Ah, probably so. I imagine there are lots of people who will just bash Bush for the sake of it. I’m pretty bad at picking them out, though… what’s your general technique for picking out those who are just picking random links to insult from those who’ve actually done research?
There’s no evidence that there’s a Toilet Monster in my bathroom. Does that mean there might be one? :dubious:
Under our legal system, evidence is presented to determine guilt or ‘innocence’. While it’s true that a guilty person may be found not guilty, under our laws that person cannot be punished. And certainly a person may not be legally punished before there is a trial. There’s this thing called the ‘Constitution’, y’see…
However there is evidence. It’s just that the evidence we had before the war showed that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that Saddam was not conducting WMD programs. Bush and his henchmen ignored the evidence or suppressed it, presented the world with lies, and invaded Iraq inviolation of treaties that are the ‘Law of the Land’.
If its some obscure cite that is clearly left or right I dismiss it.
If it is some big time media conglomerate I dismiss it too…
If you are speaking about a cite that has someone who does actual research then I lend it more credence, but then I just kind of give it up because anytime someone actually does good research the swarms of critics seize upon the tiniest of details and rip apart all that hard work.
I’m sorry, I don’t get what you mean. What about being a realist means you can say both “All opinions are invalid” and “I have a strong opinion on this”? You can’t have it both ways.
When you say “someone who does actual research”, what do you mean, exactly? Journalists do research, or at least they’re supposed to. Could you give me some examples of some people you would be more willing to trust?
If you’re not willing to trust many sources (as it appears), where is it you get your opinions from? I mean, certainly people need to evaluate things themselves, but you need to get an idea of what’s going on from somewhere, short of going yourself.
Edit: On preview I see you’re citing a big time media conglomerate. I’m highly confused.
The UN tells Saddam not to have any WMDs. Saddam says OK and then goes about making his WMDs clandestine and portable and gets rid of all the WMDs he stored in his garage. There! Now Saddam didn’t have any WMDs, and all is groovy?
Exactly. Clinton was wrong about WMD so he bombed for four days. Bush was wrong about WMD and he invaded, costing us the lives of 3,800 plus Americans, the better part of a trillion taxpayer dollars, and at least tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.
You can read the CIA’s report here, which explains in great detail Johnny LA’s summary. There were no WMD in Iraq.
Partly because Clinton destroyed alot when he bombed thus teaching Saddam to keep his weapons programs mobile. Go into Syria and look at the “made in Iraq” tags on all those WMds over there for pete’s sake.
I don’t know about ManiacMan, but some posters on Free Republic actually seem to hold that intervention against Clinton – because the Albanians (and the Bosnians) are Muslims.
That isn’t a rational argument. There are perhaps a hundred thousand or more dead people in Iraq who would still be breathing right now if not for Bush’s fake war.
Are there any genocides that Bush hasn’t addressed?
Where do you propose we get those soldiers to make up your brilliant war plan? Will you sign up?
Whatever this actually meant, (such as, perhaps Aswad was merely the man in Pakistan who was designated to handle any communications between Hussein and al Qaida, if any occurred following the single unproductive meeting in the early 1990s), it is pretty clear from other evidence that it fails to demonstrate any real connection between Iraq and al Qaida after 2000–particularly in reference to the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
The very fact that the administration did not run screaming to the media with this “proof” indicates that they knew it was meaningless.
Based on this report, it would seem that it is possible that Aswad’s name was inserted into the paper by someone attmepting to sabotage the Ba’ath regime, making the issue even cloudier. Nevertheless, there has been no eveidence of any actual connection before or after that anonymous story that leads nowhere.
In a war? Did Congress ever declare war? Of course there was one anyway . . . But didn’t the war end before W landed on that carrier with the “Mission Accomplished!” banner?
You didn’t read a word of the CIA report, did you? There were no WMD when Clinton bombed in 1998. There were no WMD when Bush invaded in 2003. It’s all there, from the CIA, in black and white. It is a fact. Your speculation is wrong and you can’t provide any evidence of what you say. End of story.
