I don't understand this new tactic of claiming that I can't be argued with. I'm listening very carefully to Host's argument, but it has not yet convinced me because there are some pieces missing. Namely, I have not yet heard a convincing account of why many Democratic Senators, some of whom had clearance to see whatever intelligence existed, voted to authorize the use of force. The replies seem to be along the lines of:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roachboy
that this evidence was itself manipulated, screened, shaped with policy objectives more like those of the project for a new american century than anything to do with what was happening on the ground is evident.
that the bushcase for war was not compelling--that it was contradicted explicitly by materials available to the un, and to the public, for example--also evident.
|
That simply doesn't square up with the four Senators' votes I keep refering to. If it was so very obvious, even to the PUBLIC, that the intelligence didn't support Bush's position, how do you explain those four votes? How stupid do you take those Senators to be?
It is alleged that:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roachboy
you tack within this sorry state of affairs is to pitch the question of falsity of the case for war in such arbitrarily narrow terms that there is no way to respond to you---the entire logic of your position makes no sense to me, i see no reason to accept it, no reason to enter into a debate on this question on your terms--you do not get to set them, particularly not when those terms, once detached from the rightwing talking points of the moment, are abritrary.
|
There is nothing arbitrary about the way I framed the discussion. Your position makes sense ONLY IF Edwards, Bayh, Feinstein, and Rockefeller are either amazingly stupid or if they are part of the Bush conspiracy. I don't believe either of those possiblities to be true. If follows that your position, your claim that Bush falsified the case for war, is false.
If Graham received the full evidence and decided that it did not support the authorization of force (this is what Host claimed above), then my four favorite Senators also saw the full evidence and came to the opposite conclusion. I what a credible explanation of why they voted that way. This is an entirely legitimate request, not some weird reframing of the debate, as is alleged.
The continued refusal to explain those four votes indicates that you are
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roachboy
using arbitrary/unnecessary criteria that allow you to pretend to be discussing something when in fact all you are doing is avoiding a mountain of evidence that you do not like.
|
My question is simple. My question is reasonable. My question has not been answered.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT FOUR DEMOCRATS ON THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE VOTED IN FAVOR OF AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ?
It is very important that Host and Roachboy answer this question because their argument doesn't work unless they can credibly explain those votes.