News WMDs were a bureaucratic reason for war

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
You mean lies and misdirection...like the entire first paragraph of the article that this entire thread is based on? is that what you mean!?

No, I mean like the first two years of the Bush 'presidency'.

The U.S. decision to stress the threat posed by Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction above all others was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons to justify the war, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in remarks released on Wednesday.
Wolfowitz, seen as one of the most hawkish figures in the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, said President Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons was merely one of several reasons behind the decision to go to war.

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in Vanity Fair magazine's July issue.

QUOTE]

Show me the lie in that?

 

[kat]

Zero-
Are you trying to misdirect us by referring to more then the first paragraph?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Typo...I mean radicalized...which I am now unsure is actually a word.

Ahh. Ok, good. Because I'd never heard of "racialized" so I looked it up. It means "To perceive or experience in racial terms."

But, what if the details are lies and misdirection? What if the emphasis is put on a completely minor point?

If the details are lies then that's wrong. But I don't think the details WERE lies.

Oh, and I'm glad, yet again, that you are so willing to throw away legality and morality to suit you.

Hmm. No. I am quite possibly the most moral person you have ever met. And I really mean that. You thoroughly and consistently misread/misinterpret/mischaracterize my posts.

And kat - go get 'im,

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Zero-
Are you trying to misdirect us by referring to more then the first paragraph?

What, did I post 3 paragraphs?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ahh. Ok, good. Because I'd never heard of "racialized" so I looked it up. It means "To perceive or experience in racial terms."

If the details are lies then that's wrong. But I don't think the details WERE lies. Hmm. No. I am quite possibly the most moral person you have ever met. And I really mean that. You thoroughly and consistently misread/misinterpret/mischaracterize my posts.

And kat - go get 'im,

Well, it seems like you simply funnel the lies that come from the RNC...not your fault, if the media does it, why shouldn't you? Sorry, if I channel my anger towards them at you...I'll try my best to curb it in the future.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

1. WMD
2. Terrorism
3. Regime change
4. Regional stability (oil if you wish)

You forgot 5. Invading Kuwait in 1990 !
That's the only legitimate one. (1 doesn't exist, 2 is a cynical dream, 3 is redundant, 4 is a joke unless you think regional stability is kids playing in nuclear waste and angry Muslims)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Sigh, ok.

1. WMD
2. Terrorism
3. Regime change
4. Regional stability (oil if you wish)

You were close, but you didn't quite have it.

I didn't say that I stated all the reasons. I just typed what was on the top of my head.
I listed terrorism ("link to al queda"), and I listed WMD as two separate categories--chem/bio and nuclear.

I suppose that you could take up issue with my counting, because you listed WMDs as one reason, whereas I separated it into two, but that has nothing to do with getting the issues right.

No, because anyone who had paid attention would have heard ALL FOUR reasons cited publicly on many occasions. I didn't make them up and I didn't hear them from the voices inside my head. Again, that quote said they FOCUSED on one reason - but they certainly listed the others. This is the most basic of all debate tactics: List all of your arguements, then focus on the one you believe is strongest to go into detail. And remember, "strongest" is not what is most morally justified or legally right, or whatever. "Strongest" is the one that will sway the most opinions. Big difference.

Of those reasons, freeing the Iraqis and regional stability were mentioned rather peripherally, although the "freeing the iraqis" part was stepped up a bit when they realized that a lot of people were not buying the other reasons.

Regional stability was only mentioned in that they thought that having a "democracy" (really a republic) in the Middle East would cause a domino effect ([sarcasm]much like Turkey has caused[/sarcasm]).

In the beginning of the campaign to sell the war, regional stability was not listed, except as it related to WMD.

I never heard officials say that removing troops from Saudi Arabia was a reason. I think that it is one of the better reasons, but it was not mentioned, and that's what my beef with that is.

I don't think that I can really say any more about the quote, without reading my own implications in it.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero

Oh, and in the context of his entire career, and the current philosophy of teh neocons, lying IS acceptable, anything is acceptable, to achieve the goals of the radicalized right-wing.

What typo??, it say raDicalized, not racialized, it was a read error I would respectfully suggest, aside from that, it is a word as far as I know, to "turn into a radical".

Anyways, scuze my buttin in...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
What typo??, it say raDicalized, not racialized, it was a read error I would respectfully suggest, aside from that, it is a word as far as I know, to "turn into a radical".

Anyways, scuze my buttin in...

LOL, if you look close, you'll see I edited it after he posted...it WAS a typo, and I fixed it.