Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
This is not the first time that roachboy and host have reminded you that it is absurd and irrelevant to focus on what senator Feinstein, or any other senator, knew or did not know on October 11, 2002.
The overwhelming compilation of evidence is that, as Andrew Card infamously said, "you do not launch a new product in August". The "product" a propaganda campaign timed to take full advantage of the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and the spontaneous sentiment of Americans triggered by the memory of that day, embellished with the co-ordinated message of all Bush administration heavy weights. The message was a litany of all the menacing items in Saddam's arsenal that Bush could keep us safe from, if we authorized him to invade Iraq, with, or without the authorization of the UN.
|
This is a weak argument, Host. Essentially, you are saying that 77 Senators were so consumed by their 9/11 aniversary emotions that they were unable to vote against George Bush's blood for oil scheme. The Bush spin machine is strong, for sure, but those Senators supported the plan for deeper reasons than blind patriotism.
You have provided an answer to my original question as to whether Democrats are stupid or hypocritical: you chose the "stupid" answer because it allows you to continue arguing that my case is not at all strengthened by the fact that almost half of the Senate Democrats agreed with me back in 2002. I understand now why you have told me repeatedly that my appeals to the Democratic votes don't matter: you hold those Senators to be, to a lesser degree than Bush, parts of the Republican machine that used propaganda as a tool to coerce all "patriotic" Senators into authorizing the use of force.
That's funny because the Democrats sounded pretty sincere in their beliefs that Iraq was an imminent danger to the U.S... I guess they were just swept off their feet by patriotism when they made
these statements. (Click on the "play" link) How do you explain the pre-9/11 comments?