I was taught to look at the facts, and try to determine what reality was, not pick and choose the "Facts" that support my viewpoint, and ignore the ones that do not. Being human, I sometimes fail- but at least I try, unlike a number of those here on mudcat who make no attempt to get both sides of any situation.


Hear, hear, Bruce!

I concur whole heartedly with your approach.

The problems begin when "facts" turn out to be taken out of context, evaluated as more important than other facts when not, altered in their sequence, or told in isolation with other relevant data missing.

I offer for example the facts and the consequences of the facts offered by Resident Bush to the nation over and over, about how Saddam Hussein was allied to Al Queda and possessed mass-destruction weapons and the ability to deliver them against the U.S.

All the tales told were distorted. It is possible that the intention to go to war against Saddam Hussein preceded 9-11, had nothing to do with WMD, and arrived at the White House the day the Bush team took office, I don't know.

Now you and I can throw opinions and conclusions around here all day. We aren't changing the face of life int he United States very much with our opinions.

When Bush's false facts were promulgated, the machinery of war fired up, and a thousand troops walked in to their last days. Perhaps 100,000 Iraqi -- most of them civilians -- were earmarked for death.

This is the sort of abuse I will not tolerate, and my protest against this inhumanity is why I get a bit strident sometimes. Because thousands of lives have been snuffed out because Bush didn't verify his data.

ANd why didn't he, given that he was entrusted with executive responsibility?

A