No, T-Distractor, you aren't dealing with reality... Yes, you would love nothing more than to reduce reality to an academic exercise where folks argue the definition of the word "is" of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

Propaganda is a real smooth advertisment campaign... Lopok at any ads and you see youthfullness and sex sublimininally incorporated into one ad after another... Do the ads promise that if you use Balbo that you will be younger or that by using a Balbo will have memebers of the oppoiste sex drape themselves on you??? QWell, no, they don't... Adverisement and proganda are intened to plant seeds and forms associations...

The grading of any ad or proaganda campaign is the final results and not the definintion of the word "is"...

So, here were are ajust a few months after the ivasion of Iraq and over 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had ties to Al Qeada????

Hmmmmmmmm????

Now Ron has shown where the language was manipulated so that the "denials" were over-rideen by the associations...

When I played a little PR trick on you, T, about "denying that you had relations with little boys" you got purdy steamed... I never once said you did have these relations but I crafted the wording, much like the Busd folks did, that left the impressions...

This ain't like Advertisising 402 but Advertisng 101 we're atl;king about here... You refuse to explain how 70% of Americans came to the conclusion that Saddam was linked with Al Qeada then get pissed off when I use an Advertising 101 trick involving you to show you exactly how it happened???

Like I have said before... If this were Debating 101, the professor would have sat you down a long timwe ago. You haven't made a convincing case and there's way too much evidence by way too many folks that Bush did manipulate intellegence and did manipulate words in order to get the American people to buy a war they wouldn't have bought had they simply been told the truth...

Bobert