You ask for his definition, yet you have none of your own. Instead, you accept that the status quo implies his defintion.russ_watters said:Define "major combat operations" and substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's. Then explain how its not allowed that the situation be able to change any time later.
This statement says nothing. There is no content to this statement.We're going around in circles now - the fallacy in that has been pointed out to you a number of times and no matter how many times you repeat that, it doesn't get any less wrong.
You are arguing over semantics. He made statements that were not true. You defend him by quibbling over whether or not they were lies. Why don't you try a little critical thought? Can you? Of course, there is no such thing as absolute certainty, but that is not the question, is it. He framed his statements as though he were absolutely certain, and attempted to instill such certainty in everyone else.Jeez, now you're just sounding naive: how you can possibly see "absolute certainty" in a pre-war prediction is beyond me. Try attaching a little critical though to it: is there ever such a thing as "absolute certainty" in any prediction?