”I'll ask you what Kant did.... Give your version of why Bush invaded Iraq war and your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with them...
Kant never asked me that. Why do you find it so impossible just to carry on an honest rational discussion.
To answer YOUR question. I haven’t made up MY reasons for Bush going to Iraq. That would be a dumbass thing to do, so I’ll leave it to Kant(YOU) and be happy to point out the truth of the matter as we go. I have followed the stated reasons, the challenges to those, the conspiracy theories and the wacked out lunie allegations, coming from you guys. We've had several discussions on the reasons so we can assume we are all familiar with the categories and their contents.
I haven’t spoken to President Bush and doubt that he would provide any information to me that would contradict his official stated reasons for ‘going to Iraq.’ Neither have you or Kant, yet you feel qualified to speak for him and contradict his own words. You’ve done so many times. There are a couple of reasons why you might do that, 1) maybe you have proof that there were other contradictory reasons for his conduct. Even though you’ve been challenged many times to provide your proof, you have not brought it for ward. 2) maybe you will repeat any hateful partisan thing you can find passing through the air or the internet because you are loyal to that agenda. I don’t know why since you wont be honest about what you are doing or your motives. 3) Is maybe you are seeking a better understanding of our circumstances and would like to open discussions that get at the truth … uh not bloody likely.
You’ve offered no new evidence and the old stuff has been debunked on multiple levels. Like the argument that the Administration knew more because they were on the inside of intelligence gathering. And could filter information accurately but chose not to. Like, The President, Vice President, and close advisors would have to know the truth about certain things and if we heard something else from them then they were lying to us. The following people were inside that loop at the time and for a much longer period of time than Bush.
”Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.”
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.
Personally I don’t see these statements as lies but then it wasn’t my allegation to prove it is yours by proxy of Kant. You are too squeazly to stand behind anything… so what do you say is Kant’s position on this?
It is your allegation, so bring the proof. |
