Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh I'm serious. I gave up arguing seriously here because you guys don't care to think or listen, but I can be very serious.
1 "Days before" Blix thought there were weapons.*
2 He also thought we should go on inspecting.
3 He also wouldn't have started a war.
If Blix believed #1, why is it not fair for Bush to have done so?
|
OK. My view that he misled people is about representing something as a iron-clad case, not a suggesting that he knew there were no WMD but acted as if they did. I've explained this any number of times, but you guys keep trotting out these caricatures. They didn't know, and acted as if they did.
Quote:
|
And if Bush believed #1 was true, how can Kerry say authorizing invading Iraq to disarm Sadaam is anything other than having supported the war.
|
This is where you lose me. I really have no idea what you are talking about. Kerry voted to authorize force in October. The war wasn't until months later. Obviously, a decision to pull the trigger wasn't made in October, and every legislator voted to authorize force surely expected the President to exercise reasonable discretion when decided, months hence, to pull the trigger. Surely they all disagreed about what constitutes reasonableness, but that's the nature of the beast. Kerry disagrees with the decision the President made. He doesn't say Bush had no authority to make that decision.
Quote:
|
2 and 3 are decisions to be made by the man in charge of the 250K troops we had on Iraq's borders.
|
Absolutely. That was my point.
Quote:
|
Your little WW1 parable fails because Blix didn't "decide" there weren't weapons until AFTER the war.
|
Are you watching FOX News again? The LA Times article you quoted from above says he reached that conclusion in the days before the war.
