No I think I got exactly what you wrote. Maybe your choice of words does not accurately reflect your intentions?

 

So now you're claiming to know the *true* definition of someone else's words better than the person who wrote them?

 

I guess Bush doesn't care anymore about Osama Bin Forgotten. I might have missed it, but I dont recall Al Queda actually coming forward and claiming responsibility. I might be wrong, so tell me if I am. The major reason we went into Iraq was not that we thought Iraq had WMD?! What was Bushs cry for war then? Thats all they talked about. WMD this ... WMD that ... Iraq can launch missles at Israel within 45 min of the order. What a load of crap dude. Quit changing the "reason for war" all the time.

 

Mike,

I agree the invasion of Iraq as a strike-first policy does make NK scared and I complete see where they are coming from when they demand a non agression pact. But what they are offering in return is something they already gave us in a deal that they did not honor under the Clinton admin. so why should the Bush admin. believe them now.

I know I haven't been mislead by the Bush admin. I agree the intelligence before the war about Iraq's WMD was very poor, but at the time it seemed very logical from what Iraq and other world intelligence agencies were saying. But one of the reasons we went in there was that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism...and now it is looking like they really were.

I do agree with your reservations on the Patriot Act. I would like to see a better draft written, or amendments made to it to make it more effective, but less intrusive to the lives of good Americans.

 

No, I wrote a response to what he wrote. A respose that was appropriate to his written post. All I am saying is that what he wrote may not have been what his intentions were. How would I know what his intentions are? If I was claiming something I would have said that. Give me a little credit.

 

Let us dissect the statement piece by piece

• Our intelligence agencies - Subject
• meet - Verb
• with rebel groups - Object
• who support our cause - Object modifier
• (free trade, not democracy) - Side note which modifies "our cause"
• all the time. - Parameters for verb.

Let us examine a similar sentence: Dick runs with his dog (who is white) on tuesdays. While tricky, after careful scrutiny you may notice that Dick runs with his dog who is white, and does not run with his dog because he is white. I believe this is where you became confused. You see, the side note is modifying the object of the sentence - which happens to be immediately previous to the side note - instead of magically changing the meaning of the entire sentence in ways I cannot comprehend.


This second sentence clearly states that the actions performed during the meeting cannot be clearly determined given the above data, in direct contradiction to the meaning you and Houdini revealed from within my statement, which had been heretofore concealed from even myself.


Hopefully this handy guide will help you properly read English in the future.

 

If Bush had forgotten about OBL what is that our soldiers are looking for when they are souring the mountains of Afghanistan? I am also sure that if they could they would also go to Pakistan where he probably is.

WMD was one reason, one we know now was brought on by very bad intelligence that everyone and their mother agreed on. Another was that Iraq was a state sposor of terrorism that we now know was true. And Iraq did have missles that could hit Israel...that is well known now just as much so as it was before.

 

Thanks for the English lesson. I got all that the first time you wrote it. Your side note defined what "our cause" was, "free trade, and not democracy". So what I understood as what you were saying is that the meetings with Muhammed Atta could have been about anything, not just terrorist related activities. But it is ironic that Iraqs intelligence agencies met three times with a man that would eventually fly one of our planes into one of our buildings. And if you had read the article in the NY Post you would see that there are many other things that Iraq and Al Quaida were doing together, such as setting up training camps and sleeper sells to fight the Americans.

You do not need to be Houdini to figure out what the meetings with Atta were probably about.

Oh and I am sorry that you could not pick up on my sarcasm in that post. I thought it was laid on pretty thick. Next time I will place it inside some brackets suchs as <sarcasm> </sarcasm>

 

No, that still wasn't my point, but I give up.


Our intelligence meets with rebel groups. What level of support do these rebel groups recieve? I don't know!

Iraqi intelligence meets with rebel groups. What level of support do these rebel groups recieve? I don't know!


Roosevelt met with Stalin. Was it about how he should kill millions of his own people? Probably not.

So yes, Iraqi intelligence met with the future terrorists, but we have no idea A) If the WTC planning in particular was discussed B) If any terrorism specifically against the United States was discussed C) If any terrorism period was discussed and D) If they discussed terrorism acts to be performed against the United States, we do not know if the terrorists recieved Iraqi support in terms of advising, materials, money, training, etc, etc, etc.


So what kind of "proof" is it? Coincidental? Yes. I could easily use the same logic to claim that Bush conspired with Tony Blair to commit genocide against the Iraqi people.

 

That wasn't your point?


Your original post seemed to really trivialize the fact Atta me three times with Iraq. But whatever.