(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:
In article . 201,
says...
But the fact that those were the primary reasons is certainly true.
Read the President's own words (Cincinnati speech):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

There's a lot of talk about WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 ... but not a
peep about spreading freedom and democracy in the whole thing.

Damm it Nate, there you go with facts again!

There he goes with falsehoods again, you mean. Read my response to
Nate: the President *did* talk about bringing liberty to Iraq, but
Nate can't or won't see it.

Eh? Nobody said that Bush *never* talked about "bringing liberty" to
Iraq. I just said that the *primary* reasons to invade Iraq were WMD
and terror links. Anyone reading the Cincinatti speech reasonably would
come to the conclusion that WMDs and terror links are the main theme of
the speech. In addition, those are the primary reasons given in Bush's
letter to Congress where he outlines the decision to go to war.

That war was primarily sold based on fear of Iraqi WMDs and terror
links. For you to contend otherwise in hindsight is a fairly egregious
attempt to rewrite history.


Don't you know the winners write the history books?

Oops, that should be "rewrite" :-).

Nate's the one trying to do some rewriting here. Follow the link he
posted. Read the President's speech for yourself. Then you'll see that
what Nate claims about it, simply is not true. I don't know if he
didn't actually read it, or if he's deliberately lying about its
content, but it *does* say what he claims it does not say, and it does
*not* say what he claims it does.

Now there's a shift for you.