Does anyone deal with Facts?

Yes, some people here back up their claims with far more intellectual rigour than you do.

But this is nothing more than a cheap debate trap, trying to settle subjective scores (e.g. whether the Iraq invasion was right or wrong is contingient on subjective matters and not just objective fact) through a call for "facts".

"But this is nothing more than a cheap debate trap"


yep.

which is why is will probably get no response.

Re: Does anyone deal with Facts?


same here.

i think one problem with "facts" on this forum, and elsewhere, is the constant arguement of who's "facts" are actually factual.

Re: Does anyone deal with Facts?


Whaaaaa?

Here's a tip... read just about ANY of the posts that refer to a problem with Bush, and you'll find pleny of facts. Enjoy...

The night is young...

Moishe3rd,

I bring a morsel, verily a fact, to the table:

I think invading Iraq should have taken international norms for sovereignty and sispute resolution info greater consideration.

Point A: Politics may be an art or a science or a calling or whatever - what it is not is a repository or a forum that has anything to do with facts. It is too highly subjective and idiosyncratic to deal with fixed values.

Point B: If President Bush had been divulging 'correct' information about the state of Iraq's military capacity and intentions, these would have been bourne out by events on the ground. Over a year later, no WMDs, no capacity to arm and launch weapons in less than an hour, no evidence of a capacity to produce nuclear or chemical weapons.

Point C: I'd say (conjecture only) that the level of disruption to the lives of the Palestinian peoples is self-evident. Arguing whether this 'fence' (declared totally illegal by the UN) will 'harm' them even more is to ignore the root causes of the disruption and the reasons it was built.

I like it.

I'll have to google around on the WMD issue. Their have definitely been some WMD found, but too "little" thus far to make the case.

My opinion is that President Bush sincerely believed, as did most of the world, based on quotes by various foreign leaders, as well as most Democrats, that Saddam had WMD.
And that he was willing to use them.
The information may have been wrong, but everybody believed it.
Therefore, it seems to be a false accusation to accuse the President of lying and deliberately using WMD to attack Iraq (for what other purpose?).

As for the fence, the facts and figures I get are that it is not "disrupting Palestinian lives" unjustly. Unjustly would mean without fair recompense for however their lives have been altered.
The analogy used would be the "right of eminent domain" exercised by a governmental authority. They are allowed to do it, but they must compensate you for your property and inconvenience.

One story from Some Arab Israelis find fence beneficial:

BAQA AL GHARBIYA, Israel ?- The 26-foot-high concrete and razor wire barrier down the hill from Najeh Abu Mukh's house cuts him off from relatives and the West Bank.

But the Arab Israeli gas-station worker said he doesn't mind, because the controversial Israeli barrier has done something years of failed peace talks have not: It has taken the bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict away from his home.

Like many Arab Israeli citizens who live in northern Israel along the security barrier erected earlier this year, Abu Mukh agrees with the Israeli government that it's beneficial. The Israeli military claims the barrier has cut suicide attacks coming from the now-enclosed northern West Bank by 90 percent.

Abu Mukh questioned the International Court of Justice ruling Friday that condemned it as illegal and inhumane.

"I'm wondering if the judges ever have been here or lived here and understand the real reason for its construction," the 30-year-old asked, relaxing on his front porch with a cup of sweet Arabic coffee. "If not, they should listen and not judge."

Arab Israelis don't readily share this sentiment with outsiders. They fear appearing disloyal to their Palestinian brethren, who live across the line separating Israel from Palestinian territory and hate the structure as much as they despise the government that built it, Arab Israeli journalist Hassan Mawsi explains.

I'm wondering if the judges ever have been here or lived here and understand the real reason for its construction. If not, they should listen and not judge.

"Eight of our houses are now cut off from our village and two of them were destroyed so this thing could be built," said Palestinian Riyadh Hussein, 28, gesturing at the security barrier, which he now must walk around to take his three children to nursery school.

But Arab Israelis, like their Jewish counterparts, wanted relief from the suicide bombings and gun attacks that have killed 980 Israeli citizens during the nearly four-year Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Five of 21 people killed by a suicide bomber at an Arab-and Jewish-owned restaurant last October in Haifa, for example, were Arab Israeli.

Their dilemma was compounded because attackers often crossed into Israel through Arab hamlets such as Baqa al Gharbiya, blending in with hundreds of undocumented workers and clashing with the heavily armed Israeli border guards who tried to ferret them out.

