The Art of Camouflage - David Kay comes clean, almost . . .

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

By your standard every time someone makes a mistake they are a liar.

Not true Dave.

Wasn't it you who brought intent into the 'did he lie' debate? It's my contention that Bush's intent was to deceive us (USA, world) into thinking that he knew there were WMD, when in fact he didn't know.

. . . and it is my contention that he did believe that Iraq had WMD and therefore he is not a liar.

<que the mono-neuroned troglodytes to come in here, call me an apologist and then slither away>

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

Give me a fvcking break.
Just because I support Bush and the war in Iraq doesn't make me an apologist. Absolutely not, you are correct. But saying things like "He misled, but he didn't intentionally mislead us" and "even though he was wrong, he believed he was right" does.
I already said I disagree strongly with him on certain issues and I voted for Clinton twice.

Answer me this question:
If we had found massive stockpiles of WMD's, would you have been saying: "Yeah, Bush was right, it's good that we went into Iraq when we did"?
Be honest. My honest answer would have been that Bush was correct. Your response would have been: "Well, there wasn't any evidence that he was actually going to use them and the inspectors could have found them if we gave Saddam more time, and sanctions might have eventually convinced him to destroy them". No it wouldn't have.

Is there anything that you don't follow the party line on? What party is that?

Well, if you define it as apologizing for making a mistake, then yeah, I guess I am.
But the obvious implication of the term apologist is someone who will defend the person no matter what they do, right or wrong, and that I am not.

I honestly don't believe your claimed theoretical response.

What party is that?
Hmmm, maybe the one that you are NOT bashing in your sig.
You can pretend all you want that you are objective and independent, but it is obviously not the case.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

By your standard every time someone makes a mistake they are a liar.

Not true Dave.

Wasn't it you who brought intent into the 'did he lie' debate? It's my contention that Bush's intent was to deceive us (USA, world) into thinking that he knew there were WMD, when in fact he didn't know.

But if you know you know or you think you know you know, then doesn't that mean you really know even if you don't?
I guess it depends on what you know about the definition of the word know.

Sorry Shanti, I thought you'd understand. If you need me to explain it further to you just say so.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

By your standard every time someone makes a mistake they are a liar.

Not true Dave.

Wasn't it you who brought intent into the 'did he lie' debate? It's my contention that Bush's intent was to deceive us (USA, world) into thinking that he knew there were WMD, when in fact he didn't know.

. . . and it is my contention that he did believe that Iraq had WMD and therefore he is not a liar.

<que the mono-neuroned troglodytes to come in here and call me an apologist and then slither away>

Now, what is someone who believes in a thing, then picks and chooses from sources to put forward an agenda rather than verifying the premise to begin with?

That is not a simple mistake.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

By your standard every time someone makes a mistake they are a liar.

Not true Dave.

Wasn't it you who brought intent into the 'did he lie' debate? It's my contention that Bush's intent was to deceive us (USA, world) into thinking that he knew there were WMD, when in fact he didn't know.

But if you know you know or you think you know you know, then doesn't that mean you really know even if you don't?
I guess it depends on what you know about the definition of the word know.

Sorry Shanti, I thought you'd understand. If you need me to explain it further to you just say so.

Wow, that took longer than normal to resort to insults.
Apparently you need to see an emoticon to recognize a statement as humor.

What exactly is your point?
I know what your contention is, I just think you are wrong.
It is my contention that Bush tried to convince us that there were WMD's because he thought they were. And he thought he was sure. Otherwise, I don't think he would have emphasized it so much. It certainly was not politically smart and if you think he does everything for personal gain, then why would he have made such a poor political decision.

 

[Gaard]

Dave, if you honestly believe that Bush didn't intend to deceive us into thinking that he knew more than he did, so be it. Others have a differing opinion of our President.

Shanti, it doesn't bother me if you don't believe what I say (which of us on here would).

You can pretend all you want that you are objective and independent, but it is obviously not the case.
I'm going to have to ask you why you say this. You say just because you support the war doesn't make you an apologist. Can I not say the opposite?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Dave, if you honestly believe that Bush didn't intend to deceive us into thinking that he knew more than he did, so be it. Others have a differing opinion of our President.

Shanti, it doesn't bother me if you don't believe what I say (which of us on here would).

You can pretend all you want that you are objective and independent, but it is obviously not the case.
I'm going to have to ask you why you say this. You say just because you support the war doesn't make you an apologist. Can I not say the opposite?

Sure, go for it.
The content of your signature leads me to believe otherwise.

 

[Gaard]

At least you're honest. Wrong, but honest.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Now, what is someone who believes in a thing, then picks and chooses from sources to put forward an agenda rather than verifying the premise to begin with?

Normally they're called reverend, father, pastor, mullah, rabbi . . .

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Now, what is someone who believes in a thing, then picks and chooses from sources to put forward an agenda rather than verifying the premise to begin with?

Normally they're called reverend, father, pastor, mullah, rabbi . . .

You have hit on something. Bush, and each of those you have named have Faith. They can each put that faith into action, and the magnitude of the results are dependent on the strength of that belief, but more so on the power wielded by that person. The more the power the greater the responsibility. Responsibility is meaningless without accountability. One who swings a sword needs to be more careful than one who swings a string. Presidents have the biggest swords of all, that of the US military. When that is used, every effort must be made to ensure it is done so properly, and based on facts as they are, and not as he would have them, or as they were. In any case, there is no accountability in this. You yourself felt that an investigation ought to happen and soon. That was some time ago, and now not only are supporters of the action not repeating themselves in calling for the facts, but are justifying and seemingly hoping no probe is forthcoming. Perhaps that does not describe you, but I would have thought you would be happier to debate facts than accusations. We are perpetually rehashing the latter, and I have seen little sign from the Bush camp and it's supporters that it wants to change that.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shanti
So ongoing development work on ricin does not qualify as a violation of the U.N. resolutions banning Iraq from developing chemical weapons?

You are changing the subject. You said something about Kay finding active WMD programs and that ricin was a WMD agent. He did not and it is not.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Shanti
So ongoing development work on ricin does not qualify as a violation of the U.N. resolutions banning Iraq from developing chemical weapons?

You are changing the subject. You said something about Kay finding active WMD programs and that ricin was a WMD agent. He did not and it is not.

Ricin's potential as a powerful terrorist weapon is high, as it is relatively easy to produce and has no antidote. Indeed, it takes so little ricin to kill one human being that its use can be undetectable.

While less deadly than if injected or inhaled, the dangers of food and water contamination are severe, and could well represent the most potent terrorist use of the toxin, serving as a means to foment mass hysteria.

Airborne and inhaled, ricin becomes exponentially more dangerous than if simply touching the skin.

Had those who carried out the 1995 sarin attack on the Tokyo subways used ricin ? which is far deadlier and easier to produce ? the results could have been catastrophic.

Ricin is a chemical weapon that can be used for mass destruction.
You can have your opinion, but ongoing work on a chemical weapon that can cause mass destruction fits my definition of "active WMD program".