]

11. We're going to begin "protection" duty on July 1

On May 12, 1949, the Soviets closed all water and land routes into West Berlin. Later that day the "occupation" powers stationed in West Berlin were redesignated as "protecting" powers. (A short time later we kicked off Operation Vittles, also known as the Berlin Airlift, and saved the city for freedom.)

On June 30 at approximately noon, the American occupation force stationed in Iraq will become the American protective force stationed in Iraq.