--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For one thing, does Iraq not producing WMD also mean that Iraq > > had no stockpiles of WMD? Does it also mean that Iraq was not > > retaining to capacity to restart WMD programs as soon as > > sanctions were lifted? Yes, Nick, it is complex. > > I couldn't disagree more. To me, no WMDs means no WMDs.
Suffice to say, I don't think most people see the Iraq situation so simplistically. > Our leaders are responsible to tell us the truth about all things, > but most of all when they're putting our troops in harm's way, > visiting death and destruction on another people. It doesn't > matter if their intent was the very best, there's > nothing "complex" about making statements that turn out to be > wrong. Call it an exaggeration,but it's not just a different > point of view, it's wrong. > False. Untrue. For all your posturing, the word "mistake" somehow never entered your lexicon. Or are you seriously suggesting that Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Blair, Aznar, et al. honestly believed that Iraq did not have WMD's? > Your question was, shall we say, complex? You said, "Chapter VII That was my point. The truth of the matter is the polls are funny things. Pollsters have long known that simply changing the order of questions in a poll can produce different results. Another of my favorite examples is that if you were to take a poll today, and asked only one question "For whose electors did you vote in the 2004 Presidential election?" you would probably get a percentage for George W. Bush that differed from the actual number by significantly more than the margin of error. In this case, if you asked a poll about facts that are unfavorable to the case for war with Iraq, you would get a result that would suggest that Democrats are more informed about the facts in the case for war than Republicans. On the other hand, if you ran a poll about facts (such as the one in my example) that are favorable to the case for war with Iraq, you would get a result that would suggest that Republicans are more informed about the facts in the case for war than Democrats. > And, um, if you agree that they had disarmed, though not in > public, then > don't you agree that our leaders told us things that weren't true > in order to justify this war? And I suppose that John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore *also* told us those thing in order to justify the war too, huh Nick? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
