email: abramoff knew of iraq war one year before it started

RainDog

zstillings wrote:

That may be your definition. The question was asked as to what else it could possibly mean. I answered with another possibility.

So what is the definition of "is"?

floyd1975

RainDog wrote:

So what is the definition of "is"?

In what context?

I know what you are saying, I was just giving another possibility in light of the "war on drugs," "the war of ideas," "The War of the Roses," ect...

RainDog

zstillings wrote:

In what context?

I know what you are saying, I was just giving another possibility in light of the "war on drugs," "the war of ideas," "The War of the Roses," ect...

Oh, I know. I'm just saying, considering we did invade Iraq, there's more to be said about Abramoff being literal. And to be fair, the war on drugs has involved military action in the past.

floyd1975

RainDog wrote:

Oh, I know. I'm just saying, considering we did invade Iraq, there's more to be said about Abramoff being literal. And to be fair, the war on drugs has involved military action in the past.

It can be taken that way. I take it as the tensions that we saw between the White House and Iraq even before the invasion.

The War on Drugs has involved military action in the past but not to the scale people here are talking about war.

WMA

It is humerous to see the definition of 'on' dissected like this.

Reminds me of a Carlin bit.

“get on the plane, get on the plane,” I say, “Fuck you, I’m getting in the plane! In the plane! Let Evil Knievel get on the plane, I’ll be in here with you folks in uniform. There seems to be less wind in here!”

RainDog

zstillings wrote:

It can be taken that way. I take it as the tensions that we saw between the White House and Iraq even before the invasion.

The War on Drugs has involved military action in the past but not to the scale people here are talking about war.

"It can be taken that way." Man, you are always on. I like that.

And to retort, how do you know on what scale people here are talking about? I mean, yeah, we're specifically talking about the war on Iraq; but some wars are on a bigger scale and some wars are on a smaller one.

Truthmonger

Forget about the War In/On Iraq debate, there is other proof that the U.S./Bush admin. lied about when the war started. It lies in the Downing Street Memo and in the statements by an American general(Moseley ?) about when the real war began - which, by the way, was well before March, 2003.

WindNoSail

come on people....

Don't we expect our govt to plan wars before they are executed? On one hand we blame the govt for not knowing how to stop 911 or plan for Katrina but we don't want them to consider for a moment the possibility of war with Iraq ahead of time, and Iraq was dealing blows the revered UN for 10+ years???

And then, the whole thing of actually going to war didn't happen til 2003 and that was 1.5 years after 911 and the advent of terrorism on our political scene, so it seems likely that they would have been discussing it by 2002, right?