captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:Your feeble attempts to pigeonhole me and my beliefs fall pitifully short. I have never stated that I don't believe #1. Any attempt on your part to put words in my mouth and then leap to a conclusion will go ignored.
Furthermore, your subsequent assertions don't prove a thing. You haven't personally searched Syria, or any other Arab country for that matter. Neither have we. It's interesting how you like to focus on how we need to find bin Laden, yet we should abandon trying to find the WMDs because they don't exist.
It's clear that the Bush administration was acting on intelligence that was supplied to them. Anybody can see that Bush didn't search Iraq personally. The fact that they weren't where the intelligence said they were STILL DOESN'T PROVE THAT BUSH WAS LYING. Too bad.
In addition to that, it's far less of a stretch, given the history of Saddam's use of chemical weapons on his own people, to believe that the weapons were disposed of or hidden in some way at the last minute, than to believe that this is some diabolical conspiracy fomented by George Bush himself, whom you libs believe doesn't have the intelligence to tell a rhino from a gnat. In asserting that Bush lied you must produce a viable motive for that. And don't give me that BIG OIL crap. I've seen Bush spend enough effort trying to get more of our own energy reserves increased to tell that we don't need Iraq's oil. And even further, if there were any corruption in BIG OIL, it would be the so-called United Nations who took bribes from Saddam's oil-for-food program. I don't hear even one of you liberals mentioning that, yet it's now public knowledge.
Finally, your own quote shows that if anybody was lying, it was the Iraqis who were giving us the intel. It's not lying to rely on someone else's word in good faith. Furthermore, based upon the stinging attacks by the Dems and the media on Bush for not being ready for 9/11, who could blame him for being nervy about a second possible threat? If it had been you, standing in the shadow of 9/11, you would have ignored the intelligence that was coming from all sides?
Get real.
I never said you didn't belive #1. I said you don't SEEM inclined to believe #1. You, the master of semantics, should know the difference.
So if I searched Syria personally and found no weapons, then I could rightfully declare that there were no weapons in Syria? I don't think you understand debating fossten. The purpose of a debate is to quote credible, non-partisan articles that support your position. Telling someone that because they haven't personally done something therefore results in a fallacy is ludicrous.
I don't have to search Syria personally, because, if you bothered to read the article I found for you, the Iraqi Survey Group, appointed by Bush to search for WMD passed to Syria, already did the searching for me.
"In asserting that Bush lied you must produce a viable motive for that. And don't give me that BIG OIL crap." That's funny, FreeFaller seems to belive in using our military to secure big oil, so it's obviously a viable motive.