I read your later post, and didn't read this one. My comments were based on what pan said. I might respond to your later one If I think there's enough difference to warrant it, but I think there was a couple of key things here that I didn't want to miss.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
alansmithee, 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.
|
Here's one example of the compartmentalization that goes on. I'm a "conservative", as is MM. Therefore, we obviously hold the same convictions, right? So I obviously believe that Saddam has some WMD stashed up his ass. Also, this is apparently the position of black america, since i'm black and generalizations are the in thing for liberals. Also, union members all hold this position, fyi.
I will now continue in my appointed post as spokesman for conservatives, blacks, and union members (there's more, but I don't want to go through all the time listing the various sub-groups I am also representing).
Quote:
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:
alansmithee, 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.
|
I read the links you posted. Many I don't find credible whatsoever for supporting your claims. That being said, at the very least any rational person would have to assume form those quotes and the associated sources of many of them that there was no WMD in Iraq, and that Saddam had no functioning weapons program.
The "program in the wings" is an interesting idea, but to me seems little more than some after the fact rationalization for a particular issue that has little legs otherwise. It's little more than pretty conjecturing.
However, I would disagree somewhat that you proved your borderline libelous attacks. There was a body of evidence that suggested the possibility of WMD before Bush even took office.
I see it more like the admin decided that they had enough reasons to go to war in Iraq (and I'm sure we all could think of reasons why they would, good and bad) and WMD was what they thought would be the easiest reason to sell. It just happens that it was wrong in hindsight.
Quote:
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 documented arguments?
|
Why despite mountains of evidence to the contrary do some people still claim that Bush lost the '00 and '04 elections?
Sometimes people believe things despite evidence to the contrary. And if someone believes that strongly, possibly no amount of evidence would sway them. The manner in which info is presented can often also influence how it is received.
Sometimes it's simply best to ignore posts where people are too far gone from reality.