Okay, let's go line by line. Italics are Icann.
Cycloptichorn wrote: I'm convinced that they wanted to be convinced.
Like Dan Rather?
Yes, like Dan Rather. Depending on whether or not you believe that Bush and Co. knew there was evidence that Iraq
didn't have WMD, or at least that there was some contrary evidence, the level of culpability is up for debate.
Cycloptichorn wrote: Every piece of evidence shows that the current admin wanted justification for a war in Iraq.
Provide just one piece other than hearsay opinion!
Sure thing. Let's start at the very beginning: The
Project for a New American Century. As I'm sure you know, Icann, the PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank, whose prominent members include Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, DeLay, and other top neo-cons. The project's stated goal is: 'Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.'
Sounds pretty benign. But, let's look at the articles they have from 1997-2000, up to four years BEFORE 9/11:
The UN Rewards Saddam
Congress Vs. Iraq
Speaking of Iraq
Bombing Iraq isn't enough
A way to Oust Saddam
and my favorite
How to Attack Iraq
Clearly, the goal of these neocons was to attack Iraq. The admin is fond of saying that we are in a 'post-9/11' world; but their plans to attack Iraq are decidedly
pre-9/11. Clearly, the plan has been to do so all along. The only question was whether or not the admin could get support from the large amount of Americans who are anti-war. They trumped up the WMD charge just to do that.
When the president took office, he didn't want to hear about Bin Laden; he wanted to hear about Iraq. From Clarke's novel (by way of an msnbc article):
Quote:Clarke recounts how on Jan. 24, 2001, he recommended that the new president's national-security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, convene the president's top advisers to discuss the Qaeda threat. One week later, Bush did. But according to Clarke, the meeting had nothing to do with bin Laden. The topic was how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. "What does that tell you?" Clarke remarked to Newsweek. "They thought there was something more urgent. It was Iraq. They came in there with their agenda, and [al Qaeda] was not on it." ("Storm Warnings," slated for print publication in Newsweek's March 29 issue)
From
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Any objective observor would agree, looking at the huge amount of available evidence, that the current admin and those who share the admin's ideology were ready to go to war in Iraq, no matter
what the evidence stated. Therefore, my above position is correct; The PNAC is not hearsay opinion, Rumsfeld's comments were not, Clarke's comments were not hearsay. The administration
desired a war in Iraq greatly; it was one of their prime strategic directives.
Of course, they couldn't tell the public this; so they trumped up WMD charges, to make people in Minnesota
scared enough to do it. You know as well as I do the admin. didn't play it straight with the American people on this one.
Cycloptichorn wrote: When you look for evidence hard enough, you generally find it....
Astonishing! You appear completely oblivious of the very real probability that you are also characterizing yourself.
I am not completely oblivious to this fact. On the contrary, I think about this all the time.
That's why I spend a lot of time looking at different sources, in an effort to get a wide angle on whatever I am studying. Also, I am flexible enough to admit when I'm wrong (rare as it is
), something the current admin seems incapable of doing.
Now, everything below is where you got way off track.
Cycloptichorn wrote: Icann, despite your attempt to switch the argument around ...
Absence of specific and relevant rebuttal by you suggests I successfully demonstrated that John Kerry loves to debate multiple sides of issues with himself, or is just another charlatan.
Cycloptichorn wrote: even you must realize that the Republicans are much, much better at it! Which doesn't make it right; it just makes it much more effective.
Republicans are better at switching the argument around? Kerry does that with the ease of a guy playing both sides of a chess game against himself. I thought you believed Bush is too dumb to be better at doing anything better than Kerry. On the otherhand, Perhaps you were referring to Carl Rove being better. I bet Rove is skilled at playing chess against others but not against himself.
I have know idea where you went with this.
I was referring to my paragraph
here:
Quote:Bush and Co. were (and are) very careful to shape their statements so that later on, when the heat comes down, they can deny everything they said earlier and not seem like liars.
It's not a coincidence. Rove, especially, knows exactly what he is doing.
The attempts by conservatives to excuse the statements of their leaders now that they have been proven catastrophically incorrect is nothing but our usual partisan boilerplate. The only difference is that their leaders are doing a great job making every single statement, every public appearance, about two words: plausible deniability.
Which you attempted to turn the argument around on by replacing strategic names with those of Democrats.
I responded by saying,
Quote:p.s. Icann, despite your attempt to switch the argument around, even you must realize that the Republicans are much, much better at it! Which doesn't make it right; it just makes it much more effective.
Referring to your attempt to imply that the Democrats are just as good at tactics such as plausible deniablility and conflation as the republicans are. This is obviously not true. The republicans have spent much more time and money researching the tactics of framing and speaking, and use it devastatingly - they were very very careful not to say things that could hurt them later on during the period where it was neccessary to scare the American people into supporting them.
Can't blame them; there was a significant amount of evidence that they would
not find WMD there, and they had to make sure to cover their asses.
A recap: Yes, the admin wanted to go to war. No, it wasn't hearsay. Yes, I know that I might be wrong too. Then, we started shooting past each other for a while.
Cycloptichorn
Your statement labeling them war criminals is nothing more than your own inconsequential opinion. It will never be a factual statement.
