Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Either you know that there's far more to say about this, or you don't. If you do, wouldn't it be more interesting to have a more sophisticated conversation based on real facts -- things like what the intelligence community and foreign intelligence and weapons inspectors were saying at the time? If you don't, wouldn't it be interesting to learn?
|
You can't have intelligent conversation about politics because you confuse facts with opnions, especially opinions spouted off in the NYT and the Washington Post. When you can conclude something is fact not because it reinforces your preconceived notion of reality then we can have an intelligent conversation, but until then we can't. Something isn't credible because it comes from the NYT, the Washington Post, or some left wing blog. I have many friends that work for high placed Democrats in Washington, and believe it or not, I even have friends that are high placed Democrats and they all admit behind closed doors that the "Bush lied" thing is just a political smoke screen. They all know that no one was more surprized by the lack of WMDs than the Bush admininstration. It was also conventional wisdom that the sanctions were not working Saddam was developing WMDs and there was nothing the administration could do about. But even though they know that, the lack of finding WMDs was just a political opportunity they couldn't pass up. But unlike them ( and like with CAFTA) you can't separate the substantive arguments from the political posturing.
