And under your parameters, if the only person on the planet with a doubt was a penguin hunter at the South Pole, who scratched his chin while watching the news one night and mused to himself, "Hmmm, I don't know".... then you would still have the "AHA! Bush lied!" line in full use.
GTFOH. There is no doubt, I've seen smarter things than you fall out of a turtle's ass.
To borrow a line; Yes, you are THAT stupid.
And Obama knew he was lying. I knew it. Anyone with a brain knew it. I was just saying in this very forum, just in September, that everyone who had a catastrophic type policy wouldn't meet the individual mandate requirements, whether they liked it or not. That was obvious to anyone who thought about the issue for more than 3 seconds, which apparently wouldn't include you.
Yes, you are THAT stupid.
So... I am sorry you cannot bring yourself to see that when President Bush stood in front of America and said "there is no doubt" concerning Saddam's STOCKPILES of weapons of mass destruction, even though he was well briefed on loads of doubts concerning that very subject, he was misleading us to believe that Saddam's stockpiles were an unassailable fact of nature. I am sorry... because obviously, you would have been a cheerleader for the Iraq war even if stockpiles of WMD's were not the issue, and you cannot see or admit to the fact that many Americans were not all that dead set on the subject of invading Iraq.
For many Americans, payback for 9/11, combined with fear of it happening again, was top on THEIR agenda. I am not going to take the time to go do the research again on this because it is old news, and it is late, and I am ready for bed..... but there was a poll taken - I THINK it was by Pew - that asked Americans who was responsible for 9/11. In the late fall/early winter of 2001-2, a huge majority of Americans KNEW that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible. By the spring of 2003, as nearly large a majority of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible. How did that happen? Who brainwashed America into that false thinking? If you combine a majority of people who believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11... and you toss onto that huge pile of folks, the CERTAINTY that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's - maybe even the kind that can cause "mushroom clouds" (GASP!), and you add onto THAT, the suggestion that Saddam's folks actually met with Muhammed Atta - the top dog hijacker - in the months leading UP TO 9/11.... well then, with all of that feeding America's fear and its desire for revenge, war against Iraq is a pretty easy proposition to sell to America. But if all of those LIES and INNUENDOES were not piled onto an angry and frightened American public, would there have been a majority of Americans who thought invading Iraq - who had fuck all to do with 9/11 - was a smart move to make in lieu of concentrating all of our intel and military assets on the task of rooting out and defeating Al Qaeda around the globe?
I am not that stupid... in fact, I am not stupid at all. I have a high IQ...I went to a top shelf service academy... I had a stellar career in the US Navy... I had another career with a major northeastern utility... I've been a UCC interim minister... I have been a speechwriter for statehouse politicians... I am not dumb. I simply - and honestly - look at the war in Iraq - especially given my service with the UN in the middle east - and I think it was ill advised to begin it. And once it began, it chewed up an INCREDIBLE amount of treasure, time, toil AND blood, and I don't think that all that cost moved us anywhere near as far down the path of confronting and defeating Islamic extremism than if we had, instead, spent that treasure time toil and blood on activities and strategies that actually confronted and defeated Islamic extremism.
I am - I will proudly admit - a lifelong liberal democrat. But, I have always felt that partisan politics should stop at the water's edge. I would have been as vehemently opposed to the Iraq war - started by a republican - as I was to the Vietnam war - escalated by a democrat - as I would have been if the parties were reversed in both cases.
So... I tried to take the high ground with you on this post and not rise to the bait that your insults provided. What would you say to the two of us agreeing to stop that silly shit and converse on a higher, more respectful ground?
It's up to you. I can play it either way... but it is clear which one I prefer.
