Credit John L. Who complied and posted this on off topic
Posted by: batvetted on Thu 1.21 10:20pm
Come on, batvetted, you can do better than that. You've never been arguing that we invaded Iraq because of what Saddam did, but because of what you are convinced he was going to do. Your analogy is not just dumb, it is also pointless. The existence of WMDs has never been the reason you support the invasion. Why keep that argument going?
I can see why some people tire of talking with you, you can sound like a parrot a lot of the time. But just for the fun of it, here are a couple of observations about your response to me several pages back.
"I think with this in mind you'd have to begrudgingly admit that just as I cannot guarantee the worst case scenarios of what Saddam was going to do, it's always going to be speculatory to assume if the war did not happen we would be better off in any factors assiociated with it."
Posted by: batvetted on Thu 1.21 2:28pm
That's a bit like saying "If I hadn't robbed the bank, I would be poorer today." That's not a very good defense in criminal law, and it's not a very good defense in international law either. The invasion was illegal under international law.
"My position is "if you think Bush lied to you, then you needed to be lied to".
Big difference. I don't think Bush lied to me."
Posted by: batvetted on Thu 1.21 2:28pm
That's a pretty strange concept, even for you. You don't think Bush lied to you because you don't think he lied, or because you saw through the lies? Have you read his speeches from September 2002 to March 2003? He lied non stop. I saw through his lies, but he lied. Are you saying I needed to be lied to because he had to have his way and his war regardless of how he justified it? If so, say it and defend it. Don't keep making stupid statements like suggesting that few people here have read the Joint Resolution on Iraq.
"I am intelligent enough to realize the TV, media and print are not George Bush. He does not control how many times you heard the term WMD repeated "on the fives" or how the words "national security" or "national interests" end up on the floor of CNN's editing room floor- let alone be responsible for the childish way many people view their nation's governing process.
I say that in view of laughing my ass off that people all assume that part of a President's job is to ensure when he makes a decision for our benefit, he MUST publicly disclose all the positives, negatives and underlying goals to ensure they can make an informed decision."
Posted by: batvetted on Thu 1.21 2:28pm
1 comment:
I loved (in a backhanded way) this statement of his on the WMD thread:
""We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld - On March 30 2003 - lying
------------------------
I'm glad you mentioned that, look at the time he said this. Since at that point he isn't trying to "sell" a war to anyone, doesn't this display they believed they would find some?"
First - "wasn't [sic] trying to 'sell' a war..." How does he figure? Just because it was declared by GWB's fiat 10 days previous doesn't mean that the ongoing effort to sell the public on its necessity wasn't happening. If you ask me, the Bush administration spent many years trying to justify - aka, "sell" - its actions in the Middle East.
Buyer's remorse, anybody?
Second - there's a world of difference between saying that you know something exists, and the interpretation that saying you know meant that you believed you would find them. A bit like suggesting that a parent reassuring his kids that Santa really does exist would look hopefully into his/her stocking on the morning hoping for unexpected treats that could be sourced to a big fat guy in a red suit.
Post a Comment