In the context of all that has been said by the administration regarding the war on terror, the role that the Iraq invasion plays in the overall war on terror has been clearly described.
As a lawyer, you can see that taking selected quotes out of all of what has been said could clearly qualify, in some cases, as intentional misrepresentation.
The only way Bush could be guilty of misrepresenting what is known is for him to state that Saddam’s regime was responsible for or in some way connected to the attacks that occurred on 911.
Is Bush even capable of rational human speech? I’ve read through quite a few speeches of his, and the last time I went to Washington I saw him speaking live, butchering about every other sentence that came out of his mouth.
If he had said it, it would probably have come out like barking noises.
Gerbil has taken the piss out of a lot of regular posters without any of them taking offense. But make fun of some U.S. officials, woah, that’s crossing the line, right? I’d go on, but I think I’ll go back and read blueface’s responses earlier in this post. It’s a bit more fun.
Gerbil has taken the piss out of a lot of regular posters without any of them taking offense. But make fun of some U.S. officials, woah, that’s crossing the line, right? I’d go on, but I think I’ll go back and read blueface’s responses earlier in this post. It’s a bit more fun.[/quote]
I don’t take personal offense. gerbil’s post that I responded to was unlike his previous posts where he simply quoted several of a person’s statements without comment.
In this particular post, however, he tried to make a “statement” by citing one of my statements and then citing what he apparently believes to be statements by others that contradict my statement.
If he’s going to do that then he should expect a rebuttal, at least from me.
[quote=“mofangongren”]Why do so many people like George Bush?
…
The French, who have suddenly been elevated to some level of significance after decades in relatively snobbish irrelevance.[/quote]