A particularly frightening experience ?- Abu Mukh and his mother, Hanifa, 71, recounted ?- occurred in March 2002, when police stopped a suicide attacker's vehicle at a checkpoint in their town. An Israeli policeman and the two Palestinian gunmen in the car were killed in an ensuing shootout.

"All the time Israeli border guards would come here to search for Palestinians who had come illegally," the younger Abu Mukh recalled. "That meant we, too, were repeatedly subjected to identity card checks and questions. I couldn't even go to the store at night without being checked."

There was no such tension evident Friday afternoon in his sleepy neighborhood, where the only sound came from bees and a lone Israeli Humvee that drove along the barrier road.

And, for those who believe that this is all arbitrary on the part of Israel:

Supreme Court orders move of West Bank wall

By Ramit Plushnick-Masti
ASSOCIATED PRESS

JERUSALEM ?- Israel's Supreme Court, in a precedent-setting decision, ordered the government yesterday to change a large section of its West Bank separation barrier, saying the current route violates the human rights of the local Palestinian population.
The government said it would honor the ruling, which likely will affect other sections of the contentious wall.
The decision ?- the first major ruling on the barrier ?- signaled that the court would reject other parts of the fence that separate Palestinians from their lands, cut off villages from each other or prevent people from reaching population centers.
In the Gaza Strip, meanwhile, Israeli troops encircled the northern town of Beit Hanoun, tearing up roads in an ongoing offensive aimed at halting Palestinian rocket attacks. A Palestinian teenager was killed, Palestinian sources said.
The court said the changes in the wall's route must be made, even at the risk of reducing Israeli security.
"Only a separation route based on the path of law will lead the state to the security so yearned for," the court said in its ruling.
"The route ... injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way while violating their rights under humanitarian and international law," it said.
Israel says the barrier is needed to prevent suicide bombers and other attackers from reaching Israeli towns and cities. But the complex of fences, concrete walls, trenches and razor wire has severely disrupted the lives of thousands of Palestinians by separating them from jobs, schools and farmland.
About a quarter of the 425-mile barrier, which dips deep into the West Bank in some sections, has been completed.
Israel's Defense Ministry ?- responsible for overseeing construction of the barrier ?- said it would reroute the disputed sections of the barrier "based on the principles set by the Supreme Court, namely the proper balance between security and humanitarian considerations."
Yesterday's case focused on a 25-mile stretch of the barrier northwest of Jerusalem, where 35,000 people live in eight villages. The fence would separate the villagers from 7,500 acres, most of it cultivated with tens of thousands of olive trees, fruit trees and other crops.
"To have the chief justice of the Supreme Court say you can't put the Palestinians in prison ... in the name of the security of Israel, that is really important. That is the least I can say," said Mohammed Dahla, an attorney for the petitioners.
He said the court had ordered changes in about 20 miles of the stretch. Israel Radio said two miles of completed construction also would have to be dismantled.
The court also forced the government to return land that has been seized and compensate the Palestinians for their financial losses.
The court froze construction of the section near Jerusalem in late February, shortly after two protesters were killed in a stone-throwing clash with soldiers in the path of construction.
Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia played down yesterday's ruling.
"The wall is an act of aggression whether it remains as is, or they introduce changes in its route. This wall should be knocked down as other walls in the world, like the Berlin Wall," he said.
The Palestinians also have asked the World Court in The Hague to rule on the legality of the barrier. That court is expected to issue its advisory ruling next week.

Good evening Moishe3rd.

You have just stated a blatant factual falsehood in a thread where you make a challenge for factual basis.

You can't support the assertion in the last sentence I quoted. Do you deal with facts Moishe3rd? Apparently not, unless by "facts" you meant demonstratable falsehood.

Love and hugs, :wink:

Craven

PS



"Just" and "unjust" are subjective terms that you arbitrarily define herein and misconstrue as being a matter of facts.

I posit that you confuse the degree of personal conviction you have with "facts".

