I merely wanted to discuss things in a sequential manner.
Don't let me stop you...
I'm STILL waiting on the 20/20 thing- which has priority in terms of time.
Funny, I've been waiting since we commenced this exchange for you to provide a OUNCE of credible evidence that would have exonerated Saddam from the perception that he was still squirreling away WMDs.
"Gut Feelings", without credible information to back it up, is not the manner in which Foreign Policy should be conducted.
Nor should one fail to take into account the actions of other nations in shaping our Foreign Policy, including corrupt profiteering by the very nations and individuals who were charged with enforcing those UNSC resolutions and sanctions.
You can spew all the stuff about evasion and guessing that you want- trying to keep you on task is not evasive at all. It's merely firmness of principle.
Good.. at least you understand something about the concept of principle.. My principles require me to substantiate my opinion when I post it, and I expect others to be willing to do the same. In the absence of any credible evidence substantiating your position, and given what I ALREADY know about the rationales Ritter and others have made regarding the case against WMDs in Iraq, I find little reason to consider your opinion anything but 20/20 hindsight.. It is YOU, not I, who is perpetuating this belief.. I'm a firm believer in "put up, or shut up".. So please feel free to prove me wrong.
When I post my opinions out here, I, almost always, endeavor to back them up with documentable evidence, or at least some form of credible logic.
Why do you think you be treated any differently?
And while we're on the issue of "principles", why is it that you seem to perceive that principles are so important in your own discourse with others, while they shouldn't matter a single bit with organizations like the UNSC?
Was it "principled" for the UNSC to permit itself to spend 13 years being played with by Saddam's regime?
Was is not "principled" for Bush to challenge the UNSC to live up to its obligations vis-a-vis Iraq?
Was it not "principled" for Bush to ignore French, German, and Russian (FG&R) opposition to overthrowing their little "puppet", Saddam Hussein, rather than permitting their partisan and corrupt self-interest to interfere with the authority of the UNSC resolutions??
What it not "principled" for Bush to give Iraq ONE FINAL CHANCE to come clean about its WMD inventories and programs, and THEN stand firmly behind his principles when Iraq FAILED to do so (with the direct assistance of FG&R).
Don't talk about principles unless you're willing to give credit to others for standing behind their statements, right or wrong.
Hawk |
