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

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

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

Of course they were the primary reason. Do you think Bush and most of
his cabinet members were trotting around the country talking about
nuclear mushroom clouds, nerve gas, biological agents, Niger uranium,
drones, mobile weapons labs, etc etc just for the hell of it?

They were two reasons among many.
[snip]
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.

More hairsplitting.

No, not hair-splitting: pointing out another one of your direct falsehoods.

I could look up multiple occasions where Iraqi-Al
Qaeda links are alleged, implied or stated ... so much so that in Sept
2003, 70% of the people polled thought that Saddam was personally
involved in the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

"70% of the people polled" is not the same as "the President making that
claim." I suspect that at least part of the reason that so many people
believed that is the constant repetition in the legacy media of the same
falsehood that you're claiming, to wit, that the President had made a claim of
a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. Which he never did.

You would have us believe that all those people are just mistaken, that
they misunderstood what Bush said.

See above paragraph.

Bullhockey. Those people thought there was a Saddam-9/11 link because
the administration repeatedly and consistently created the impression
that it was true.

Another falsehood from Nate.

Now is it a direct lie? No. But it's a hell of a prevarication.

Whatever that's supposed to mean.



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?

Yeah, I see now why you posted them. You weren't arguing the claim that
Bush's primary reasons were WMD and terror at all. Instead you
preferred to focus on whether or not Bush "peeped" about freedom and
democracy.

No, Nate, I posted them to prove that you can't be trusted to write the truth.

I'll grant you that he did. Of course every politician for the last
hundred years in this country uses boilerplate phrases like freedom and
democracy. Bush is the only one that retrospectively uses them to
justify preemptive war.

Thank you for finally admitting, even if only once, that at least some of what
you write is the opposite of the truth.


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

(snipped all the quotes again)

Hey, Doug, if I had wanted to obscure the fact that I snipped the
quotes, why would I have explicitly said that they were snipped (twice
now)? Sheesh, I snipped them because otherwise the post gets to be
hundreds of lines long.

No, I think you snipped them because you were embarrassed at having your
falsehoods so clearly demonstrated. Since you've now admitted that it was a
falsehood, the demonstration is no longer necessary, and I won't bother
restoring them a second time.

(snipped all the others too)

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

They are all quotes regarding Iraqi WMDs. There are also quotes from
the same speech citing Iraqi-Al Qaeda links going back at least a
decade. Now all debunked by various governmental investigations (all
commissioned by the President himself).

Obviously the point (stated previously) is that Bush is using the
Cincinatti speech to outline a case for the threat of Iraq due to WMD
and terror.

Not *only* those factors, Nate...


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.

Oh, come on. This one made me laugh out loud. Now you are
hairsplitting and equivocating on whether or not you called me a liar.

What I wrote is very plain to anyone with a normal degree of reading
comprehension.

It makes for a pretty dull discussion when all you ever do is hairsplit,
equivocate, and focus on trivial sidepoints.

"Trivial sidepoints" like you claiming that the President said things he did
not say, and did not say things that he did?

I caught you in multiple, direct FALSEHOODS, Nate. That's not hairsplitting.
That's not equivocation. That's not "trivial sidepoints".

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.

Anyone who reads the Cincinatti speech and can see that its central
theme is "a grave threat to peace" posed by Iraq "possess[ing] chemical
and biological weapons [and is] seeking nuclear weapons," and that Iraq
"has given shelter and support to terrorism."

Anybody can read the speech and see that those are *among* the reasons that
the President gave.

In fact this is the thesis that is spelled out, in those terms, right in
the beginning. This is a speech that is primarily about Iraqi WMDs and
terror -- which is the point you claim I lied about. (oh, gee, I used
that word "primarily" again)

Anyone can read the speech and determine for himself what the truth is.

I don't really see any point in prolonging this discussion. You've already
demonstrated repeatedly that you cannot or will not see or speak the truth.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?