<<I never said Bush said that. That's your current re-write. I said nearly everyone said that. Shall I again post that laundry list of folks, Dems, European leaders, etc., who believed so, and SAID so?>>
You're confused. I realize this has been a long thread, so let me help you out here. Bush said: <<Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. . .
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.>>
Your comment was: <<Well, to folks with a grasp of what Bush was saying, especially as it relates to why we went into Iraq, his comments are perfectly in line with that reality. >>
I pointed out that what Bush said could not possibly have been "in line with reality" since the reality was that that Saddam had no WMD and that he wouldn't have attacked the USA with them anyway because he wouldn't dare.
Your response tactic then was to focus on "reality" - - you replied << That REALITY also included that nearly everyone believed he did.>> Fine.
But even if we accept that version of what reality was at the time, it leaves you with a problem: the speech didn't refer to what "nearly everyone believed" - - it referred to the existence of the WMD, not as a belief but as actual weapons. Belief was never mentioned in the speech. So even if the "reality" was exactly as you described (and it was not - - I'll come to that later) the speech described a "reality" in which WMD existed as WMD, not as "beliefs" in the minds of "nearly everyone." Result: you STILL don't have a speech that was as you claimed "perfectly in line with reality."
When you claimed that Bush's speech was "perfectly in line with reality" because reality included what "nearly everyone" thought about WMD at the time, you were left with the problem that the speech said nothing about what "nearly everyone" thought about WMD; and therefore couldn't have been in line with reality unless it were re-written to include the reference to what "nearly everyone" thought. If the speech were to be "in line" with reality, it would have to be re-written.
I did not mean literally that you physically re-wrote Bush's speech, or that you claimed that he said something he never said. What I meant was that you COULDN'T be right unless you re-wrote the speech, in other words, that the speech as actually written and delivered did not reflect the reality of the time, was not "in line" with reality, and in fact was as I had claimed all along, just one more big fucking lie from the big fucking liar.
Oh, I also said I'd deal later with your claim that "nearly everyone" believed at the time that Saddam had WMD. <<I said nearly everyone said that. Shall I again post that laundry list of folks, Dems, European leaders, etc., who believed so, and SAID so?>>
Get serious. What would the list really prove? Do you know how many people on the list believed in Saddam's WMD because of what that lying bastard Bush TOLD them? They believed Bush, but that doesn't and cannot prove that Bush wasn't lying to them too. And I never said that Bush is or was the only lying bastard in the whole world. Others who might have known better also lied. Bush was not the only one who believed that America could benefit from grabbing Iraq's oil reserves, the second-largest proven reserves in the world, and not the only one who believed America needed a phony pretext for the attack. The list is a list of liars and suckers proving absolutely nothing.
Want a list of people who love Fidel Castro? Would you accept that as proof that Castro is really a great guy? Just for once in your life, THINK about things. You got a list? Fine. THINK what does the fucking list really prove?
