<h3>alansmithee,</h3> I hope that you, Pan, and roachboy will forgive me for "barging" in on your "back and forth", but I would like to satisfy my curiousity, and maybe reach a greater understanding about my inability to understand how you, and say... Marvelous Mary, gain and hold your convictions.
The following is a post from Marvelous Mary, which is a response to zen_tom:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=91489&page=2
(Near bottom of page)
zen_tom makes (IMO, anway) the easily defended statement that ,"Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and the US waging a war based on that issue", and Marvelous Mary countered with a reference to "UN SCR 687", and an article from a consrvative Harvard student periodical that offers it's own analysis of Charles Duelfer's 10/2004 WMD report, that is intended to persuade that the U.S. was justified in invading Iraq, and that Bush did not mislead, because.....only the U.S. administrations reaction to 9/11 intervened to blunt Saddam's "waiting game", whereby, when the U.N. sanctions ended, he would have put his dormant WMD programs in high gear, and emerged as a
menace to the world.. ... (my comments continue below MM's post....)
Marvelous Mary ended her response to zen_tom with:
<h3>alansmithee,</h3> as the self appointed, repetitive poster of the overwhelming evidence that Saddam did not possess WMD, and that key members of the Bush administration were either reported, in 2001 and 2002, to either agree
that he had not reconsituted his WMD programs, or are directly quoted as saying that, along with WH press secretary McClellan's Jan. 12, 2005 admission to the press that Bush agreed that no WMD were found, or were likely to be found, based on the Duelfer report, in areas outside of Iraq, such as Syria, and my recently posted quotes from Bush and Rice that:
and that Bush had claimed that:
In late January 2003, in his SOTU address, more than a month after Iraq had presented it's data and inventory of WMD and WMD programs to the U.N.,
Bush claimed that Iraq's WMD inventory, as a justification for war, included:
.....I am confident that it diminishes the credibility of any individual of any ideology to disagree that Bush misled and exaggerated to the point that he either could be called a liar, or incredibly misinformed to the degree that he was incompetent or inept.
Even with this body of formidible evidence, I still find myself having to post it again and again on these threads. The trend is that resistance to the evidence is shrinking.
My question to you is, in the face of this evidence, why do people still defend Bush with such anger, as MM did, and what do you think that it will take, as
far as evidence, if an admission from Bush himself is not sufficient enough for posts such as MM's to cease here? Why is is so difficult to process such straightforward, well docum
ented arguments?