The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #98924   Message #1969253
Posted By: Ron Davies
15-Feb-07 - 09:23 PM
Thread Name: BS: Proof that Bush lied
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
Teribus--

Gee, I was holding back, waiting for you to reply to Capt. Ginger's queries. Looks like it may be a while.



So I suppose I may as well respond to your posting to me.

Well, it appears I've struck a nerve. As the Pope would say, I'm so sorry you were offended.

I'm especially sorry for having said "You never expect to have your leaders justify their positions. They know more than you. And you know your place."

Thank you for your reply: "It depends on the leader and on the situation". Perhaps you can explain why the Iraq war doesn't make the cut of issues on which you expect your leaders to justify their positions. If you don't expect them to do so in a matter of life and death, exactly when do you expect them to do so? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think I'm starting to understand your view. It's only in a matter of life and death that you know your place--you know your leaders don't want or expect any second-guessing from you---after all you're a mere citizen. So, obligingly, you decline to do any research to try to divine if your leaders are correct. Or do you perhaps accept what you read in the Sun--that's good enough for you?

In this regard, I, like Capt. Ginger, was hoping for your answer on the "45 minutes from doom" idea. But we'll just keep waiting.



So, the words used to describe the threat by Saddam were "current and serious". Wow, I'm impressed. Not only that, I'm IMPRESSED (just to make it easier for you to identify with).

1) "current" but not "imminent". That makes it all better. But the attack by Bush, supported by Blair, turned out to be "imminent". Wonder how that happened.

2) Clinton did it. Sorry, this is a rather tired excuse. Can't you try a little harder? Your fans expect better. Uh, who was it who invaded Iraq with "shock and awe"? Clinton?

3) "Going on the information at the time". And why do you suppose "the information at the time" supported the invasion? Could it be that Bush made it blazingly clear that he only wanted evidence that supported his planned invasion? Nah, not a chance.



And it sure is puzzling that many people, including many Mudcatters, with far fewer sources of information than Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, were able to tell clearly that the case for war had not been made.

But somehow you were not able to see that the case had not been made. Another mystery. Wonder if we'll ever know why.