View Single Post
  #423   Report Post  
Doug Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . 201, Nate
Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:


You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were
that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks.

Nate, that's just a lie.

Well, it may not be a lie that you know it as well as I do.


I certainly don't "know" things that aren't true. It's sad that you
think you do.

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


Maybe you should read them yourself. He didn't say what you claim he
said.


Sure it does. See below.


No, it does not. You claimed that those were the "primary reasons". The
reasons included WMDs, among numerous other reasons, but the President
never identified that as the "primary" reason, as you falsely claim. Nor
did he identify _anything_ as a primary reason. The case for war against
Iraq was build on the _totality_ of _many_ reasons, WMDs among them.

You also falsely claim that "links to the 9/11 attacks" was one of the
"primary reasons" for going to war. The President did not say that.


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.


Either you didn't read it, Nate, or you're deliberately lying.

(quotes emphasizing freedom and ignoring WMD snipped)


Quote which, incidentally, prove conclusively the complete and utter
falsehood of your "not a peep" claim. Could that be why you snipped them?

Fortunately, Google makes it easy to restore them, so that anyone can
read them and see that you are not telling the truth:

"Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help
others to find freedom of their own."

"America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights,
to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer
freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of
terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our
demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens
us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come
to Iraqi men, women, and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians,
Turkomen, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of
Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin."

"Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources and talent. Freed from the
weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress
and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United
States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy,
and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with
its neighbors."

I'll leave intact the excerpts you cited, so that anyone can see that
they do not substantiate your false claims.

"Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the
Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to
cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for
terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those
obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.
It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to
terrorism ..."

"We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten
America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and
atomic weapons."

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common
enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda
have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda
leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior
al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and
who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological
attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-
making and poisons and deadly gases."

"Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror,
the instruments of mass death and destruction."

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."


Nothing in those about primary reasons. Nothing in those about 9/11. Did
you have a point somewhere?

Do you think he spent months travelling around the country talking
about Iraqi WMDs and Iraq/Al Qaeda/terrorism links just to confuse us
"Liberals?" Or do you just want to quibble about some technicality?


No, I think you're either completely blind to the facts, or a liar --
as the quotes above demonstrate quite clearly.


Please refrain from the insults. I haven't called you a liar, and I
expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.


If you don't enjoy being called a liar, one obvious suggestion for you
would be that you refrain from making posts that contain clearly obvious
and readily demonstrable falsehoods, such as claiming that a speech says
that which it manifestly does not, or that it does not say that which it
manifestly does.

And of course I didn't quite call you a liar: I said that you're either
completely blind to the facts, or a liar -- which does leave you some
benefit of the doubt.

But since you object to the word, I'll try to be more delicate in the
future when pointing out the falsehoods in your posts.

Another suggestion for you: if you would actually _read_ the articles you
post links to, before you post them (instead of after), it might help you
to avoid making false statements about what they do and do not contain -
statements such as "not a peep about spreading freedom and democracy in
the whole thing."

Anyone can do what you apparently did not: follow the link, and read the
article, and see that the speech certainly did talk about exactly that,
in language so clear as to make any claim of having misunderstood it
completely inadmissible. The conclusion is obvious: either you didn't
read it, or else you're deliberately misrepresenting its contents.