ok, let's try it this way, then:
pretend for a moment that you are actually interested in persuading someone who does not already agree with you politically---which means that you have to explain you frame of reference rather than simply repeat it. i am sure you understand the distinction.
so let's adopt this fiction, shall we--that you are actually interested in talking to folk who do not share your intimate relationship with the conservative talking points of hte moment---think of it as evangelism, if you will----and then try sort this out logically, politicophile--go through the chain of events that resulted in the distorted intl presented to congress by teh administration--and perhaps presented as such from one office to another within the administration at one point or another---then to the congressional actions you are talking about---taking into account the fact of the unsc and information presented publically by the un and other international sources. and then explain to me how it is that your way of trying to frame what is "relevant" does not require so many assumptions behind to that it is functionally arbitrary.
repeating yourself is not answering, btw.
sometimes it seems like there has to be a rule or two.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|