Tom wrote:
"While your reasoning is byzantine, and beautiful in its own way, I think you're working too hard on it. You claim that even if the U.S. and the other members of the Security Council were convinced about WMD at least up to 2002, that Bush had to lie or misinterpret data to arrive at exactly the same conclusion as everyone else. Naturally, unless that data changed drastically between 2002 and the invasion, this would mean everyone else lied or misinterpreted the data."

It is neither beautiful or byzantine. Its simply dismissing what is properly irrelevant. Look at it again -its quite simple... 2 points each with to sub points. Shall I count the number of words? Its very small...:


2) EVEN STIPULATING that 'most people thought Iraq had WMD', it is IRRELEVANT to determining if Bush was Incompetent or Lied about Iraq having WMD.
2a) It is IRRELEVANT regarding honesty because he claimed that HE (not other folks, himself) just KNEW Iraq had WMD, and via Rumsfeld, where they were located

2b)It is IRRELEVANT regarding competencey, because if he were to claim 'we went to war based on what everyone else thought', you want him fired immediately.

3) EVEN STIPULATING that we thought Iraq had WMD in 1998, it is IRRELEVANT to determining if Bush was Incompetent or Lied about Iraq having WMD.

3a) It is IRRELEVANT regarding honesty because he claimed that HE (not other folks, himself) just KNEW Iraq had WMD, currently, in 2003- not in 1998

3b)It is IRRELEVANT regarding competency, because if he were to claim 'we went to war based on what everyone else thought in 1998', you want him fired immediately.


MAYBE the most 'subtle' or 'complex' thing about it is that it contains a notion of personal responsibility AND that it distinguishes truth from opinion- both of which I thought we would both agree are good things!

Tom wrote:
" that Bush had to lie or misinterpret data to arrive at exactly the same conclusion as everyone else."

I reject your statement 'Everyone else', and EVEN SO- supposing it was true is STILL irrelevant because 'Everyone Else' didn't kill 10-15,000 people over it.

Again, its properly irrelevant to our discussions here, EVEN SUPPOSING I GRANT ITS TRUTH- which I don't.

Tom wrote:
You do realize that a much less complex answer that explains all the facts is that the data was read properly, there were in fact WMD as described by Bush, Powell, Blair, the United Nations, and others, and that they simply haven't been accounted for yet. "

No. Again, my explanation of events is not complex- you are simply painting it as such. It boils down to two points each with two sub-points (above) and the lemma that we are more morally sophisticated than two-year-olds.

It is simply rube-goldberg, on the otherhand, to postulate a sophisticated suppression and disguise system that can hide the WMD after we have 100,000 troops on the ground, Several THOUSAND of which are actively involved in inspection- with the ultimate 'free and unfettered' access.

"Given the time he had before the attack, Saddam would have had no trouble hiding whatever evidence he needed to. "

Which would require the complicity and knowledge of thousand(s) of Iraqis, all of whom would have an incentive to curry favor with the americans, who are (it seems) there to stay.

"And of course, evidence that we have actually found, like the biowarfare trailers"

Ummm. Yeah. Tom... 3 trailers, only one of which our CIA claims as a biowarfare lab and ALL of which were buried and look like garbage.

You ever try to grow cultures, even with 'good' equipment?

"obviously they buried them so we wouldn't find out they were manufacturing hydrogen, a known component of fusion bombs. "

I hope this is sarcasm. Hydrogen is as common, as, well- hydrogen....

Tom- instead of bluster, why don't you attack my argument directly? Can You?

Davin L.