Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, because it doesn't comport with your conspiracy theory view of the world. How come when I post articles providing some (albeit not conclusive) evidence of a link from, e.g., NRO, you are quick to dismiss it, but you adhere whole heartedly to the articles that are consistent with your world view?
|
This schtick of calling non-conservative views of the world "conspiracy theories" is really, really tired. What's the conspiracy? I think a bunch of ideologues with preconceptions about how the world works took control of the federal government and saw their job as one of building public support for a war that in their hearts they knew was right. (Barry Goldwater reference intended.) As it happens, they were wrong, and we are all now stuck with the mess they created. Where's the conspiracy?
You post articles with the weakest, most tenuous evidence. When they found those trailers used to make artillery spotting balloons, you were posting articles about it as if they'd found the Lost Ark of the Covenant with conclusive evidence inside it of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden butt-fucking each other on top of missiles pointed at Houston with warheads full of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The media on which you are relying appears to see its job as furthering the conservative movement, not as weighing and reporting the evidence. Which is fine -- there's a place for that -- but don't mistake it for something it's not. You don't show any signs of thinking critically about what you are posting. The echo in Woolsey's interview of what Tenet was saying two years ago is unmistakable -- e.g., the "over ten years" phrasing used to mask the fact that the only evidence is more than ten years old. Do you really think Woolsey -- who hasn't been DCI for nine years now -- has access to some knowledge that the Senate Intelligence Committee doesn't? Don't you think that that if there was better evidence available to the administration, we'd know about it? And what about that TNR article -- it gives a comprehensive description of intelligence between twisted in support of a political agenda. Do you read that and think, Spencer Ackerman is a partisan hack who's just out to make the President look bad? If so, do you conclude that solely on the basis of the fact that he's criticizing the administration, or do you know something else about him? If not, doesn't it bother you? Doesn't it prompt you to think that the CIA's analysts were right and Woolsey is wrong?
I don't categorically dismiss the possibility that more WMD and links between SH and OBL will turn up. At this point, however, advocates of the war are straining so hard to point to anything to cover their ass that I'm highly, highly dubious. It is beyond clear that the administation was trumpeting as firm conclusions which were anything but. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, ....