Facts? You don't present evidence to back up your assertions but you want facts. I looked up Condaleeza's now famous mushroom cloud quote and found this:

Warblogging.com
Front Page | War Stories | Index of Evil | Counts | Archives | Fight TIA | Store | About
July 28, 2003
Murky Intelligence
On August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney told an audience at the VFW National Convention that "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Only a few days later, on September 12, President George W. Bush said "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

On January 9, 2003, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." In his State of the Union Address in January, 2003, George Bush said "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

On March 17, 2003, President George W. Bush addressed the nation to announce the onset of hostilities in Iraq ?- despite the fact that American planes had been bombing Iraq to soften it up for invasion for months. In his address to the nation, Bush said "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

One of the chief architects of the invasion of Iraq is considered to be Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz and the Project for a New American Century ?- a group Wolfowitz is a principal member of, along with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney ?- have been pushing for an invasion of Iraq since at least 1998, when President Clinton's Operation Desert Fox bombed Iraq in retaliation for that country's treatment of weapons inspectors.

Wolfowitz was sent on the Sunday talk show circuit yesterday by the Bush Administration's spin control team. Reuters reports that he was repeatedly asked about the Bush Administration's casus belli for the Iraq war ?- the non-existent (or at least undiscovered) weapons of mass destruction that President Bush and his advisors were so sure existed.

Wolfowitz reacted by saying, very carefully, "The nature of terrorism is that intelligence about terrorism is murky."

First of all, Wolfowitz's answer attempts to link the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to terrorism. This, by itself, should be considered misleading at best, or a lie at worst. Just days ago Warblogging reported that the congressional report on September 11 reveals that there is no evidence that Iraq was linked to September 11, or to any anti-American terrorism. The attempt to link Iraq to terrorism is simply wrong. It's an attempt to cement an association that shouldn't exist ?- there is no more evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraq would have conducted anti-American terror than that Gerhard Schroeder's Germany will conduct anti-American terror operations.

Let's move on to the real meat of Wolfowitz's statement, however. Wolfowitz says, at least in context, that intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was "murky".

This statement flies in the face of the Bush Administration's statements regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. When President Bush announced the invasion of Iraq he didn't say that the intelligence regarding Iraqi WMD was "murky" ?- he said it "leaves no doubt" about Iraq's weapons. Ari Fleischer, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld ?- they didn't qualify their statements. They didn't say intelligence indicated a "maybe". They said there was certainty. They said they were positive.

But now Wolfowitz says intelligence was murky. This means one of two things. Either the Bush Administration is competent and knew that the intelligence was murky ?- in which case they were lying about the quality of their intelligence ?- or the Bush Administration sees their intelligence as "murky" only in retrospect, in which case they are incompetent.

Whatever the reason for the Bush Administration's misstatements, they happened. Perhaps most importantly, President Bush stood up before Congress and the American people and made misleading statements ?- in fact, he outright lied. His statements made in front of Congress were a felony. Title 18, Section 1001 of the U.S. Code make "false statements to Congress" a felony punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to five years, or both. Section 1001 defines the offense as so:


Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully... makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation...

It seems clear at this point that President Bush is guilty of violating Section 1001 of Title 18. He must have known that the claims he was making in his State of the Union Address and other statements to Congress were not backed up by reliable evidence. He must have known that his information was not certain, despite his protests to the contrary.

In fact, Bush attributed the claim that Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger to British intelligence specifically because his own intelligence services told him the claim was false ?- he willfully twisted his language to Congress so as to cover his tracks, and thus prevent culpability under Section 1001. It wasn't enough, though. He attributed an intelligence claim to a foreign intelligence agency knowing that the claim was false. If someone gets in front of Congress and insists that Martians have landed on Earth, attributing the claim to "Russian intelligence", they are still lying ?- even if Russian intelligence does indeed say Martians are landing on Earth. Attributing a false statement to someone else does not make it true.

President Bush should have been very familiar with Title 18, Section 1001. His Administration employs John M. Poindexter, of Iran-Contra fame. Poindexter was convicted of multiple counts of misleading Congress under Title 18, Section 1001. His conviction was later overturned on a technicality, and he now runs the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office.

Make no mistake, violation of Title 18, Section 1001 is an impeachable offense. Lying to Congress, whether under oath or not, is a felony. It undoubtedly qualifies as "high crime or misdemeanor".

In either case ?- whether the Bush Administration maliciously lied or whether they were simply incompetent ?- they do not deserve to be controlling the foreign policy of the United States of America ?- the most powerful nation in the world. This nation cannot afford to put its image, its economy and its military in the hands of liars, and it cannot afford to put its image, its economy and its military in the hands of incompetents.

No case better illustrates the possible dishonesty or incompetence of the Bush team than Condaleeza Rice. An article in this past Sunday's edition of the Washington Post focuses on Condi Rice's role in the Iraqi WMD scandal, particularly as it applies to supposed Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Those efforts, of course, never happened.

