On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:54:10 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Marguerita <marguerita@hottermail.co.uk> wrote in
news:3opl605unoohlj0gkrtk40ea39oot7p1hi@4ax.com:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:55:38 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Marguerita <marguerita@hottermail.co.uk> wrote in
news:ht6j6019vats2k3f78033gvma2fgfssdn7@4ax.com:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:16:41 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Marguerita <marguerita@hottermail.co.uk> wrote in
news:bukg60d0hnebh0k048hmfhl0ikkjelusak@4ax.com:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:23:36 -0500, "Osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0403261607.22be36bf@posting.google.com...
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<_758c.35741$%06.1222@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
So go right ahead and make up synonyms all you want. Quibble
your own heart out, the record is quite clear. One or two news
media gotchas don't contradict the fact that they
characterized Iraq as a *potential* threat *more immediate
than any other terrorist-supporting state*, one of grave
importance but *not* one that was already in motion against
us.
We were talking about what Rummy said Fred. He said "immediate"
not "potential". Still spinning for the right I see.
Except one problem
He didn't say immediate.
How many times do the quotes have to be wheeled out before you
liars will admit that he used the term 'immediate threat'? It's
been posted about three times, and is even quoted near the top of
this post, so either you've been reduced to telling bare-faced
lies to justify your position or you have the memory span of a
goldfish. Which is it?
When do you think you'll start being honest about what he said
instead of taking a single word out of a phrase?
The statement 'he didn't say immediate' is a blatant lie. He talked
about Iraq being an immediate threat. Those were his words. You
might not like it, and he may wish he hadn't said it, but he did.
Like you, he also lied about it, claiming that he'd never used the
words 'immediate threat'.
So you can't tell the difference between a unqualified "immediate
threat" and "a threat more immediate than any other terrorist state".
You said: 'He didn't say immediate'.
He very clearly *did* say immediate. Read the quote again if you like.
Read it all you like. The word is in a phrase that modifies its meaning.
That doesn't make the statement true, does it?
Either way, Rumsfeld told a blatant lie. He said he had never used the
term 'immediate threat' He did not say anything about context, just
that he had never used that term about Iraq. He is a liar, as is
anyone else who continues to deny it.
M
.
