Newsweek Lied, People Died

parados wrote:

Brandon -

I see you are doing your usual ignoring the entire thread to pick out one statement and pretend it stands alone. Read the initial post that that statement refers back to. Until then, let me remind you of YOUR standards.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Quote:

Why did you cut off most of my actual statement? Good way to win arguments.

I quoted the entire post. I just hit the quote button and wrote my response like most people here probably do. What, now you use the excuse that I didn't cut and paste together several posts beyond what was on the page? Debra Law quoted me one sentence and expected me to keep the whole thread in mind. I will acknowledge that this is a thread with prior posts. If you want to refer to your earlier ideas, do so. Answer my idea if you can, but the typical liberal response "I could defeat your argument easily, but I won't because of X" is just a way of covering up a losing argument. It would not have been smart to conclude that Hussein was now trustworthy when he said that he had destroyed his weapons because of the prior history that I quoted. What turned out to be known later in history doesn't change the fact that trusting him would have been ill advised then.

Tico, your entire premise is flawed in your contention that "the West were convinced that Saddam had WMD." The West is a short-form to indidcate the industrialized nations of North America and Europe. Name three nations in that region, apart from the United States and England, which were convinced that Iraq possessed WoMD. I intend to make the standard more difficult, name three in which the evidence is irrefutable that a majority of each respective nation's electorate were convinced that Iraq possessed WoMD. In view of the vehement anti-war sentiments expressed throughout the West, including in the United States and England, i submit that your contention here is a sham, a justification after the fact. Spain joined the coalition of the well-bought off, despite wide-spread opposition to the war, for which the evidence is very compelling. Italy joined that coalition, despite wide-spread opposition to the war, for which the evidence is compelling.

That the governments of two nations went to war with us (but only after the really nasty shooting was over) over the objections, expressed forcefully in the press and in the streets, of their respective electorates in no way authorizes such a fantasy statement as you have made.

Centrist Democrats of the Democratic Leadership Council (search), who quibble with the president on many fronts, this time agree with Bush, saying the hunt for weapons of mass destruction is not cause for argument.

"If the Bush administration was wrong about Saddam's WMD program, so too was just about everybody else, including U.N. inspectors, the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Chinese, all of whom accepted prior evidence of such a program is beyond doubt," the DLC said in a statement.

Evidence or no evidence, many familiar with the intelligence say they don't believe Saddam voluntarily gave up his weapons after inspectors left in 1998.

"Some are suggesting, certainly, that he destroyed the weapons after 1998 or maybe even sooner," Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House intelligence Committee, told Fox News. "It's just counterintuitive that he would have done that. His would have been the greatest intelligence hoax of all time, fooling every intelligence agency, three presidents, five secretaries of defense and the entire world into thinking he still had the weapons."

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Brandon -

I see you are doing your usual ignoring the entire thread to pick out one statement and pretend it stands alone. Read the initial post that that statement refers back to. Until then, let me remind you of YOUR standards.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Quote:

Why did you cut off most of my actual statement? Good way to win arguments.

I quoted the entire post. I just hit the quote button and wrote my response like most people here probably do. What, now you use the excuse that I didn't cut and paste together several posts beyond what was on the page? Debra Law quoted me one sentence and expected me to keep the whole thread in mind. I will acknowledge that this is a thread with prior posts. If you want to refer to your earlier ideas, do so. Answer my idea if you can, but the typical liberal response "I could defeat your argument easily, but I won't because of X" is just a way of covering up a losing argument. It would not have been smart to conclude that Hussein was now trustworthy when he said that he had destroyed his weapons because of the prior history that I quoted. What turned out to be known later in history doesn't change the fact that trusting him would have been ill advised then.

LOL.. I see. so my pointing out your response IGNORES the entire thread up to that point is not valid? I will keep that one in mind in the future to use against you. It is you that is saying you are defeating my argument because of X. X being - "I will ignore the meanings of words that obviously refer back to previous posts." And now you resort to accusing me of not answering you when I did by pointing out your statements were not valid in the course of the ongoing discussion. Your statements were OFF TOPIC. I had no reason to answer them other than to point that out. Because you quoted prior posts I assumed you were trying to stay on topic. Now you seem to claim your purpose was to start a NEW topic. If you were starting a new topic then why did you quote the ongoing discussion?

