And this post, from page 22 (January 26, 2004) of the It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic:

http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=204167&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=22&vc=1

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

whomod said:
Bush chose evidence that had already been discredited, to present to the American people. Evidence that was known to be false long before he presented it to the American people as PROOF of our imminent doom.


.
Wrong again.
.
Bush presented--and made clear he was presenting--evidence that we received from British intelligence which, at the time, the British believed to be accurate. In fact, Britain still stands by that intelligence.
.
So, other than your own emotional reaction, you don't have one shred of actual evidence that Bush deliberately misled anyone.


.
That's what bothers me about what Whomod is saying (and many other liberals as well ), voicing a relentless stream of unproven allegations against Bush, as if they are facts.
.
I don't have a problem with voicing the possibility of wrongdoing under any President, investigating, and asking tough questions.
But I do have a problem with slander, relentlessly saying these allegations as if they were proven, to the point that the uninformed actually believe that these allegations are proven.
That's deliberate and bitter misrepresentation.
.
No proof of "blood for oil".
No proof of "Bush fought the Iraq war for his father".
No proof of "Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened" (as Dean alleges).
No proof that Bush and Cheney gave the contract to Halliburton through cronyism.
No proof of a war profiteering motive by Bush's administration, to allegedly get themselves rich.
No proof that Bush's White House leaked information about ambassador Wilson.
And ultimately, no proof that Bush deceived the public in any way to persuade the nation to invade Iraq.
.
Allegations, not facts.
.
And relentlessly asserting these allegations as if they were facts is inflammatory and divisive.



And this post from page 21 (January 25, 2004) of the same topic:

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Rob Kamphausen said:
Quote:

whomod said:
I think that is part of the reason it's become a question of partisanship rather than a question of intelligence and fact.


.
no, the reason its become a question of partisanship is because everytime someone disagrees with you, you say something similar to:
.
Quote:

whomod said:
you support Bush because of an unflailing, unwavering, partisanship and not because ...yadda yadda.


.
why you'd still think that, i'm not sure. i believe many of us "pro-dubyers" (??) have all freely said we would have rather have had mccain in office. i believe many of us "blind george lovers" have said we strongly disagreed with some of his calls (like nasa spending or gay marriage stances or the illegal alien decisions, etc, etc). i believe many of us "flag waving supporters" have clearly shown we're anything but.
.
i shouldn't have to point out all the situations where i agree or disagree with the president to clarify whether or not i'm capable of making up my own mind. reading through this forum, or even just this thread, you'll see dozens of instances where you can get a handle on our views.
.
this is such a strong partisan division because you are making it out to be.
.
in reality, this is simply a disagreement, and (should be) nothing more.
.
Quote:

whomod said:
I'd feel better about that if I were given reasons of why Bush earns your trust.


.
but we've given those reasons. 20 pages worth. you disagreeing with them is one thing. thats fine. you ignoring them and stating they have no basis simply because you're ignoring them and feel they have no basis is silly.
.
we don't like or agree with your viewpoint, but we respect that you have one, and respect that its different. i think you'll find the conversation flow much smoother were some of that respect returned.
.
Quote:

whomod said:
Now I know Sadaam was bad and everyone feels rather good about him being deposed. Again, I'm not discussing that. I'm discussing assertions made exactly one year ago today that Iraq couldn't wait because we were in immimnent danger from him.


.
a valid gripe.
.
if anything, i'm frustrated over the lack of wmds, and the "egg on your face" outlook it gives. but i still agree with and support the decision, even above and beyond the "iraq is now free" sentiment.
.
i feel the story broke down like this:
.
the world knew saddam's iraq was a bad place. for decades. we hadn't done anything (major) because there wasn't an imminent need (for us).
.
9-11 hits.
.
the world changes. view points change. realities change. things taken for granted change. this was now a world where silly bad people in funny sounding countries who made threats had to be looked at seriously.
.
saddam was that target. not that he had any direct link to 9-11, but a very strong indirect link. judging by his own past, and the future of this changed new world we live in, i find it perfectly acceptable to believe he could be the next osama, and help plan the next 9-11. accurate or not, i find zero fault with that suspicion.
.
fact: we knew that he had wmd's. we had discovered and encountered them, first hand. we knew that he had the gusto to use them. we knew that he hated the US. we knew he had the ability to hide them with incredible skill (due to blix's inability to discover enormous stockpiles despite nearly 20 years of searching).
.
all of these facts were not simply based on bush, or US intelligence. this was a common knowledge, spreading throughout the globe. everyone from france to russia to japan to canada "knew" there was stuff going on in there -- completely separate from the bush admin.
.
the UN knew saddam had things he shouldn't. that's why there were inspectors in the first place. there are large amounts of chemicals and weapons that the UN (not the US) has on record of being in iraq that are, somehow, missing. tons of items that are unaccountable, to this day. again, [known ] completely separate from the bush admin.
.
adding all of that with the 9-11 outlook (with the US, of course, bearing the brunt), and you have your [ basis for ] iraq invasion -- which was based on many things, including and highlighting iraq's decade of UN rebellion.
.
yes, i agree, the "urgency" viewpoint was based on the wmd belief. and yes, that urgency may turn out to have been misguided.
.
but even assuming that, because of the events that led to the decision, i do not fault it. i do not feel it's a cover up. i do not see it as a lie. i do not feel the bush admin is the scourge of the planet -- especially when the planet shared with the viewpoint.
.
and to you, thats all blind loyalty.
.
i'm hoping you now see otherwise.


.
I agree with this post so strongly, I wish I could make it my signature.
.
Outstanding post, Rob.