Did I say hook? I meant pole as in impaled on your own ego. There are those who read as much as you who come to different conclusions. There are many measurements of strength besides a reading list. Your total lack of humility is no strength I assure you. Rather than come here to share or educate or even civilly discuss, you come here as abrasive as hell to ridicule and belittle those who don't fit you. What do you expect us to do?
If I reduced it all to the same caricature that you do, I'd be flabbergasted too... The intel is always going to be conflicting in a complex situation.
Awesome. So at the end of the thread, yo've successfully utilized every Bush admin tactic to defend Bush admin tactics that culminated in (what you admit to) misleading a nation to war. You've cherry-picked, distorted, marginalized, ignored, and now dismissed as "to complex for your non-administration-affiliated" minds. End thread for me. I have more important things to do than continue on with this silly charade.
A few "gems" from your caricature: - for the 30th time (exaggeration) - truthiness (a Colbertian I'm sure) - some wild-ass claim about 50% of the data having to agree or it is compared to a bet on stocks You have no even view of anything this administration does or did so just go pout, I guess until January of '09.
Try exasperation. Accurate, given the complete absence of compelling evidence to the contrary regarding Bush's misleading claims. Hold on - are you lecturing me on accuracy in an obviously demonstrative post in an internet forum, but giving Bush a free pass for misleading the nation and entering into an unnecessary war? Get bent. Hey, colbert can apply here too: "We all know the facts have a liberal bias."
I feel your pain. Why the focus still on Bush only? It is an imperfect government that we operate under. See weslinder's original purpose. Bush gets the same pass that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, and Henry Waxman get. See post #14. Or we can burn them all at the stake in this witch-hunt?! Whatever! Love Colbert.
Kudos for being a good sport, giddyup. You still think a "tough decision" is sufficient rationale to mislead. I totally and completely disagree. It's bogus malarky. Moving on now...
You posted that you know the data was known to be conflicting (at best) in post 46. In post 56 the resultant misleading rationale was marginalized by you since the decision was "tough and close".
So the data was conflicting? Look at all those quotes taken mostly from 2002 which is the pre-war time period... and they were all saying the same thing. They had access to largely the same intel ... and they were all saying the same thing. See, you say it is misleading to go with the best data that you have which is causing them all to say the same thing. Why were none of those Democratic heroes moderating their positions with the rest of the data in 2002? Were they lying too? You support your position with the best evidence not that which contradicts and, in fact, you don't really know for sure where the truth resides. Nobody does... until way after decision time.
I'm not going to get into this with you giddy because we have gone rond and round with it but... There is a substantial body of evidence that proves this to be an incorrect statement.
My lack of humility is in the face of your admitted ignorance of the facts? "Well I don't know sh-t about X, but my opinion of X is Y" Y = valueless in this calculus. I guess it's rude of me to say it, so be it if it is. But it's still right.
Having humility has nothing to do with being right or wrong... although it shouldn't surprise me that you interpret it that way. Try this one on: "the quality or condition of being humble; modest opinion or estimate of one's own importance, rank, etc." Where did I admit to being ignorant of "the facts?" I don't claim to know everything and, despite your assurances, I doubt you do either. I'm quite sure you have a grasp of more facts than I do-- what with that being your hobby, but despite your statement it doesn't necessarily change the truth of the situation. Some people have a likewise larger body of facts at their fingertips and they don't agree with your assassin's analysis either. History will judge better than the pundits.
And how was it qualitatively different than the book of intel that had been gathered over the previous two decades of Saddam's regiime-- more specifically since Gulf War I?
