Dickey--

Well, well. Captain Ginger has nailed you---"partial quote..." And his parallel of your attitude with the tobacco companies' defense is also dead on.

You say "Here's the key portion. Correction: Here's the part YOU chose.

Somehow you left the context out--now I wonder why you would do that. It couldn't be since it destroys your argument-- yet again. Surely not.

Have you been taking lessons from Teribus? When I quote one sentence, I am perfectly fine with having the context quoted. Teribus often obliges--but then winds up shooting himself in the foot. Don't know why that happens--gun keeps going off, I suppose.

At any rate, neither you nor Teribus seem to believe in including the context when you quote-----and for good reason--since it regularly undermines what you claim.

I checked your press conference of 31 Jan 2003. And sure enough, your "clear statement" is muddied--in the very next paragraph. Do you think we do no checking?

Tony Blair says "That answers your question". But then he goes on to pollute the water--badly--a la Cheney on 8 Sept 2002.

(Ask your companion in self-delusion, Teribus about that one. It's Teribus' pride and joy---but only the first sentence. The rest he prefers to ignore.)

But I digress. Just a trip down memory lane--about a year ago.

Blair continues (31 Jan 2003) : "The one thing I would say, however, is that I've absolutely no doubt that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after Sept 11? We know that these terrorist networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction."

He states there is "no doubt" that Saddam--clearly designated as a threat early in the press conference--and terrorists of the 11 Sept 2001 variety "will" come together.

From my posting of 19 Jan 2007 10:11 PM: "And don't bother to give us your tired idiocies about 'warning about a future possibility, not saying Saddam was responsible for 9-11'. Of course he's not spelling out that Saddam was responsible for that. No one claims that he was. But he is clearly trying to imply that if we don't do something about Saddam--real soon--there will, in the near future, be a situation like 9-11. But "this time armed by Saddam". Who, we have been told over and over, is likely to have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. That is----a 9-11 situation--but with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

"It's a message calculated to raise deep fears in his audience--- and panic them into supporting his Iraq invasion".


And so is this press conference--both what Bush says and what Blair says----if you read the entire transcript. Which you obviously did not plan on anybody doing.

The clear message is that Saddam may not have been directly responsible for 11 Sept 2001--but he is very likely to team up with the next terrorists who attack us-----with his WMD.

He, (Bush) (and Blair too) clearly links Saddam with 11 Sept 2001 in the minds of his listeners---which is his goal.

Fits perfectly into the propaganda campaign.

Calculated to raise deep fears.

Tell me why it is not.







Answer: no, your quote, I'm sorry to say, fails miserably-- (as usual)-- to carry out your assignment.

But at least you've learned to read sufficiently that you now realize what period we are speaking of. This is big progress. Well done, good job.


Face it, Dickey: the propaganda campaign from summer 2002 to March 2003 is a fact, not a theory.



This is an extremely dead horse. Teribus beat it to death mercilessly about a year ago--even though we tried to tell him it was already dead. Your continuing to beat it is unfortunately not going to bring it back to life any time soon.

Hope you have a good life preserver---sounds like you're still drowning in the river of denial.