I have to echo “why bother”? Trying to change someone else is a hopeless task, and even if you succeed, they’ll probably resent you.
And this is from someone with a deep detestation for our current president. But I’m not going to try to change my FIL’s opinion of Bush (He loves him). FIL is a conservative, Bush is his president, and no true conservative will have anything other than proud respect for Bush. Period.
If you stick with wedge issues like amnesty for illegal aliens, you might have a chance. Ask your dad if he wants to allow all the illegal aliens to become citizens and stay in this country.
It is no technicality. You said that “the whole world knew” there were WMDs. That statement is absolutely false. Not technically false. Absolutely false. And you base your conclusion that the threat was valid on that statement. Patent nonsense.
It means you were wrong, and have not proven the existence of the keys. Please pay attention. The burden of proof is on the claimant. It most certainly does not justify firebombing the house in order to prove the keys are on the dresser.
That’s sort of an answer. Now answer the rest. Where were they found? When were they found? Did they constitute an immediate threat to the US? Was the existence of obsolete weapons the justification used by Bushco to invade Iraq?
I am not remotely convinced that Bush believed the claptrap he was spouting. He is one of the greatest liars in history.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. Gotta start with the general and work down to specifics - engage him in a conversation about what’s important in a democracy and a superpower, what we should expect and demand from our hired leadership, and let him reach or confirm his own conclusions.
Or just let it go, in the interest of family harmony, and by all means do not discount the important of that. At this point, would convincing him to change his mind really make a difference? If you still want to engage him, try talking about the next election and generalities about what kind of President and agenda we’ll need then. *That * will make a difference.
Yeah. About that. Did you bother to count how many of the nations on ‘the whole world’ believed that Saddam was actually a threat? As in how many joined the invasion? Funny the UN, NATO, and the EU - all constituted of pretty significant countries in ‘the whole world’ (of course the UN membership includes almost every nation on the planet), refused to join the attack. Canada and Mexico, the US’ neighbours, didn’t join. So I’m guessing you think there are a couple of countries on the planet and they constitute ‘the whole world’. You maybe should bone up on geography a bit.
See, the news you read on Glenn Beck’s site and the tighty-righty site is likely to be biased at best and incorrect at worst. And is highly unlikely to actually reflect actual news from places like Europe.
Contrapuntal you are making a bunch of nonsense augments to support a point that is irrelevantly.
The only thing you say that has any bearing on this is:
Which you have make no attempt to prove, which is your burden.
So what if it is bias, your post is also biased, just lefty-loosey, should I just be able to say it’s biased and dismiss it, or can we look as to what he says - the sources he cites, which is quotes from other sources, on both sides of the spectrum.
How are his arguments nonsense? He said that a statement you made was false, that your logic was bad, and asked for support for your other statements. How is the point that SH did not have viable WMDs, and that most of the world knew this, irrelevant?
Not that it matters, because as others have said anybody who’s still on the bus at this point is there to stay, but really, there’s only one basic argument that might get some traction:
“George Bush thinks you’re a fucking idiot.”
He wraps himself in the flag and the Bible, mouths a few generic platitudes, and cheerfully accepts the votes that this produces, and then he makes almost no effort to follow through on any of it. The most he’s done for the far right, the absolute most, is appoint a couple of Supreme Court justices. Yeah, I know, that’s pretty important, and will have some lingering impact for years and years, but compared to what he could have done, it’s small potatoes.
Everything else he has pursued has been entirely self-serving. And he regards his “base” as fools and dupes. In private, he’s high-fiving himself for the con job, exactly the same way a used-car salesman preens when he’s able to dump that Chevy with the bad rings on an automotively ignorant housewife. He has no conscience, and no shame; just like the housewife, people like your dad are marks, and nothing more, people to be manipulated and exploited.
Arguments like Menocchio’s (‘what has he actually done?’) are just ways of looking at the basic underlying truth.
For more on this, start here.
The whole world did “know” for all practical purposes. Short of invading, no one could know anything conclusively, but that doesn’t change the fact that the prevailing belief was that there would be WMDs found, a belief shared by virtually everyone. The intelligence was deemed so strong that it was believed to be a certainty. Turns out the intelligence sucked.
Do you believe that Bush knew that there would be no WMDs found?
Drop the subject. Why argue with your father, with whom you are saddled (that’s supposed to be a facetious comment) for the rest of your life? Bush is in for two years and you can’t do anything about it. Your father will never get to vote for him as President again.
“Grant me the power to change the things I can change; the serenity to accept the things I can’t; and the wisdom to know the difference.”
Ahem. That’s what the inspectors were there for. To find out the facts, before anybody got killed needlessly. They’d almost finished, too, with the correct factual conclusion, when Bush went ahead anyway - as if those last 2 weeks they said they’d needed were critical.
Bullshit. The war was premised on Iraq being a “grave and gathering threat”, with a side order of mushroom cloud, not that there might still be some leftover encrusted barrels of something out in the desert.
Nice use of passive voice there. The intelligence, as we know now and knew then, was being filtered to support a predetermined decision. It was deemed strong by those who ordered it created and dismissed anything contradictory (and personally destroyed anyone who tried to say so).
Right, the intelligence agencies ate Bush’s homework. :rolleyes:
Based on the fact that the military did absolutely nothing during the invasion to bother to establish control over what had been stated to be suspected WMD sites, the answer has to be Yes.
The passionate desire of one side to convert the other usually strengthens the opposition. Let it go.
Wolfowitz: "“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
IOW, the decision was already made; the problem was *marketing * it to us.
That’s a different charge, then, and I’m not saying it’s wrong. But if Bush rushed to judgment when restraint could have led him to a different conclusion, that is not the same as saying he knew there were no WMDs.
Yes. Where do you think I contradict this?
Right. And so was the intelligence of every other western country in the world. Bush’s evil seeped into their computers and altered the data. No, wait! Everybody was in on the lie! :rolleyes:
So, you believe Bush deliberately started the war, knowing the PR disaster that would occur when no WMDs were found. You’re right, he’s not just evil, he’s Bond-villain evil.
Pay attention. There is no ‘bias’ in my post, just fact. Count up the number of states who went into the war with the US. Check for yourself whether NATO, the UN, or the EU approved of the action or felt there was a cause for war. Do you know what those are, by the way?
:rolleyes:
Where is your proof of this? Oh, right, Georgie told you so.
He’s stupid. Evilly stupid.
What Captain Carrot said.
Well, you have acknowledged where the burden of proof lies. Now go apply it to your arguments. As for my burden, my simple statement should be enough to prove whether I am convinced of a thing. It is, at the very least, unassailable.
You are making the same mistake **kanicbird **makes with respect to ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge.’ As to whether “the whole world” believed anything, that assertion is so ridiculous as to be laughable. It was by no means the whole world, and it is foolish to keep repeating it. Further, extrapolating ‘belief’ from ‘action,’ especially in a political setting, is an exercise in futility.
Once again, belief and knowledge are confused. Who knows what he “knew?” I believe that he knew his intelligence was bullshit, because he was manipulating it. He knew the Nigerian yellowcake story was bullshit, yet still sent Powell to lie to the UN. I believe he only looked for evidence that supported his cause,and ignored what did not. Sort of like Nifonging “the whole world,” if you will.
Am I supposed to debate that? Do you really need cites that other countries believed that WMDs existed?
And to the OP, your dad is probably the same sort of ‘true believer’ we see interjecting their continuing faith in Bush here. No amount of truth or logic will persuade someone who refuses to see it.