-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
White House adviser resigns for demanding to know the truth
- Thread starter Namreg
- Start date
darkwarrior3007
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
I don't get it, are we not supposed to ask for the truth? I thought Americans lived in a democracy?:dunno:
Member2019
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
I think he did quite a bit more than that.
There is seeking the truth and there is being an off-the-wall lunatic in how you go about it. If you want someone to respect your character and integrity, you don't do the latter.
After all, one could argue that both Hans Blix and W. only wanted Iraq to, once and for all, declare and document what they actually had at every point in their history. You cannot refute the fact that Iraq did have huge stockpiles that were discovered as late at 1996, and inspectors were thrown out in 1998 when they received good intel of some caches. Clinton unilaterally bombed them after that (and missed most major targets too, looking like a baffoon). Remember, in 1995, the UN Security Council blocked inspections and the Clinton administrative "gave up" until 3 defections proved them wrong, and the subsequent stockpiles found in 1996.
Again, I don't think we should have invaded, because a lot of the intelligence for foreign, second-hand and hearsay -- all 5 years too late -- all very poor value. But people who argue that Iraq was a sovereign nation without any WMD history and reason for the US to suspect live in a dream world.
Which is the same thing here, only there's never been an ounce of evidence that anyone in this country was behind 9/11, much less the leadership. It's more of the result of poor US policy during the Reagan-Bush Sr. years in proxy war fighting the USSR, and the lack of attention Clinton paid to terrorists until 1998. So how far to you want to "seek the truth" here in a way that even justifies W.? And do it in a way that questions how you conduct yourself?
This is what drives me up the wall. People think, "oh, this guy is aligned with my views, so I'm going to let him conduct himself without the character that I expect my proponents to." I hate W. Never voted for him. But I say this guy is just as bad, if not worse, and that's the problem. Which even some in the Obama administration take issue with, which is why he is out. This is not some right-wing only decision. Stop blaming Fox News for exposing this guy, he was a problem on his own with his own party.
darkwarrior3007 -- this is a Democracy, but this guy went about his "fight" in a way that his own "friends" disagreed with.
darkwarrior3007
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
It was sarcasm not a question. Although I can see how the question mark would throw you off.
Member2019
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
And yet it was sarcasm made with a political agenda.
Unless, of course, you meant that you too believe he had too many issues with how he did it? If so, then I see your point. If not, it was my counter to the agenda.
darkwarrior3007
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
And yet it was sarcasm made with a political agenda.
Unless, of course, you meant that you too believe he had too many issues with how he did it? If so, then I see your point. If not, it was my counter to the agenda.
I have absolutely no political agendas. You're just seeing what you want to see.
Member2019
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
Then what did you mean? Assume I'm an idiot, explain it to me.
darkwarrior3007
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
Dude seriously, it's just a stupid sarcastic remark. That is all it is, nothing more nothing less. I tend to do that from time to time. It's not Republican or Democrat or Independent for that matter. Jesus Fucking Christ!:cussing:
Member2019
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
Now why is that?
I don't have a problem with your post, I already commented on it. But apparently you have a problem with my responding to your sarcasm. Now why is that?
And yet you make a sarcastic remark how seeking the truth in the way this man did is somehow directly related to Democracy, and I'm curious why you'd make such other than to suggest that this is all this man was doing? Hence my response.
I don't have a problem with your post, I already commented on it. But apparently you have a problem with my responding to your sarcasm. Now why is that?
Similar threads
