www.ditl.org

You called CNN liberal, I have demonstrated that the debate panel shown was far from liberal by providing definitions of the word and constrating those definitions with the actions and words of the debate panel. Stop dancing around semantics of "well I didn't mean that sort of liberal" and respond to the point made.

I will do no such thing. I see no need to go fishing for your red herrings.

Your definitions are invalid in the obvious context of discussion, and your attempt to cover your misunderstanding, intentional or otherwise, with bluster and accusation is futile.

If you would care to return to the topic and "stop dancing around" the point of a leftist media and poor treatment of the topic of atheism not being contradictory, you are welcome to do so.

Bluster ignored, concession accepted.

The original topic was one of whether the Bush administration lied to Congress, the UN, and SIS in order to get their war. I post a rebuttal to you back on page two that you have yet to respond to:

Captain Seafort wrote:

DSG2k wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:Considering that you decry an organisation that backed up Bush's insane delusions about Saddam as leftist without providing any proof and continuely blast the US based media as "liberal" despite being called on it with evidence on SFJ. Yeah I'd say your delusional,

1. "Decry {...} as leftist":

I simply made a brief note that it is amusing that Bush gets accused of being a lying warmonger when Clinton and his people (including those Bush did not replace) gave us the info about Iraq. Do you not find your accusation contradictory in the slightest?

The article states repeatedly that Saddam had neither nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, that the CIA briefed Bush on these facts, and were ignored. Both the October 2002 NIE and Powell's briefing to the UN stated that Saddam possed WMD. How can these two facts produce any other conclusion than that the Bush administration deliberately lied to Congress and SIS in order to get their war?

2. "without providing any proof":

If you don't pay any attention to the news, then why are you espousing opinions on it? Were you not watching during the Plame affair at all?

Saying "you should watch more news" and "it's obvious" does not consitute evidence. If you believe that leaving out intelligence from an NIE that contradicts the administration's assertions, and lying outright to the intelligence service of your closest ally in order to keep them on-side for your administration's war consitutes being left-wing, then yes the CIA is left wing. Those actions do not, however, in any way match any definition of "left wing" that I am aware of.

3. "despite being called on it with evidence":

What the hell are you talking about? On this very forum I demonstrated that journalists break left, that they call themselves left (re: Ted Turner), and the only counterclaim was the use of ultra-leftist MoveOn.org which tells us that the media isn't left enough. Well whooptee-do.

Of course these are the same MoveOn.org types who recently felt it necessary to publicly slander General Petraeus (who was unanimously appointed by left and right alike) because the surge is working and he was about to report such to Congress. We can't have the US winning at anything or good in any way, now can we?

You did not demonstrate anything of the sort. You brought up examples to support your point of view, I brough up examples to support mine, you attacked the source of my examples (MediaMatters, not MoveOn) without any attempt to refute the argument and I, being from the other side of the pond, backed off because I don't have an intricate knowledge of the US media. You also avoided my demonstration that comparing Vietnam and Iraq is a bad idea due to the completely different circumstances and the fact that the US was in a position to win the Vietnam War, whereas in Iraq it is not.

Lets finish this one off.

Yes, he knew there were no WMD.
No, he didn't care, he was looking for a fight.
Yes, congress turned him down from declaring war.
No, that didn't stop him, he just used Ex Powers.

Deepcrush wrote:Yes, congress turned him down from declaring war.
No, that didn't stop him, he just used Ex Powers.

Wrong - Congress specifically authorised the war. (Resolution.) The point raised by the article is that the authorisation was given based on the belief that Saddam posed an NBC threat, a belief that Bush encouraged desite knowing that it was false.

Captain Seafort wrote:Bluster ignored, concession accepted.

Like hell. Refusing to play your semantic games does not equal concession . . . you're changing the topic to one that is irrelevant in an effort to avoid the discussion in progress.

I'm not here to play such games. Take your toys and go home.

(By the way, did Mattel make that Semantic Obfuscator 2000 you used? Check and see if it has Chinese lead in it! There's a recall.

Just tryin' to help.)

I post a rebuttal to you back on page two that you have yet to respond to:

Your post was not worthy of reply. It provided no new information or argument . . . just the same "but, but, he's evil!" Bush Derangement Syndrome opinion piece.

But if your ego requires my attention, I'll be kind:

Preface:

As previously noted, what we're told in the article is that someone was told, second-hand, that Bush was apprised of the existence of a source which said Iraq did not have WMDs.

This source's claim ran contrary to the intelligence being provided and believed and reported elsewhere by the guy who supposedly apprised Bush of the guy's existence, George Tenet, and his Central Intelligence Agency. Further, we know from other sources (previously referenced) that the source's statements were mishandled, so that what Tenet had was that the source said they did not yet have nukes, but had everything else and were working actively on getting nukes.

So one guy thinks Bush heard one thing from Tenet, yet Tenet himself believed something else per all his statements, and his own CIA was reporting that the guy's source was saying something a bit different.

Yet you still think Bush knew there weren't WMDs and went in anyway, considering this an impeachable offense and Bush a liar. What's wrong with you?

(Indeed, there's a recent flap in the lefty blogosphere wherein supposedly the Spanish president was told by Bush that Saddam had offered via Egypt to step down right before the war if he was paid a billion bucks, and if he got to take his WMD information with him! Great, another AQ Khan, but dumber and richer.

Point being, though, that this supposed magic source which to your mind Bush heard almost directly from and believed in was actively contradicted by Tenet's CIA and by Saddam himself, both in regards to his games with inspectors and even his attempts to make a run for it. Yet you still think Bush knew there weren't WMDs and went in anyway, considering this an impeachable offense and Bush a liar. What's wrong with you?)

Response:

Both the October 2002 NIE and Powell's briefing to the UN stated that Saddam possed WMD.

As of 2002 (it's different now), the NIE came from the CIA. In other words, Tenet. Oh yeah, who was sitting behind Powell (then of the State Department) at the UN? Tenet. Guess where Powell's info came from?

In other words, you're claiming that Bush orchestrated a government lie.
You claim he knew the whole time that Saddam had nothing whatsoever, but that he wanted Saddam's head on a plate (or oil or sexual favors from Halliburton or whatever conspiracy theory you can come up with) and therefore constructed from scratch the WMD thing.

I'm saying . . . with evidence . . . that Saddam's attempts to bluff his way into the nuclear club were supported within the US by the CIA's intel which argued that he had non-nuclear WMDs and an advanced nuclear program.

That's why we went in.

Tenet himself backs me on this, along with all known facts. You've got some dudes claiming hearsay from Tenet that contradicts Tenet's own words and stated beliefs.

And you wonder why I didn't think your post worthy of reply? You didn't even know that the NIE was a CIA product, obviously, or else you'd have paid attention to the talk about the CIA that went on.

Then at the end, you gave a spun version of our last sparring regarding your use of Soros-funded lefty net-nuts as evidence that the US media doesn't break far enough left (MoveOn, MediaMatters, it doesn't much matter which), which you considered proof that the US media is not leftist.

You claim that I did not attempt to refute your argument, which suggests that you failed to realize that I already had done so.

If you called me a conservative and I responded by pointing to the opinion of IWantMyGunsChewinTobackerAndBeerAndMyWomenBarefootandPregnerntInTheKitchen.com saying I wasn't conservative enough, do you really think I just made a worthwhile argument? No . . . it's pre-refuted for your convenience. Pointing out the nature of your so-called "evidence" was all that was required.