The Post notes that Rice has repeatedly "made statements about US intelligence on Iraq that have been contradicted by facts that later emerged." It says she has "been made to appear out of the loop by colleagues' claims that she did not read or recall vital pieces of intelligence."

The Post comes out and says, with a sharp sword, "The remarks by Rice and her associates raise two uncomfortable posibilities for the national security adviser. Either she missed or overlooked numerous warnings from intelligence agencies seeking to put caveats on claims about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, or she made public claims that she knew to be false."

Note that the Post seems to have learned from "colleagues" that Rice did not even read key pieces of intelligence. Later in the article, the Post says that a "senior administration official" ?- note that this usually means cabinet-level or above ?- told reporters "on the condition of anonymity" that Rice did not even read the Central Intelligence Agency's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, the "definitive prewar assessment of Iraq's weapons programs by US intelligence agencies."

The article then says that a "person close to Rice" says "she has been dismayed by the effect on Bush." This source, apparently a friend of Rice's, says "She knows she did badly by him, and he knows that she knows it."

The article attempts to suggest that Rice was one of the only people briefing President Bush, and that she is personally responsible for his bad planning and incorrect public statements.

She is, of course, responsible for her own public lies. She's responsible for her public statements about Iraq's fictional nuclear program. She's responsible for statements like the one she made on CNN on September 8 of 2003: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But are we seeing a pattern here? A shift of the blame? Of course we are. The Administration rightly sees Condi Rice as expendable. The one man in the White House who is not expendable is George W. Bush. Bush needs to be reelected, Rice does not.

The fact is that the intelligence wasn't really murky. There was no real evidence that Saddam Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction, or that he was seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. The Bush Administration decided in 1998 that it wanted to invade and occupy Iraq. September 11 simply gave them their excuse.

Everything after the letter sent by Project for a New American Century members to President Clinton in 1998 was simple Madison Avenue marketing. The likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John bolton, Richard Armitage and many others had written a letter to Clinton insisting on an invasion and occupation of Iraq. The former PNAC principles and current Administration officials told Clinton that "[Your] strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein?s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor."

Once Bush was elected almost all of the people who signed the letter to Clinton were given senior posts in the Bush Administration. They were sprinkled throughout the State Department, the Department of Defense and the National Security Council. Their job was not to determine what kind of threat Iraq posed to the United States. Their job was not to determine if Iraq was worth invading. Their job was to market a war, not decide if one was necessary.

The house of cards that constituted the Bush Administration's marketing of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is now steadily collapsing. The hanging out to dry of Condi Rice and the criticism of American intelligence as "murky" ?- these are symptoms of the collapse of Bush's public casus belli.

Posted by George Paine | Comments (43) | TrackBack (0)
From the "Gulf War Redux" Department as of 10:19 AM
Donate to Warblogging
If you believe that Warblogging's mission is a worthwhile one, that it's content is worthy, then please consider donating to Warblogging.

For More




Bush March 2003





Source

"Everyone believed it!" I don't think so. Certainly the arms inspectors didn't believe it. They were on the ground, inspecting hundreds of likely sites and found nothing. Hans Blix didn't believe it and he was in a better position to know than Bush.

UN inspectors were actively inspecting Iraq for most of the Clinton years. Scott Ritter, head of the team, doubted Hussein had WMD.

The everyone you are talking about believed it because they were all briefed by the Bushies and received bad information. Ordinarily, the president is given considerable leeway in foreign policy by both parties. Most presidents do not lie when it comes to national security. But, this one either lied or is incompetent (take your pick) because he sent troops to war based on phony info. He and he alone bears the responsibility for that.

Bush lied when he claimed saddam refused to allow inspectors into Iraq-they were there thru most of clintons terms and they were there during bush's runup to the war. It is obvious to me that Bush intended to invade Iraq regardless of the inspectors, regardless of the UN, regardless of the truth. If he was concerned about the WMD and was sure they existed, he could simply have let the inspectors continue their work. As long as they were inspecting, no one was dying. He claimed to be impatient and that impatience brought about a reckless and bloody war that did not have to happen.

I invite you to challenge these facts.

How about THIS in response:

(Excerpt from: The usual suspects were on the bandwagon all along By:Ross Mackenzie)[/u]

Consider, please, the following - drawn from a September piece on the editorial page of Investor's Business Daily - wherein many of the Usual Suspects are quoted regarding the existence of, and the need to remove, Saddam's WMDs...

