You're the one talking about "oh he's just talking in future tense or past tense and that's why....." and putting all these qualifiers into his speech. But I'm the one playing semantic games? Ok.
I read the congressional reports, and the reports from various news media outlets. And what did Kay say when the senators asked him for specific evidence of weapons or weapons program? "I believe evidence will be found" or "Saddam was deceived and there was nothing." When asked whether or not Saddam was a dangerous threat and definitely wanted to pursue WMD, what did he say? "Oh definitely. Without a doubt." But they were also followed up by these reductionist bits of illogic. Saddam used weapons and wanted weapons before right, so he obviously must have wanted them now correct? Yes, definitely senator. Over and over and over again. Yet when asked for specifics and asked about myriad situations, Kay repeatedly stated, "Oh saddam was deceieved about his own programs and weapons. Their society was corrupt. Yea those weapons didn't exist. They weren't there. We believe they had the capability to make small weapons, but we don't know."
I am concerned about the facts. But comments like these,
I personally think we're going to find program activities, and some of them are quite substantial, as in the missile area. We're not going to find large stockpiles.
after making a statement
We found that the Iraqi government, particularly Saddam Hussein and his senior leadership, had an intention to continue to pursue their WMD activities; that they, in fact, had a large number of WMD program-related activities.
do not ease my mind in any way shape or form. "I think we're going to find program activities" and "We found... an intention to continue to pursue their WMD activities" are two different statements. If you want to parse his language and say "Well in one statement he was talking in past tense and in another statement he's talking in future tense" and say that that's why they do not contradict one another, then who is really playing the role of political animal?
You know, it's funny. Epicstruggle called me a liar who couldn't keep my facts straight in one thread about the british finding WMD in the desert. So I pull up a link that shows that first of all it was the danish army, and second that they thought it was blister agent and it turned out to be nothing. I get no apology. You call me a fool in this thread, and it turns out you weren't even talking about the article I was discussing. No apology. Epicstruggle then says that I obviously only care about Bush's Vietnam record because I believe that it's Kerry who's going to win, and he challenges me to "admit" my bias and the bias of democrats. I then pull up tons of quotes of my own writing, where I touch on that very subject and my distaste for the "politics as usual" that is going on with something I personally deem to be rather insignificant. Do I get an apology or retraction? Nope. Legion in another thread makes about 15 statements that he says I made, and says I'm just trying to "mask" things with my language. I showed him absolute proof that I never made any of those statements. Do I get any retraction or apology for the litany of accusations? Nope, none at all. Democoder has made assertion after assertion regarding posts of mine in the past, without proof whatsoever. When I expose his statements, do I ever get an apology for his personal attacks? Nope, never.
I'm just finding it comical that you're now just trying to put the "oh you're just a political animal who doesn't care about the facts" label on me. Isn't that the one epicstruggle tried to place on me in the other thread without much success? Typical I suppose.
