No we don't have evidence but this is something you are going to have to do that you apparently are not very good at doing, using common sense.
Thank you for corroborating my point. As I said, lacking evidence, you substitute emotion-based speculation and present it as fact. Calling it "common sense" doesn't change this fundamental issue (especially given that one's "common sense" is mostly based on one's existing biases and brainwashing). Remember that the Earth was once "known" to be flat due to common sense. Facts and data are the key to informed discussion, not feelings and biases.
Remember, regardless of what anyone may have told you, Bush was in charge. None of his subordinates are going to craft data like that just because they crave war. You know damn well heads would have rolled if someone did.
Your naivete is precious. If you'd ever worked in a larger organization, you'd know it is often quite easy to filter what the boss learns. If the boss passively accepts information passed to him, he will remain blissfully ignorant of what's really going on in his domain. It takes a boss who aggressively reaches out across organizational layers and silos to really keep tabs on what's going on.
Any time a well known fact contradicts your agenda you just call it a talking point, even though you are probably one of the great quoters of talking points on this forum. You will also note I did not use any of the new "talking point" terms. I am just merely stating it's fact Saddam had them at one time and provided no proof he got rid of them.
Yawn. You read the words, but you do not comprehend. Yes, it is a fact that Iraq had "WMDs" in the 1990's. That is not in dispute. What made it a talking point is that it was regularly flogged by the Bush propagandists to obfuscate the past vs. the present, to divert the debate away from what actually mattered: Iraq did not have the WMDs the Bush administration used to justify the invasion. That is also exactly how you used it, which is why I called it out.
The rest of the terms I listed were simply to show that BushCo did far more than point to the WMDs Iraq once had. They also invented all sorts of new ones. This is why "mythical WMDs" is perfectly reasonable and accurate.
LOL. Sorry, I do not have any links from 2003 of me condemning the invasion. You would probably find some way to not believe them anyways.
You're projecting. That is how
you respond to facts that contradict you. If you can show you didn't support Bush's attack on Iraq, I'm perfectly happy to accept that. If not, I don't really care. It affects me not a whit.
I'll simply note that most of the rabid 2003 Bush supporters now make your same claim. Based on the evidence of their posts at that time, I know as fact that they are lying. Lacking evidence about you one way or the other, I will reach no conclusion. I will not use my "common sense" to assert as fact that you're lying too. I can only speculate.
You just might have to come to the conclusion that not a lot of people on both sides of the isle liked the job Bush did. I liked him right up until Iraq.
Nobody pleases everyone. Given that Bush's post-invasion Republican approval rating peaked at "only" 96%, I recognize that some Republicans didn't like him. If you were one of them, you were in a tiny minority.
Facebook
Twitter