Sometimes I hate being right - Page 4

Nephythys · 02-18-2005, 09:49 AM

I'm not attacking you in the least, nor am I going to indulge in making this personal. I am not adding cannon fodder to anything....

I am speaking directly to the comments about someone being fine attacking Iraq which posed no threat- yet at the time, and for years in the past it was COMMON agreement that Iraq was a threat. Now it is convenient to state that it was all a lie and use it to attack the administration.

I don't have anything to admit wrong for. I was not sitting in those congressional or senate meetings, I don't have access to the intel they do, and I have not personally sent anyone to war. I personally think, as does Morrigoon, who started this thread, that we did the right thing in Iraq- and I don't have to admit to being "wrong" about anything.

The dems are not saying they were wrong- they are denying their past stance and screaming that Bush and Co are liars. It's partisan and transparent, and no attempt to make it look noble works.

Ghoulish Delight · 02-18-2005, 10:04 AM

Yes, there were people on both sides who truly believed that Iraw was a threat before we went in. But as the issue got pushed, as the time for a decission came, people said, "Okay, let's see the hard evidence, the smoking gun, THEN we'll support it." And what hard evidence came out? Collin Powel with a couple satelite photos of trucks with circles around them. THAT'S when people's "stories changed", and by "stories changed," I mean people stood by their statements that said we shouldn't go in without defnitive proof. And yet we did.

Between you and me, I wouldn't have been surprised to find out that Sadaam DID have a WMD program. But without proof, there was no justification for action. Assume and speculate all you want, but there's a damned good reason part of the foundation of this country involves the addage "innocent until proven guilty." I suppose we should all thank George for demonstrating so vividly why it's important to do more than pay lip service to the values that define our country, and actually uphold them rather then uphold them unless it's convenient not to.

Name · 02-18-2005, 10:22 AM

I could point to the quotes by powell and rice about Iraq not being a threat a year before they were a threat, but whats the point.

02-18-2005, 09:49 AM	#1
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	I'm not attacking you in the least, nor am I going to indulge in making this personal. I am not adding cannon fodder to anything.... I am speaking directly to the comments about someone being fine attacking Iraq which posed no threat- yet at the time, and for years in the past it was COMMON agreement that Iraq was a threat. Now it is convenient to state that it was all a lie and use it to attack the administration. I don't have anything to admit wrong for. I was not sitting in those congressional or senate meetings, I don't have access to the intel they do, and I have not personally sent anyone to war. I personally think, as does Morrigoon, who started this thread, that we did the right thing in Iraq- and I don't have to admit to being "wrong" about anything. The dems are not saying they were wrong- they are denying their past stance and screaming that Bush and Co are liars. It's partisan and transparent, and no attempt to make it look noble works.
	Submit to Quotes

02-18-2005, 10:04 AM	#2
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Yes, there were people on both sides who truly believed that Iraw was a threat before we went in. But as the issue got pushed, as the time for a decission came, people said, "Okay, let's see the hard evidence, the smoking gun, THEN we'll support it." And what hard evidence came out? Collin Powel with a couple satelite photos of trucks with circles around them. THAT'S when people's "stories changed", and by "stories changed," I mean people stood by their statements that said we shouldn't go in without defnitive proof. And yet we did. Between you and me, I wouldn't have been surprised to find out that Sadaam DID have a WMD program. But without proof, there was no justification for action. Assume and speculate all you want, but there's a damned good reason part of the foundation of this country involves the addage "innocent until proven guilty." I suppose we should all thank George for demonstrating so vividly why it's important to do more than pay lip service to the values that define our country, and actually uphold them rather then uphold them unless it's convenient not to. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

02-18-2005, 10:22 AM	#3
Name Title Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: here Posts: 779	I could point to the quotes by powell and rice about Iraq not being a threat a year before they were a threat, but whats the point. __________________ Signature
	Submit to Quotes