Date: 2008-02-28 10:38 pm (UTC)
"This is absolute ignorant, disingenuous and utterly wrong."

Don't presume to lecture me on what the weapons are.

"There ARE or ARE NOT weapons there."

This is true when discussing whether or not there was a treaty violation, but treaty violations were not the administration's stated purpose for invasion, and it is ignorant, disingenuous, and utterly wrong to imply that it was.

When discussing the case given for war, this statement is false dichotomy.

In fact, you make my point. The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is an all-inclusive rhetorical trick where Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld could stand at the podium and talk about impending mushroom clouds, and later say "yeah this toxic chemical that many many orders of magnitude less destructive than an atomic bomb, yeah that is exactly the same thing as the nucs we were scaring the shit out of everyone with before the war." Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, equine excrement.

"We cannot loose [sic],"

Too late.

Don't forget the lies to go with that continued failure.

Incidentally, all of your victory rhetoric gets old after a few years.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

razorjak: (Default)
BrickJAK

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526 272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 18th, 2025 02:53 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios