KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
Weiser says:
================
Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary
importance in the first place.
================
OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing?
After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it
wasn't
the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was:
"
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"
make up your minds.
frtzw906
You acknowledge "before the war, all we heard was: "
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"
Is it possible that you were listening to certain medias that were
just
quoting each other over and over and not really researching beyond
the
news wire feed, and ending up with the same story. Not the whole
story,
just the part they wanted you to hear, and which was the part you
now
acknowledge you heard.
When the decision was made to invade, the media had no reason to
overstate
the WMD argument, because they had no idea that Bush was lying and no
idea
that no WMD would be found and in fact I can't remember even one
media
feature that questioned whether or not Iraq in fact has WMD. But if
you care
to read the address to the UN prior to the invasion, it's quite
clearly
stated that it's about WMD.
Thanks KMAN for taking the time from your busy schedule of debating
with rick and Scott, to comment on my post.
The question that I had with Frtzw was regarding what he heard. If he
limited himself to only certain sources of info, he would have heard
what he acknowledge he heard. That does not mean that there were not
other sources of info from which he could have heard additional and
more complete info. I recall hearing many programs speaking of the
human rights violations against Shiite, Kurds, the Iraq Olympic team,
etc. His sadistic sons and the treatment of women, and murder of fellow
countrymen. Fly over violation with his radar targeting coalition
airplanes. Terrorist training. Threats to kill our president, and
generally terrorize the US.
That Powell went to the UN and presented a limited case of UN
violations is not a surprise to me. The UN was not concerned about
human rights violations taking place right under the nose of their
inspectors. So as in any court, the arguement is limited to pertinent
points of law. However that does not mean that their are not other
calls to action that were being made.
If you choose to limit yourself to what you want to hear, then I can
understand when you say that you only heard certain subjects, by
choice. That is different than saying the other subjects were not
presented at all, just that you were ignorant of them.
Now I know that you are generally a bright person, so I would not
characterize you as ignorant, though we all have our blind spots. I
would just encourage you to get more of the story, which may mean
listening to FOX News. I realize that you may not like what they say,
but that is part of being informed. If all you do is listen to the same
tripe all the time, from the network news services, that is part of
being uninformed. TnT