Subject:
|
Re: Help me with the math
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:12:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1012 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
The point is that Dubya did not invent the intelligence and mislead us into
war. Everyone was mislead including Dubya.
|
Bruce gave a good refutation of this, and in any case the buck doesn’t stop with
everyone else--it stops with Dubya. If he endorsed the intelligence report,
then he, as the highest link in the chain, bears primary responsibility for the
successes or failures resulting from that intelligence.
| |
Well the last pro-Kerry Ad I heard on the radio says that John Kerry stands
by his descision to vote for military action but that he would have done
things very different in Iraq. Bush has done this wrong and that wrong, etc.
|
Was that a Kerry-endorsed ad? If so, I confess that I haven’t heard it.
However, I have heard Kerry himself say that he would still have voted to give
the President the authority to invade, but if he had been President then he
(Kerry) would not have invaded as quickly as Bush did. That doesn’t sound even
remotely like a flip-flop to me, nor is the nuance so subtle as to be beyond the
ability of the average voter to understand.
| |
| |
Sadly, that won’t be good enough. Dubya made his case based on information
that he claimed to know for certain, regarding the imminent threat to the
US. If we happen to find a tanker of Sarin 20 years down the line, then that
will do nothing to validate Dubya’s claims retroactively.
|
Why not?
|
For one thing, it will be nearly impossible but absolutely essential to
prove that the tanker wasn’t planted fraudulently by some pro-war agency.
Presumably, the tanker would be planted now (or in the recent past/near future)
with the intent that it be discovered quite a few years hence, thereby granting
retroactive legitimacy to Dubya’s insane oil war.
For another thing, Dubya didn’t say “We’re invading because they might have a
tanker buried somewhere in the desert.” He (and his officers for whom he is
accountable) referred repeatedly to imminent threats and certain knowledge of
WMD. If we happen to stumble upon a long-forgotten stash of chemicals, then
that does nothing to bolster his claim, especially if that’s all we find.
For my money, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, which in this
situation is Dubya. To date, he has failed to demonstrate his proof, so he has
failed in prosecuting his case.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) The point is that Dubya did not invent the intelligence and mislead us into war. Everyone was mislead including Dubya. (...) Well the last pro-Kerry Ad I heard on the radio says that John Kerry stands by his descision to vote for military (...) (20 years ago, 11-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
57 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
