In article . 201,
says...
(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.

Nice straw man, Nate. I did not say that you claimed Bush "never" talked
about it. I said you claimed he didn't talk about it _in that specific
speech_.

You *did* claim that.

And that claim is false.

I just said that the *primary* reasons to invade Iraq were WMD
and terror links.

Wow. How do you manage to pack so many falsehoods into just once short
sentence? You can't even quote *yourself* correctly.

1) You said the primary reasons were WMDs and links to the 9/11 attacks.
Not generic "terror links".

2) You didn't "just" say that, you also said that speech didn't talk
about spreading freedom and democracy (which it does).

3) The President did not give _any_ "primary reasons". He listed numerous
reasons, among them WMDs and terror links. Among them also Iraq's
repeated, persistent failures to comply with UN resolutions. Read the
speech.

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.

Anyone reading the Cincinnati speech reasonably would come to the
conclusion that the President talked at some length about bringing
freedom and democracy to Iraq. But you claimed he said "not a peep" on
the matter.