LOL! You slam me for not using the FULL Oxford English dictionary adn then you tell me I'm the one playing around with the meaning of the word "fixed"?
Why don't you post from the Full dicitonary? I'll tell you why... because the first two entries are exactly the same and clearly show the word, as used by Englishmen has two different meanings.
You're blowing a pretty nice smokescreen out your anal vent.
Keep dancing bubba.
I didn't slam you for not using the full OED, I laughed at you for citing two defintions that made no sense and making the specious claim that the compact OED is somehow definitive in this case irrespective of context.
The definitions you listed don't fit the context and you know it. Complete and utter Chewbacca defense on your part. You just chose the convenient definitions for your argument irrespective of whther they made sense either as they stood or within the context of the piece. Do you contend that the definitions you gave are the only possible ones? I can think of at least a dozen definitions without even referring to a dictionary and only one would make any sense in the context of the piece.
You know full well that the memo indicates that the evidence was being fitted to the policy and not that the policy was being driven by the evidence. Give any other interpretation that fits the form of words used.
Now you point me to the part in the US Presidential oath that says the President will defend this country and protect the Constitution but can't take military action until the UN agrees with him about the threat
There was no threat. Just because you stuck your fingers in your ears when you were told that back before the invasion doesn't diminish the fact.
I clearly get that you assumptions and no proof; all you have is suspicion (and bias). And that you'll continue to whine about it for decades.
Yes I'm biased in favour of reality as opposed to fantasy, so come back when you have developed the nuts to admit to yourself that you were decieved and that you sucked it up willingly as your overconfident assertions in 2003 indicate.
Nor were the UN inspectors able to prove the total absence of a single NBC weapon before the invasion.
How can you prove a negative? Can you prove to me that you've never sexually interferred with a chicken?
This is what the whole thing boils down to: Do you seriously believe that an administration would blow hundreds of billions of dollars on an invasion and occupation based on less than exceptionally reliable evidence? Or do you think that they figured that one pretext was as good as another as long as the policy went through? That, my dancing friend, is the nub of the argument.
