Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Huh? You started with the premise that the fact that he has shifted his rationale indicates that he is lying. I pointed out that he did not shift his rationale, that he has been consistent all along, but that he highlighted WMD at the UN because, well, WMD was the reason why he was in breach of UN resolutions (and therefore, a proper justification for war, due to the breach of the 1991 cease fire). I just don't get this.
|
5/6 shitty reasons out of the gate is a shift in and of itself. You don't go to war for cobbled together violations of UN Resolutions, or suspicions. He learned that, so he shifted to WMD. Then when that didn't work, he shifted back to the 5/6 reasons WHICH WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC. He's tried to package a universe of reasons in some manner which would garner public support. If the reasons were decent enough in the first place, he wouldn't need to jockey them, and shift one or two to the forefront whenever he's challenged. The guy's rationale is totally fluid. Call me crazy, but shifting the bases for going to war indicates lack of a decent basis. If he had a good reason to go, he'd have stuck with it, and it would have convinced us. All the repackagings show manipulations.
