5stringJeff
Senior Member
nakedemperor said:Yeah yeah, Al Qaeda connections, democrats thought Iraq was a good idea, yadda yadda, this wasn't the point of my thread, so I can't and won't respond to a dozen varied "Oh yeah, well Kerry..." comments when we're talking about Donald Rumsfeld.
And I guess I don't want to talk about it anymore. It seems that when he said "I never said Iraq was an immediate threat" and then was read the statement "Iraq is the most immediate threat posed of all the terrorist states to American security", you people didn't find the two statements incompatible. Apparently "most immediate threat" to you people means "immediate in relative terms, but not actually immediate". Which, to any person with half a brain, is the most preposterous piece of crap. Ever. If this black and white, clear cut, unbelievably simple contradiction can be scewed by arguing the definition of "most immediate threat" to mean "not necessarily an immediate threat", then it is honestly not at all worthwhile to continue arguing with such pigheaded individuals who won't admit when they're wrong. Ever. And any circumstances. How very frustrating.
OK, NE, I will concede that Rumsfield said what you say he said.
What exactly is the point? The mandate of the American people, who turned out in droves on Tuesday, is to continue to fight the WOT the way it's been fought. That means continuing on in Iraq. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at.