re: #616 LudwigVanQuixote

No I’m ignoring your personal implication of what those speeches meant to you, and telling you what was explicitly said, and was the central theme (contrary to your belief) because the argument about imminence was the biggest and longest lasting of the debates leading up to the war. I’m simply arguing only 2 things. You say they claimed imminence (which you’ve since said they implied), I’ve shown unequivocally that the opposite was explicitly stated. That’s basically it. I’ve given you the point of scare-mongering, and Ace has also. But we won’t let untruths and claims of evil be bandied about when you are using half-truths to propagate the claim. You say go back and look at the speeches, etc. I did, and the SOTU is what I came up with. The only other quotes I have about imminence of threat are from Democrats claiming that the president didn’t make the case for imminent threat, which he acquiesced to already in his SOTU address.

re: #621 LudwigVanQuixote

also, are you now claiming that Franken’s amendment would make it less cheap to carry out this lawsuit. It would have taken years and millions regardless of Franken’s amendment. Which is the only point I’ve seen Ace trying to make. He stated in so many words that the law is unnecessary because she got her day in court. I guess the logical question is, how would Franken’s amendment change what would happen if this were to happen again? All the illegal actions which lead to the suit and the ruling, would they have been done faster? Would there be a different outcome?