SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (27500)2/2/2004 8:13:41 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) of 793677
 
"Wstera posted something last night about the "real"
reason for the war being not the threat of WMD but the
violation of UN sanctions. That was a backtrack."


Where did the author of that article or myself assert this
was the "real" reason for the war? The fact is that I
never made any such assertion. Melanie Phillips never used
the word "real" in that context either. And that is
precisely what the article exposes so precisely regarding
significant matters pertaining to the war.

What the author did was review the facts & presented her
expressed opinion based on known facts. All I did was
include additional factual information that supported the
author's opinions so that we could draw our own
conclusions from a reality based perspective.

And you not only ignored all of that, you asserted it was
not accurate.

"That was a backtrack."

Speaking of backtracking, why not go back with the author
& revisit what really happened then & compare it to what
is perceived today? IMO, the facts clearly establish that
the Bush Adnin did not reverse their position or "backtrack"
as you falsely asserted.

The author cited Admin officials' & the President's own
publicly made comments, plus David Kay's comments, then
drew her expressed opinion on historically accurate
events. The difference between perception & reality on
these matters is shocking IMO.

The point that Melanie Phillips makes is that the major
difference between her review of historically accurate
events prior to the war & what is perceived today is that
during the time in between, the liberal media & liberal
politicians have framed their revisionist view of reality
& repeated it so frequently that it has become accepted as
the real version of events by the anti-war, anti-Bush
crowd. IMO, she was spot on.

How many people still firmly believe that Bush called Iraq
an "imminent threat"?

How many people firmly believe that the Iraq war was based
on intentionally false & misleading information from the
Bush Admin?

How many people firmly believe that David Kay said no WMD
actually existed in Iraq, thus proving that Saddam was no
threat and we were led up the garden path to war?

How many clearly false perceptions exist about the war
because liberal media & the liberal politicians have
repeatedly lied & distorted reality to the public?

BTW, although your assertion about the "real" reason for
the war is wrong only because neither of us used the
word "real". It is your false assertion that we
said "real" that is so typical of how serious false
perceptions are created. I'm not going to split hairs with
you on any spin you may wish to raise on this specific
matter.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext