I LOVE battling absurdity. Lucky for me, there is no shortage of it!
Oh yeah, don't compare Bush to Jesus either, isn't that sac-religious?
As Jarhead pointed out, it depends on who you ask. If you ask the Bible, it stipulates that Christians are to model their behavior, as best as they can, after Christ. Thanks for that opportunity.
Now, on to the best stuff:
Nothing to suggest that he had any knowledge of the veracity of ANY intelligence documents that he paraded out ot us as the primary reason for going to war? Do you hear just how insane that sounds?
Ok, lets's have a look.
Your statement contains an assupmtion that wasn't part of what I said. It's something that you inserted. Here it is:
...that he paraded out ot us as the primary reason for going to war?
No, the part where you say that this was the primary reason for going to war is incorrect. You are free to determine what part you feel is most signifigant, but the part that I thought was most signifigant was getting rid of a bad guy that was helping to destabilize the region. We knew he had WMD, and refused to give inspectors free reign, was dedicated to the destruction of Isreal, had killed thousands of his own people, and a dozen or so other reasons related to these. Whether or not he had actually purchased yellow cake was not, and IS not, anything more than a specious argument where going to war is concerned. Was there a strong possibility he was trying to do so? Based on history alone, yes.
Now, the first part:
Nothing to suggest that he had any knowledge of the veracity of ANY intelligence documents
That's right, there is NOTHING to suggest that he had any knowlege of the truth or falsehood of ANY documents. Since he was not the source of the documents, how, praytell, would he know how accurate they are? He relies on others, specialists in their field, to make those determinations. Do you see how insane YOU are sounding?
Let's continue.
It's pathetic that you people are defending the president for not knowing his intelligence was either bogus or unverified, when he used that intelligence to send us to war at an incredible expense, in human and financial terms.
See above. Pay special attention to the part about this intel NOT being the reason we went to war. Or ignore it. But don't insult our intelligence by pretending that something is a causal link, when in reality it is not.
Don't sugar coat it, the report was crap. It was as valid as some CIA desk jockey saying he heard his cousin Leonardo in Belgium saying he overheard some dude saying the president of Mozambique wanted to Nuke the US... so hey, lets attack them first! Of COURSE the Brits are still standing by it... Blair is fighting for his life, and admitting his reasoning for the war was marginal and clearly over inflated, he'd die right then and there. Only difference here is that our Congress is a little slower to want Bushes head for such a transgression.
I'll be kind, and say that you have a
unique perspective. One that ignores the very solid, even
most likely possibility that the British intel on this matter is better than ours. That doesn't happen often, but it can, and DOES happen.
If we removed every government we didn't like, or even every government that is known to harbour terrorists, we'd be at war for the next 100 years. Apparently all it would take would be to sell the American public about the impending nuclear threat, real or made up, and off we go. So who is next on our hit list?
I'll be honest with you. There is a time honored method in the martial arts: you do what you can. When confronted with multiple attackers, you start with attacker number one, as you determine that man to be. Then number two. You consider their size, their weapons, and youre own abilities. Sometimes, just kicking number one's a$$ is good enough to deter the others. Sometimes not. In a worst case scenario, you hurt the ones you can hurt, and you try and do so before they hurt you, or your friends. We are not equipped to take on everyone, but we will do what we can. The Saudis can be hurt very badly, and in a number of ways. A successful democracy in Iraq would go a long way there. Drilling our own oil would also help. We can do this without destroying the environment, but not enough people have been hurt here in America to make that drilling a reality. We don't need the Saudis nearly as much as they need US. This is just my opinion, but I like it a lot more than I like yours.
And PLEASE please spare me about all the human rights violations that Saddam perpetrated as any reasoning for this war.
We already covered that. Running out of material?
That's the most false spin there is... Thgis war was about Bushes ratings! Machievelli at its most basic level. Reverent? Please! He might call himself a Christian, but he's a hypocritical fraud, like the rest of you!
When you run out of argument, you and the other Bush haters turn to personal attack, which is only based on your opinion. Even when I was a liberal, and I heard others spouting this nonsense, I knew it was hurting our arguments and our credibility in general. Before you can make an argument against what makes a reverent man, I'd advise you to find out just what that means
first, so you don't come away looking as bad as you do.
