Newsweek Lied, People Died

Main Entry: apol·o·gist Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: päljst sometimes aplj-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: French apologiste, from apologie apology + -iste -ist
1 : one who makes an apology or defense : one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution; especially : one who makes a systematic defense of Christianity
2 usually capitalized : one of a number of 2d century church fathers who wrote treatises in defense of the Christian faith

So again I ask, who here has argued in defense of Saddam. Please be specific.

Based on the overreaction by the muslim world to the news of a flushed koran, now it makes you wonder...maybe this interrogation technique deserves further investigation....

I see them burning US flags daily...they probably wipe their ass with bibles...doesn't bother me a bit, just makes them look silly.

I have gone back and looked at parados' posts and I fail to see him defending any of Saddam Husseins actions.

If someone states that bushco was wrong, that is not synonomous with defending Saddam Hussein.

It is beyond me how otherwise intelligent people such as yourself can resort to such one dimensional and simplistic thinking as that.

de·fend Audio pronunciation of "defend" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fnd)
v. de·fend·ed, de·fend·ing, de·fends
v. tr.

1. To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.
2. Sports.[list] 1. To attempt to prevent the opposition from scoring while playing in or near (a goal or area of a field, for example).
2. To be responsible for guarding (an opposing player).
3. To compete against a challenger in an attempt to retain (a championship).[/list] 3. To support or maintain, as by argument or action; justify.
4. Law. [list]1. To represent (a defendant) in a civil or criminal action.
2. To attempt to disprove or invalidate (an action or claim).[/list]

...

You stated that Saddam refused to cooperate. I stated you can not provide any evidence that he did refuse to cooperate. Your argument here is simply that he refused to show us where stuff that didn't exist was. Hardly an argument to his non cooperation. Rather it is an argument about setting an impossible standard then accusing someone of failing to cooperate because they couldn't do the impossible.

I still fail to see where parados defended Hussein or his policies....just because he states that Saddam was given an impossible task does not mean he defends him...except in your world of course...what color is the sky there?

The evidence I provided was the first link I came to when I searched for some. It is the testimony of Richard Armitage before the Senate, where he states Saddam refused to cooperate. So don't try and tell me I didn't provide any evidence of his refusal. Where is your evidence that he did cooperate?

You are an apologist for Saddam Hussein. I don't expect you to agree with the way I view this issue.

Wrong. I don't use the term "Saddam apologist" to describe anyone whose opinion differs from mine ... I use it to describe those who defend Saddam or his policies, or who I believe are "on Saddam's side."

BVT wrote:

Here's a little English language 101 for you. If a person is supporting or defending Saddam Hussein or anyone else, they are not apologizing for them, they are rather denying that they did anything wrong. In that context, Bush apologist is much more accurate a statement.

Thanks for the lesson. Here's one for you:

Quote:

a·pol·o·gist Audio pronunciation of "apologist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-jst)
n.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.[/size]

LINK

And where are all these items? There were not tens of thousand of unaccounted for warheads. Geez.. Go read the Unscom reports. There was no mobile lab for biological weapons. This turned out to be made up stuff. Hardly a reason to go to war.

You stated that Saddam refused to cooperate. I stated you can not provide any evidence that he did refuse to cooperate. Your argument here is simply that he refused to show us where stuff that didn't exist was. Hardly an argument to his non cooperation. Rather it is an argument about setting an impossible standard then accusing someone of failing to cooperate because they couldn't do the impossible.

Yeah, and? where are those WMD that were claimed?
The document presented had lots of nice rhetoric about Saddam had to truthfully declare his WMD or be invaded. Saddam claimed he had none. It appears that Saddam fulfilled his requirements.

Which part of his not cooperating are you claiming? I don't see any evidence yet that he didn't do so.

I guess Saddam didn't cooperate when he failed to turn over items that didn't even exist. Wow. Is that your lack of cooperation? Saddam didn't cooperate because he failed to do the impossible.