From yahoo.com today (bolding mine):
"Bush appeared in the White House briefing room almost two years after launching a war with the aim of toppling Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) for not giving up weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons were never found and more than 1,500 Americans have been killed in a conflict against an insurgency that critics say has grown because of the U.S. presence."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050316/pl_nm/mideast_bush_dc
Well there you have it.
Er…there I have what exactly? Did you link to the right article? It seems to be talking about the coalition…no whether there were WMD or not in Iraq prior to the invasion. The one blurb you quoted was thrown in as almost an after thought or a dig IMO. Certainly it doesn’t constitute ‘proof’. Check out the title “Bush Insists Iraq Coalition Not Crumbling”
Not that I personally think there WERE massive quantities of WMD in Iraq prior to the war…nor do I think that even if they were there the US should have gone to war (note I don’t use the word ‘justify’ at all)…but your article certainly proves nothing.
-XT
This was intended as a reply to this thread:
which claimed WMD’s had finally been found in Iraq.
The article is clearly talking about the present (for example it mentions the 1500 US casualties), so there is still no evidence that any WMD’s have been found.
I don’t see this article as a good rebuttal to that question one way or the other. Nor do I see the point of this thread…why not simply respond in THAT thread with any data showing that in fact Iraq WMD haven’t been found? I guess I don’t see what the debate is based on that cite you provided in the OP glee.
-XT
xtisme:
Every time a newspaper article appears that hints at the possibility that “WMDs” might still be hidden in Iraq, some Bush supporter starts a thread about it in GD.
If such reports can be presented as solid evidence for the existence of “WMDs” in Iraq, then news reports that flatly state the opposite – i.e., that no “WMDs” have been found in Iraq – ought to serve as a basis for a GD thread just as well. The throwaway lines glee quotes are every bit as conclusive as those quoted by Mr. Moto in the thread that inspired this one.
The exercise is intended to clearly demonstrate the debating tactics of the opposing side by employing them from an anti-war position.
Get it?
So, what you are saying is that if Bush supporters can start a bullshit thread with little or no substance, your side should be able too also…right? Because this will…what? Show that both sides are shallowly partisan? Do I get it? Frankly no…I don’t get it. But knock yourselves out.
-XT
XT:
Well, with the hope that if one notices that when our side does it, it’s bullshit, then must mean when their side does it, it’s bullshit too. I mean, glee’s OP is rather transparent bullshit, is it not? You picked up on that right off.
So what does that say about Mr. Moto’s OP?
Well, some allowance can be prehaps be made for sheer exaperation, as well.
Some of us feel like we’ve really come to the end of our rope in meeting these sorts of, in your own words, “bullshit threads.”
Unless I’m misreading, I think what he’s saying is that he opened this thread in error – that he hit “new thread” instead of “post response.” Lots of people browse the boards using multiple windows.
[Moderator Hat ON]
I think that’s what he meant too, in which case I will close this.
[Moderator Hat OFF]