Not to interrupt the free and open exchange of ideas, but does anybody else out there find the irony amusing? Bush knowingly misrepresents data, pretending it says things it doesn’t, to get what he wants. In response, the ‘opposition’ knowingly misrepresents the very same data, pretending it says things it doesn’t, to get what they want, and what they want is to criticise Bush for doing the very same thing! Talk about pots and kettles. Stuff like this makes it hard to ethically support anybody.
It’s strange: I don’t know one single person who has told me they thought all along that Bushco was being truthful about WMDs. Not one. I basically assumed it was bullshit from the getgo, and then waited to be convinced otherwise.
Bushco obviously has a good share of the blame heading rightfully their way, but what about the House of Reps and the Senate, fergawdsakes, and what about the majority of Americans who support this travesty.
There’s blame to spread around, so thin it makes our whole nation look smeared with blood. Frankly, it disgusts me. The more I think about it, the more John Kerry disgusts me. He claims he was misled. I say that’s as much bullshit as anything else. If I could see throught he fecal fog, why couldn’t he? I think he could, and he did. Same with Hillary. Same with all of them nurturing Presidential aspirations.
Cowards; hypocrites; liars, the whole bloody lot.
Fuck 'em all; I’m voting Green.
First, are you claiming that the Democrats were chickensh*t? Well, I agree. 
But actually I agree with her. If unchecked, Saddam probably would do that, but he was checked, by the sanctions, by inspections, by flyovers, by the consequences. Also, I seem to recall that there was evidence he thought there were WMDs under development - but the scientists lied to him.
How much of this raw intelligence data did they have? Under what constraints were they given it? How much of their response was lack of knowledge, and how much was fear of being called unpatriotic in the jingoistic frenzy? That determines if they lied too, or were just misinformed. I don’t really know, but I do know that whatever it is the burden is less on one vote of 100 than on the person at whose desk the buck supposedly stops.
I’m actually okay with the President lying under certain circumstances. If Bush had said all those things in order to keep the pressure up to allow the inspectors in, I’d say it would be justified. But he lied for war, not for peace, and there has got to be a difference.
How does the opposition display the same data in a “slanted” view? I fear I may have overlooked the occurrances of this… if so, could you point me in the right direction? (I’m serious… I am wondering if my reading comprehension abilities are a little out of whack today. This is the second time today – on the SDMB – that I am making such a request.)
How is it BS? I am ashamed about it, but I admit that I followed the Bush administration on its WMD escapade at first. When some of this talk of Bushco choosing the intel it wanted to listen to, that’s when I started feeling like an ass. And I know I’m not alone in this. Why should we hold this against Kerry? At least he’s condemning Bushco’s judgment now.
LilShieste
If you didnt like the last war, I don’t think you’ll like the next one.
Which one will that be?
I’m still hoping not to find out.
New to politics, eh?
Post #9.
Ever at your service. 
Well, that’s very different. Those guys, sure. I’m reasonable, and amenable to argument, they flop-flop on the issues.
In a way. Rapt attention is always appropriate, of course, immediate acceptance and concurrance is a pretty safe bet. Surly skepticism is entirely misplaced.