I'm sure this will be discounted by many seeing as it comes from an evil Zionist Jew.
Also, just wondering; If stockpiles of WMD do end up turning up in Syria, or Iraq, or wherever, will there be apologies offered forth by the likes of Kennedy, Pelosi, Levin, Kerry, Boxer, Reid, Moore, Carter, etc.? I highly doubt it, so I won't hold my breath should it happen.
2005-12-16
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As Nadir has said to me: "I'm still waiting for planted WMDs do show up." In other words, lack of finding WMDs unambiguously indicates that there were no WMDs (no possibility that they got spirited accross to Syria), but evidence of WMDs will merely indicate another Bush subterfuge. It works the same for the relationship between petro prices and the war. Prior to invasion, the lefties insisted that the invasion would produce lower petro prices, which would please voters and spur economic growth. But when increased petro prices followed the invasion, this didn't falsify the original claim, it just resulted in a new claim: that Bush invaded in order to increase petro prices and the resulting petro company profits.
Therein lies the problem Paul; It's impossible to have legitimate discussion and debate with people who conveniently and constantly fall back on conspiracy theories to argue their point, be it stolen elections, blood for oil, 911 was staged, Bush Knew, exploded levees, and on-and-on. It's a convenient defense mechanism to go that route, because it's nearly impossible to debate someone who does.
But that's where we're at nowadays. Everything's a f--cking conspiracy. It's maddening.
Hmmm, college student and journalist, eh, A Mc? That's pretty much all I need to know about you. I'm sure you've been thoroughly brainwashed by your Marxist jouralism prof, so I'll cut you some slack.
Bush lied about WMD's!!! WAAAHHH, WAHHHH!!! It's time to "Moveon" kid.
Try thinking for yourself.
Six: I'm disappointed in your response to mc. His views are correct or incorrect based on the facts and logic that underpin them, not on his status as an MC, college student, and journalist (college journalist?).
MC: I think you make a soundly logical point. However, whereas a person can prove a positive ("US troops have found a stockpile of WMDs at X location"), one cannot prove a negative ("The entire country of Iraq contained no banned WMDs as of the date that Bush announced the invasion"). In my example, we can only prove this about WMDs in Iraq: "US troops have failed to find WMDs."
What should Bush appologize for? If he indeed he cherry-picked intelligence in order to bolster a point that he wanted to make, and if -- worse -- he suppressed government opinions and data which undermined his point, then he should admit and appologize for that. If, instead, he and members of his team honestly assessed the facts and opinions available to them, and if they honestly concluded that Iraq had banned WMDs, then I think he should state this clearly, but without appologizing.
Yeah, you're probably right. I was a little harsh, wasn't I?
Post a Comment