Posted on 05/30/2003 1:11:24 PM PDT by fritter
LOL! He does it when he's not even trying!!
If you are trying to impress me with the accuracy of your generalization, it isn't working.
When you make broad, inclusive statements like that, you are slinging mud loosely, no matter how legalistic your intentions might be.
I imagine most freepers would agree with me on that. ;^)
You are right about one thing. I don't blindly trust politicians, regardless of what party they belong to.
Be well.
But remember, the issue of Saddam's WMD was always the primary reason for removing Saddam Hussein from power and no one I know is denying that. But there were many other reasons that you seem less willing to address. The links to terrorism, freeing the Iraqi people, improving Israel's security and relocating our military command center from Saudi Arabia, were also well known and well discussed reasons for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Of course, there were other reasons but WMD (as you state) was usually the lead argument to scare possible skeptics to go with the game plan. This should never be forgotten.
BTW, the main reason for the war as stated long ago by Wolfowitz (to create a counterweight to Saudi Arabia) was heavily deemphasized at the beginining of the war but now is moving to the forefront. Some of us saw this coming a long time ago. Truth eventually comes to the surface.
Its obvious you have an agenda that goes way beyond merely being skeptical of decisions made by the Bush administration. Also, most conservatives on FR aren't engaging in any "knee jerk partisanship". As for you being principled, I don't buy it. Especially not after reading the following remark you made earlier on this thread.
>>>BTW, I opposed the war but thought that he did have WMDs. Perhaps I was too gullible in believing Rumsfeld. Live and learn.
134 posted on 05/30/2003 5:23 PM MDT by Captain Kirk
This points to a lack of consistency and integrity in your argument.
>>>BTW, the main reason for the war as stated long ago by Wolfowitz (to create a counterweight to Saudi Arabia) ....
Now you're even contradicting yourself. LOL That was never the main reason.
I remind you, Paul Wolfowitz isn't the POTUS, the VPOTUS, or Defense Secretary. These attempts to undermine the truth, shows that you're as desperate as the liberal establishment is. So you fabricate falsehoods and create distortions about the historical record. A record by the way, which hasn't been completed. The main reason for the war was, the WMD. Followed by many other legitimate and valid reasons.
Once the remaining two-thirds of the WMD sites have been thoroughly examined and nothing is found... only after the US has ruled out the possibility that Saddam shipped WMD to his terrorist neighbors... and only after its been concluded that WMD were not destroyed by Saddam's henchmen prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom start-up... then and only then will you be able to reach the conclusions you've reached on this thread.
So far, PresBush is sitting pretty. The American people trust the President and he continues to receive overwhelming support for his remarkable leadership. If you are bothered by that, too bad.
Contradicting myself? Please read my threads *before* the war I alway said that IMHO my humble opinion the real reason for the war was to build a counterweight to Saudi Arabia. I have been entirely consistent on this point unlike many pro-warriors who once used WMD as their lead scare argument but now have shifted to "liberation" etc.
Now it is true that the *stated* reason given by policymakers before the war was primarily was WMD. I am arguing that they were making a largely a cynical ploy to misled Americans to bring about their own hidden agendas (e.g. building a counterweight to Saudi Arabia). Politicians often have hidden agendas. Why is this so difficult to understand?
You've presented absolutely no substantiated facts to backup the accusations you've presented and thereby, have severely damaged your integrity and credibility. Yet you want to continue spreading faslehoods and half truths about outcomes to events that haven't occured. In that regard, you've lost the argument.
You've chosen to fabricate failure on the part of Bush and his people. There have been no failures and there have been no scare tactics employed. There's been no "cynical ploy to misled Americans" and there's no "hidden agendas" either.
All politicians don't have a hidden agenda. All politicians don't engage in nefarious acts either. You're trying to link the Bush administration, Tony Blair's government, American intelligence and British intelligence in some elaborate hoax. There was no hoax.
However, what you've presented verges on the preposterous.
I've presented you with facts and yes, I've asserted those facts based on hard evidence, which I don't think needs repeating for most folks.
There's a big difference between asserting the truth, as I've done and making empty accusations, as you have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.