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMDs and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program."

- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998: "What happens in (Iraq) matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

- Letter to Clinton signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, etc., Oct. 9, 1998: "We urge you ... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs."

- Congressman (now House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Sen. Bob Graham and other Democratic senators in a letter to President Bush, Dec. 5, 2001: "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status."

- Sen. Levin, Sept. 19, 2002: "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building WMDs and the means of delivering them."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002: "We know that (Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMDs."

- Sen. Robert Byrd, Oct. 3, 2002: "We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WMDs in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Many of the usual suspects recently attacking President Bush and declaring smugly, "I insistently have dismissed the phony claims of Saddam's WMDs as a justification for war against him," have eagerly ridden the WMD bandwagon all along. Comes now Howard Dean, in his way trying to clamber aboard. In October he blasted the president on Iraq, telling The New York Times he opposed the American invasion last spring and promising that if president he (a) would cut the number of American troops in Iraq by half and (b) would send President Clinton to the Middle East to broker peace.

Dean added: (1) "Great countries ... get in trouble when they overstretch their military capabilities," and (2) "What this president is doing is setting the stage for the failure of America."

"Setting the stage for failure"? If so, the record shows that President Bush had considerable help and encouragement from Dean and his fellow suspects in ideological crime.

But NO...
No one except President Bush thought that Saddam had WMD's or was a threat to the US

Try "woefully inadequate" on for size.

Do you assert that you have named "everybody" in your list?

See, that would be the problem then.




Gee Fedral, stop talking to the straw man and address the group.

Let's get you caught up.

1) Moishe3rd made a call to argue using facts.

2) Moishe3rd then claimed "everyone" thought Saddam had WMDs.

3) You try to support this claim with a handful of people. Fedral, ahandful does not constitute "everybody".

4) You move the goalposts to score a rousing goal.... against yourself, adroitly knocking down a claim that not a single person on this thread had made.

Good going, but when you're ready try to address the what was actually said, as opposed to what you can make up to easily knock down, ok?

Feel free to try to substantiate Moishe3rd's claim for him.

Hint: "everybody", not a selection by Fedral.

This is not the first time I've seen someone on this forum claim that weapons of mass destruction have "definitely been found" in Iraq, yet I have never seen anyone actually attempt to substantiate this claim.

Since this thread is devoted to "facts," I think this is an appropriate place to ask Moishe -- or anyone else who might be so inclined -- to provide evidence for this particular "fact."

Source


Source




Source


Here's a fact.

NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND. Even if Bush wants to continue to blame the CIA why hasn't anyone been fired? Why does he keep praising our intelligence when it failed on 9.11 and Iraq? What has he done to fix it? Why does he say we are safer if the intelligence problems have not been fixed?


Finally why do the reasons for war keep changing? First it's about the UN resolution but he breaks his promise to go for a final vote.

Then its about our safety because Saddam is days away from sending over a bomb

Then its about nuclear capabilities even though right before he claims this evidence shows to be fradulent

Then it's about WMD

Then it's Liberation

Then it's the UN resolution

Then it's WMD PROGRAMS

Then it's Liberation

no UN

NO WMD

NO .......... and the spin goes on but in all that spin not one fact emeges except that Bush f***ed up! 900 Americans dead, thousands injured and over 10,000 innocent civilians dead, NO WMD, No more safe and terrorism is still a huge problem.

Red is on the money with that one. Everytime I bring up the point she(?) addressed, I get nonsensical nonsequiter answers from those who support/love/believe Bush. Its almost comical (if it weren't so tragic).

My favorite is this transformation:

Weapons of Mass Destruction
becomes
Weapons of Mass Destruction related programs
becomes
Weapons of Mass Destruction related program activities

The closest thing to a WMD found was a round containing chemicals lift over from the war with Iraq and that was probably supplied by the Brits or made with the co-operation of the Reagan regime.

All those examples you give aren't 'facts'. If Person X says that they think or feel that the barrier makes them 'safer' - that is an opinion and may have nothing to do with the reality of them actually being safer. Person Y may say that it doesn't make them safer - that opinion has the same validity and reality. If we come back to Persons X and Y in a year and ask them the same question and if we repeated this 100 or 1,000 times using a good sample of Israelis/Palestinians we would start to have a FACTUAL view of this.




<love that purple hippo, Craven!!>

I did not believe there were WMD.


Therefore the contention that "everybody" did is invalid.


Next?