KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/25/05 1:33 AM:
KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...
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
I listened and read EXACTLY what the Bush administration cited as
their
reasons for invading, and it was, to a massive degree, all about
WMD,
and
only some brainwashed freak who ONLY watches Fox "News" would fall
for the
sloppy revisionism that has gone on in the days since the WMD
disappeared.
Well I am glad that you excluded me from your rather harsh
definition,
in as much as I watch many other programs than Fox. Actually often
watch BBC on PBS, in addition to ABC, NBC, and CBS. I also have
well
over 100 internet sites that I check out as far as newspapers from
around the world. Most of them pick up the UP, AP, or Reuters wire
service, so sometimes I find myself reading the same stories
repeatedly, though I am sure even at that I am sure to miss many
interesting articles. That is one reason, I like participating in
this
forum for the different perspectives, and especially the supporting
references when offered. That includes yours as well even though we
have had our moments. TnT
Um. But getting back to what seemed to be a search for an answer to a
question but as usual when dealing with Tinkerntom veers off wildly
just at
the critical precursor to cognitive dissonance...
Tinkerntom. Have you actually read the statements from the president
and the
members of his administration just prior to the invasion of Iraq? If
you
have, it might be time to revisit, because your brain sounds washed.
Read
them again. And then tell me if it was not all about the WMD.
KMAN, sounds to me like you need some aspirin. You apparently read
concilatory tone as cognitive disonance. I had a great time skiing and
came back relaxed, and refreshed. I suppose you might see that as brain
washed, and I say hit me again.
I have acknowledged that there was an emphasis on WMDs prior to
invasion. though my interpretation of the emphasis is the major concern
that they would be deployed on our troops during the invasion. That
seems to be a reasonable concern, considering that it was fairly well
known that he had used them on his own countrymen, and the intelligence
that he still possesed them. In presenting to the UN reasons for
enforcement, His apparent possession of WMDs, was considered a major
violation. The fact that the UN inspectors could not find them, as a
result of his evasionary tactics did nothing to assure the US that he
in fact did not have them.
However there were many other reasons offered for enforcement of UN
sanctions. The UNs lack of guts to enforce their own sanctions only
shows them to be the inept buffoons they are, and if they don't
appreciate the US effort to protect the world from a dangerous tyrant,
it is probably more because they were exposed than any real concerns
for the rights of people anywhere, and obviously not the Iraqies.
Now this sounds very reasonable to me, and I assume to a few others
that voted for the reelection of President Bush. If you do not follow
this line of logic for whatever reason, I can only be glad that the
planning for enforcement and invasion were not left in your able hands.
Though I suspect that you would not have done any worse than the UN in
any enforcement effort, maybe even a little better, and you are not
even a military type. Your worst vision of a military weapon apparently
being an AK-47, and your best understanding of military manuvers being
derived from the war between Charlie Brown and Lucy.
I never made the claim that it was not about WMDs, just that it was not
only about WMDs. WMDs were a major concern, but not the only concern.
Hopefully this clarifies for you my interpretation, derived from many
sources of information, and not just a select few, that supports my
comfort zone for bitching. TnT