Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Here's what I'm saying, and ALL that I'm saying: Bush wanted into Iraq. There's anecdotal evidence that he was talking about Iraq the afternoon of September 11, when there was NO intelligence to link the two, false or otherwise. Then he culled the intel he needed to support the conclusion he had already arrived at and brought to the table.
|
This directly contradicts what many on the left have said. Many believe Bush wanted to invade Iraq from day one, for various reasons including revenge for the attempt on his father's life.
I guess there is so much stuff floating around - truth has to take a back seat.
Quote:
What I'm inviting you to consider is that you're making the same logical blunder. You've concluded that Bush Didn't Lie, and that conclusion blinds you to the (ample, btw) evidence that he did. I know it LOOKS like you haven't seen any evidence that satisfactorily contradicts your position... but notice that you HAVE a position, and you're holding the evidence up against it. That's not exactly what you'd call the scientific method.
I assert that you're not actually interested in knowing whether Bush lied, per the second sentence that I quoted. I assert you're mostly interested in defending your pre-supposition.
|
I come to the debate with the premise that Bush did not lie, true. Anyone spending anytime reading my position on Iraq would know that. (I am guilty of a lie of ommision, I should have that disclaimer on every post.) On the otherhand, and I may be wrong, but I guess some people come to the discussion with the premise that Bush did lie, just a wild guess on my part. At any rate I put my views on the table and ask questions and provide support for my point of view. If that is wrong, so be it.