BHS Posted May 17, 2006 Report Posted May 17, 2006 BHS, you obviously missed this part of the Downing Street Memo:"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Meaning what? That intelligence and facts are being cherry picked to support a policy doesn't make them less factual. Look, you can have this argument. I'm not going to go any farther with this, it's been too done before. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
gerryhatrick Posted May 21, 2006 Author Report Posted May 21, 2006 What I'm denying is that human activity is the cause. That's enough to make you one of the global warming denial nuts. My theory is that the truth is just too much for then to handle. It's too depressing to think people would actually take the position soley on the basis of financial concerns...although I guess there are such evils on the world. I'm not interested in debating global warming with denial nuts anymore than I'm interested in debating with a person who thinks the WTC towers were brought down with a controlled demolition. Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
BHS Posted May 22, 2006 Report Posted May 22, 2006 What I'm denying is that human activity is the cause. That's enough to make you one of the global warming denial nuts. My theory is that the truth is just too much for then to handle. It's too depressing to think people would actually take the position soley on the basis of financial concerns...although I guess there are such evils on the world. I'm not interested in debating global warming with denial nuts anymore than I'm interested in debating with a person who thinks the WTC towers were brought down with a controlled demolition. Agreed. I too have no interest in arguing with any jackass that buys into enviro-hysteria propaganda and considers any alternative to be nothing more than some sort of evil corporate scheme. The fact that you envoke "evil" as a means of trumping my arguments only serves to confirm for me that the pro-Kyoto crowd have started their own religion. You can take it from there whether or not Church and State seperations arguments might be applicable vis-a-vis the environmentalist lobby's stake in environmental law-making. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Machinations Posted May 23, 2006 Report Posted May 23, 2006 BHS, you obviously missed this part of the Downing Street Memo: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Meaning what? That intelligence and facts are being cherry picked to support a policy doesn't make them less factual. Look, you can have this argument. I'm not going to go any farther with this, it's been too done before. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory. The problem is, these 'facts' and 'intelligence' as you call them - well, they were wrong. Cherry-picking intelligence estimates that came with a red flag 'UNPROVEN or SOURCE UNRELIABLE' but were picked up because they showed what they wanted them to show. That is deliberately misleading the public to get into a war. Its bait-and-switch. Quote
KrustyKidd Posted May 23, 2006 Report Posted May 23, 2006 The problem is, these 'facts' and 'intelligence' as you call them - well, they were wrong. Cherry-picking intelligence estimates that came with a red flag 'UNPROVEN or SOURCE UNRELIABLE' but were picked up because they showed what they wanted them to show.That is deliberately misleading the public to get into a war. Its bait-and-switch. I wouldn't say bait and switch by any means. MWDs were definitely only an excuse but, a legal one that fitted the rationalization the best. It certainly beat the other cases like non repatriation of Kuwaiti or other foreign nationals, non reparations of war, non adherence to environmental damages, revamping human rights in Iraq (none of which Saddam even attempted to do and were equally importent to adhering to res 686) Point is, WMDs played really well for all audiences (danger and horror and all) and, everybody KNEW he had them. Everybody. So, it seems pretty easy to just answer 'all over the place, around here, there, heck, everywhere' when asked exactly where they were? I mean, the entire planet was certain they were all there so the US would be certain to find them all over the place once they invaded right? To just provide an example of an anti war type who was at the heart of the matter, Blix, at the writing of his book, 'Disarming Iraq,' could not say that they were or were not there. So, since you are going in anyhow, and, like the rest of the world, are confident he has them, there is no need to cherry pick anything as you know you are going to find them. Not finding them never entered into anybody's mind so there was no need to cherry pick anything. Quote We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.