First question I saked Ron which he never answered.
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."
Now where did it say that Saddam had a connection with 9/11?
Ron never answered. Possible answers would be to say "it did not say that" that or to explain where it said that.
Instead of answering he claims he never accused Bush of trying to make a connection between Saddam and 9/11 and changes his assertion to say Bush was trying to scare people about a future attack like 9/11.
Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?
Possible answers would be yes or no.
Ron refuses to answer the question directly.
Both of the questions are simple not complex and based on something else being true.
He makes an assertion:
"JFK " stuck to his guns" needlessly and recklessly, endangering the world to save his and RFK's political careers."
Demands that I respond to that and says:
"I note you have provided precisely zero evidence against this assertion."
That's right Ron I haven't nor have I claimed to have any evidence nor have I tried nor do I feel compelled to. You are entitled to that assertion just like your copyrighted Intellectual Giant assertion.
Then he asks a complex question, falsely claims it is a simple question and demands an answer"
"Do you believe JFK should have been willing to make the trade--(Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba)--public?"
But that's Ron, the crusher of the opinions of others.
Wonder why his readers have left.