Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Ex White House Press Secretary: a Key Witness to Impeachable Offenses & War Crimes?

aceventura3 · 06-03-2008, 02:41 PM

Host,

The problem is not in the citations, it is more fundamental than that.

How is it that you selectively have seemingly blind faith is intel that supports your premise and then can totally ignore intel that may contradict your view? I acknowledge that intel can be correct or it can be incorrect. If a view is formed based on intel and then the view is changed based on intel - how is that a lie?

It is not possible for us to come to an agreement, because I don't think we know one way or the other with certainty if there were direct links with Zarqawi and Hussein. There is evidence that suggests that Zarqawi could have had "relations" with Hussein.

Your conclusions often don't directly support your premise, for example you point to the fact that Hussein publicly looked at al qaeda as a threat, as if that would be proof there was no contact or "relations". That logic is flawed. That logic suggests that you think Hussein would be open and honest about a relationship. That logic assumes that al qaeda and Hussein could not view the US as a common enemy, a greater threat and reason to collaborate.

Also, you are arguing a point that is not material to the editorial. The author of the editorial, if proven wrong - did not present the link as a fact. If you think IBD lacks credibility because of that point, you have a right to that view. On the other hand I have been reading IBD for about 10 years and I have confidence in the information I read in the paper and enjoy the opinions writted on the editorial page.

06-03-2008, 02:41 PM	#87 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Host, The problem is not in the citations, it is more fundamental than that. How is it that you selectively have seemingly blind faith is intel that supports your premise and then can totally ignore intel that may contradict your view? I acknowledge that intel can be correct or it can be incorrect. If a view is formed based on intel and then the view is changed based on intel - how is that a lie? It is not possible for us to come to an agreement, because I don't think we know one way or the other with certainty if there were direct links with Zarqawi and Hussein. There is evidence that suggests that Zarqawi could have had "relations" with Hussein. Your conclusions often don't directly support your premise, for example you point to the fact that Hussein publicly looked at al qaeda as a threat, as if that would be proof there was no contact or "relations". That logic is flawed. That logic suggests that you think Hussein would be open and honest about a relationship. That logic assumes that al qaeda and Hussein could not view the US as a common enemy, a greater threat and reason to collaborate. Also, you are arguing a point that is not material to the editorial. The author of the editorial, if proven wrong - did not present the link as a fact. If you think IBD lacks credibility because of that point, you have a right to that view. On the other hand I have been reading IBD for about 10 years and I have confidence in the information I read in the paper and enjoy the opinions writted on the editorial page. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."