Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to Read The Thread, Your Title, & Your Comments

Okay, we are officially disconnected
alcaray — (archived)

It was never my intent to poke fun at Bush, so I have to conclude that you have no accurate idea what I was talking about. So how about a quick recap:

Meyer:
Not under oath. There is one key.

Another is that Bush actually BELIEVED that the WMD were there...

Me:
Did he "believe" there were WMDs at the same time he "believed" that he had a weak case for going to war?

If so, then he needs to be committed to a rubber-room-bearing hospital. Or maybe some of that "believing" was more like damn lying.

I guess from this you gathered that I gave Bush credit for believing WMDs, but said he was weak for doing so? If so, read it again.

Still not clear? In those simple three sentences, I pointed out that there is a contradiction in the facts. That we know from other sources that he felt his case for war was weak. I asserted that to have a "slam dunk" case that your enemy has WMDs, at the same time as thinking you have a weak case for war, is inconsistent.

There are many ways to explain this inconsistency (and if you want actually to respond to the post now, rather than go off on a tangent, I would recommend that you bring a few of them up for discussion). The one I explicitly mentioned was that one of the two pieces of info was false. That either he was lying when he thought he had a weak case (whacky, I know), or he did not really believe in the "slam dunkiness". That a way of explaining it was that he was not truthful.

Now before you go off on false claims yadda yadda, note that the only thing I claim is that there is an inconsistency.

PS: You can tell a Bush apologist by the number of times he brings up Clinton.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (47 posts)