Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Actually this is reason i have slowed down my posting here. I consider myself(and hopefully i am right) to open minded when it comes to political debate. You and others often disreguard things you dont agree with, gloss over the things that lie in the middle and continually post only the things you agree with.
That's an interesting comment, since I would say the exact same thing. Perhaps neither of us appear to others to be as open-minded as we see ourselves. And, for the record, I have expressed agreement with Bush in a few cases. Not often, but I have no qualms about doing so when he does something "right" (IMO, of course).
I also think I have been more willing than most to acknowledge the validity of other points of view and to recognize that sometimes we must simply agree to disagree on matters of opinion. Perhaps I am fooling myself.
The kay report is a good example of this.
I read the kay report and saw that our intel was faulty, but is was not completely wrong either.
The kay report did not let Bush or Saddam off the hook. You and others only saw the faulty intel and ignored Saddams non compliance.
This is just one example of many.
I don't remember expressing much of an opinion about the Kay report. Perhaps that's because my position has always been a little different from most people opposed to the invasion. Most people seem to oppose the war because Bush&Co. lied about Iraq's WMDs. I agree that the lies taint the Bush administration and everything related to the invasion. I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to document that Bush&Co lied. But the lying per se is not the main reason I opposed the invasion.
From the beginning, I said it was NOT important whether Iraq had WMDs or not. My position was that we had inspections and containment processes in place to learn the truth and to keep Iraq from becoming a threat. The invasion should have been a last resort and was not justified. I also said from the beginning that Iraq was the wrong target re. terrorism, and that invading Iraq would probably increase our risk of terrorist attack. Finally, I said that it was reckless and inappropriate, perhaps illegal, for the United States to act unilaterally without the express direction of the United Nations.
My point here is not to hash through these issues again, but simply to reiterate my position. Given my position, the Kay report was largely a non-event. It did show that Bush&Co. claims about Iraq's WMDs were largely wrong. It also showed that Iraq was concealing information from the U.N. inspectors. This wasn't terribly noteworthy to me, it was consistent with my position and my expectations. Obviously Iraq was trying to conceal its activities. We would too if the tables were turned. It also didn't surprise me that Iraq wasn't complying with all of the terms of the U.N. resolution. I never felt mere non-compliance justified an invasion.
Anway, that's my perspective on my response to the Kay report. If you believe I responded differently, I am sincerely interested in seeing where and why. If there are similar issues in the future, I invite you to point them out to me. Since we both see ourselves as open-minded, let's help each other out. I will make every effort to remain civil and constructive as long as you return the courtesy to me.
Whoa. There was real similarly equiped opposition in the past...now it's a virtual pond shoot with the unmatched armament/weapons we have, superior training, open terrian, and unoppsed air support.
Facebook
Twitter