> So, Dr. Brin, would you say that John Kerry and Bill > Clinton also, quote, > "NEVER expected to find WMD" in Iraq? They're > both on the record as > being convinced that Iraq had such WMD's as well.
If I weren't sick of your sophistry I would ask to see the proof. In any event, it's ridiculous. W put the country & the world into full-throated screeching panic over imminent use of WMD by a man who had plenty of em and every intention to use them, without a scintilla of evidence. If K & BC said there were some bits of gas here and there, they did NOT run screeching for a war that has at every level harmed OUR interests. > > After all, we know that Saddam Hussein had WMD's - > he had used them in the > past. To believe that Saddam Hussein had no WMD's > is to believe that > Saddam Hussein had spent somewhere around 10 years > hiding them from UN > weapons inspectors, and then had them destroyed > himself - without telling > anyone, and without anyone knowing! Prior to > 2003, almost no serious > observer who was familiar with the intelligence > believed this. It is true that most intelligence officials thought that he HAD to have SOME old gas lying around. Nothing worth a screeching fit over, but all thought there had to be some. In fact, he had none. At all. He was DESPERATELY trying to prove it but no one would listen. > It is not necessary for your political opponents to > be evil in all > respects, Dr. Brin. Again, truly despicable. If you do this again, I willescalate from that word to far better language to describe someone who, knowing full better, tries to cram such evil misrepresentations down my throat. In this case, the worst that > can be said of Bush, > Blair, Clinton, and Kerry is that having seen Saddam > Hussein use WMD's in > the past, they were all too willing to make definite > conclusions based on > intelligence that appeared to reinforce their > preconceived notions. Except you lump human beings with an utter lying moron monster. whose colleagues HELPED Saddam murder his own people and a million iranians. > >Who never once offered an olive branch to the > MAJORITY > > of Americans who voted against them in 2000. > > As opposed to the olive branch Bill Clinton offered > the majority of > Americans who voted against him in 1993? ANother complete sophistry. 1) A majority did NOT vote against BC. He had a clear plurality. 2) He did include many republicans and professionals. E.g. Reich, Ruben, etc. Many liberals complained that he reached out much too far. The DLC is an organization of moderates. I won't convince you, but everybody else knows it. Now go away. I have dropped Brin: from the subject header. Your behavior stinks with panic. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
