Originally posted by jimmacThis is what it always comes down to. You wanting someone to remind you of what you've said. Myself I don't bother suppling proof or info for you anymore. It's a waste of time because no matter how black and white it is you wouldn't agknowlege it.
My advice to Giant is not to waste his time either.
Yes, it does come down to that. And let me tell you why. One of giant's favorite claims (and yours too) has been that "SDW is wrong consistently on nearly everything." You offer little or no support for that conclusion, other than the isolated case where I have been wrong (and on those occasions, I am more than willing to admit it). Or, another favorite tactic of yours is to take a point of discussion
that I raised (or something I said was possible) and painted it as an iron clad prediction. Your favorite in that regard is the discussion of Bush winning 50 states. You raise it time and time again despite the fact that I never predicted firmly it would happen. I only said it was possible. I'm sure wil be only a matter of time until you prove my point on this one.
And this thread is another great example. I am saying it's possibile the weapons may have been moved to Syria before the war, and that it's apparent Saddam very well may have had WMD making equipment at the start of the invasion. Yet, the name calling and condescension began from post #2 on.
So while you and giant and company on the liberal left of the board are busy calling me a blind and deaf Bush zealot who can't see past his TV tuned to FoxNews, the real idealogues can be found in your mirrors. Only fools dismiss possibilties. Only fools are convinced they know about all the intelligence that our top military leaders and government officials do. In fact, one of giant's central claims is that there is no such thing as closed intelligence. Anyone who honestly thinks that we as civilians will ever know exactly what the upper escehlons of our goverment and intelligence agencies know is a fool, straight out.
Finally, let's assume for a minute that all of the claims about there being no weapons are true. Let's all assume that Saddam had dismantled his program and had no capability to make more. Now, what does that really mean?
It doesn't really matter. Saddam was in clear violation of countless UN resolutions, icluding 1441, which was actual standard for the invasion. He was a hostile power who WAS pursuing WMD and rearmament. There are several well publicized reports that demonstrate this. Saddam was unable to account for literally tons of banned materials, which he was required to do. And, while the Bush Administration primarily focused on WMD and the justification for war, this was not the only reason. I've listed Saddam's past infractions about 100 times here. Some, in my opinion, are jusitifaction for invasion in and of themselves. I've also said that one of the administration's mistakes was to focus too heavily on WMD. There were many reasons...many worthy reasons.
Of course, there are those that say the sense or urgency was created because of the "impending and imminent" threat portrayed by the adminsitration. That may be true, but would it have been better to wait? Would Saddam really stay contained over there indefinitely? And that is where our real point of disagreement is, giant, Glisch, addabox, jimmac, Shawn, et al. You disagree that we needed to or had the right to pre-empt
Saddam's actions in the post 9-11 world. I say we needed to, should have and had the right as well. It was time for Saddam to be taken care of, not pushed off eight more years so someone else had to deal with him. No, Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11. But perhaps we should have waited for him to attack on 9/11....2010?