I never stated Saddam could be trusted. My only statement was that Tico needed to provide evidence that he was not cooperating with inspectors. ( liitle hint - there is no such thing as "fake cooperation." Someone can attempt to fake it but either they are cooperating or they are not.) But if you feel you need to build a strawman in order to defeat me then take a trip to the barn you obviously keep close for occassions just like this.

Are you aware of what is required to defend someone? Have you ever watched Perry Mason on TV? What about Law & Order? In each case, the defender of the accused tries to elicit facts that are in his client's interest, and when making their argument, they point to those facts in an attempt to "defend" their client.

Your argument that you used "facts" in your defense of Saddam in no way defeats the reality that you were defending him and his policies.

Tico,
I think that you have been correct in a few of your comments over the past while. That does not mean that I "defend" or "apologize" for what you have said.

For purposes of clarification, do you think that a prudent person would have given much creedence to Hussein's claim in the last year before the war that he was cooperating, or would a prudent person have looked at the history and said, "You weren't trustworthy in the past, and I gravely doubt that you're to be trusted now?"

Sorry, if I haven't thrown in a medley of your thoughts from other posts, threads, and boards. Answer without evasion if you are able.

Tico, there is not a single portion of your response which authorizes a contention that "the West were convinced that Saddam had WMD." Your response only refers to Americans who were either desparate to believe they were about to do the right thing, or were employed to provide for the administration the justification they sought to something they had been planning for years.

In fact, as the point of the post from which that quote was taken was to belittle "the left" for a refusal to see what you contended were true, but have not and will not be able to support--it does indeed invalidate the entire premise of that post.

"If the Bush administration was wrong about Saddam's WMD program, so too was just about everybody else, including U.N. inspectors, the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Chinese, all of whom accepted prior evidence of such a program is beyond doubt," the DLC said in a statement."

Ticomaya wrote:

Are you aware of what is required to defend someone? Have you ever watched Perry Mason on TV? What about Law & Order? In each case, the defender of the accused tries to elicit facts that are in his client's interest, and when making their argument, they point to those facts in an attempt to "defend" their client.

Your argument that you used "facts" in your defense of Saddam in no way defeats the reality that you were defending him and his policies.

For the sake of this discussion we will talk about lawyers in general rather than fictional characters. Lawyers are HIRED and PAID to defend someone. The PURPOSE of elicting those facts is to defend their client. Those facts are elicited in a court of law where the defendant is clearly cited as the one on trial.

I was neither hired or paid to defend Saddam. (Nor am I doing pro bono work.) Saddam is not my client. This is not a court of law where Saddam is on trial.

My intention was not to defend Saddam. My purpose was to state facts and elicit facts from an opponent in a debate.

Brandon9000 wrote:

For purposes of clarification, do you think that a prudent person would have given much creedence to Hussein's claim in the last year before the war that he was cooperating, or would a prudent person have looked at the history and said, "You weren't trustworthy in the past, and I gravely doubt that you're to be trusted now?"

Sorry, if I haven't thrown in a medley of your thoughts from other posts, threads, and boards. Answer without evasion if you are able.

A prudent person would have examined his actions. Simple enough to do. Reagan referred to it as "Trust but verify." Inspectors were on the ground to do just that. Verify that there were no WMD. Why do you think the inspectors needed unfettered access? This is not a question of trusting Saddam but the question of whether he did NOT cooperate at the time. I never once said we had to trust him completely. The mere fact that the inspectors were there proves we didn't trust him. I supported those inspectors being there.

I see you intend to dance around the contention that "the West" believed this, and will only continue to refer to American sources, while taking an opportunity for a cheap shot at those with whom you do not agree politically.

So, obviously, you are not willing to debate based on what you have written, but rather on how you would now like to charactrize it. I understand how that works, and i thank you for the clarification you have provided, both intentionally, and unintentionally.

Intrepid wrote:

Tico,
I think that you have been correct in a few of your comments over the past while. That does not mean that I "defend" or "apologize" for what you have said.

Of course it doesn't.

When in doubt of your own ability to proceed without changing what you were proceeding about.... retreat err, I mean retract, retract, rectract

Ticomaya wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Tico,
I think that you have been correct in a few of your comments over the past while. That does not mean that I "defend" or "apologize" for what you have said.

Of course it doesn't.

Then why do you continue to make these accusation against parados of defending and apologizing for Hussein based on the same premise? Either the glove fits, or it doesn't.