Tom wrote:

"I made an incontrovertible point about the hypocrisy of the Left in supporting the enemies of Israel (or America for that matter), nations and groups which almost universally spit on the human rights values trumpeted constantly by the Left in the U.S.

There is something seriously wrong when a supposed feminist or gay rights proponent supports the Palestinians over Israel, or any of the other Arab nations, especially with the vehemence that they do."


I consider myself a Feminist, and I am very much for Gay rights. I also recognize, with complete consistency in my views that the State of Israel is incorrect in some of its actions AND the Palestinin Authority is incorrect in (nearly all of) its actions.

It is an absurdity to look at the world as a simple dichotomy.

It is REALLY absurd to look at it as a false dichotomy: The Israeli treatment of Palestinians and the Israeli treatment of Gays are different issues. Entirely and categorically.

Suppose I support a power-shared middle-east with affirmative civil rights for ALL individuals? Have a hard time with that?

Tom wrote:
"Finding stuff that will get over your bar of proof is not easy, since you seem to discount any data from a source which can be proven to be in opposition to Saddam's regime"

This is cute, but false. Dig back through he sources I use and you will find some kurdish papers and writers.

But it sounds good, so why not lie and bluster?

Tom wrote:
"This leaves out CIA intelligence, British intelligence, any statement from a member of an opposition group, "

Again, this sounds really flash-bang and I'm sure some of the newer and passive readers will be quite impressed. But it is empty rhetotic. Again, loook back in the sources I use and you will find CIA reports (remeber the Military Analysis of the capabilities of the Iraqi army I posted BEFORE march of this year?), CIA sources (Recal the Hersh paper?), and British Intelligence (Recall the BBC sources I employed? They used Brit Intel)

Tom wrote:
"Heck, you practically call me an anomalist."

In the sense that (as per above) you claim things that are patently false as true and do so with rhetorical flourish- yes, you are an anolalist Tom. In the sense you state things over and over, even after being challenged to provide proof, and do not- yes, you ARE an anomalist.

Tom wrote:
"Read Resolution 1441, passed in November of 2002, again. Some selected excerpts:"

Which is not documentation for your 1998 claims, at all.

"which were a condition of the cease-fire in the first Gulf War, is in itself a legitimate provocation to military action"
I repeat what I said in the previous post:
Are we done yet? or is there another layer of misdirection or another shift in the dabate you can pull out of your ass?

This is another attempt to shift the debate. Now you would have me believe that our justification for the Iraqi war rests in the 1991 ceasefire? I thought we were playing 'globocop'. No...No... We were 'liberating' Iraq... Whoops! Nope, We were shutting down theior WMD facories.... How. My head is spinning.... Whats your favorite saying? Nailing jello to a tree?

Tom wrote:
"Notice how fast THAT got shoveled over by the Left in the past months?"

Now its them evil 'leftists?

Tom wrote:
"did not believe Iraq had either WMD or links to terrorism, this document has no point."

Yeah, sure it did- to placate the US and insure good trade status and foreign aid dollars. How naive are you? More to the point: how gullible do you think I am?

Tom wrote:
"To take it a bit further, what the HELL would they need a U.N. inspection program for if the U.N. and the nations of the Security Council were convinced that there were no WMD in Iraq at all? "

Again, I ask: Even granting this, what does it prove? At all?

Davin