From: "Mark" 


"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:4359ab14{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:43599f1f{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
>> news:435995bc{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Bush knew a lot of this to begin with, hence the lying part...  I know
>>> you don't agree, but you know I don't agree with you about it either.
>>
>> That's more pure conjecture, and you know it.
>>
>>> We really ought to just can discussions like this as none of us are
>>> going to change anyone else's mind.
>>
>> Can't argue with that, I could be lying, but I think I mostly enter these
>> threads after a new post is entered falsely claiming (yet again, with the
>> same lack of evidence) that Bush is lying -- when those false claims stop
>> coming, my refutation won't be necessary.
>>
>>>You choose to trust Bush, fine, that's okay, but at least understand why
>>>we might not.
>>
>> Trusting in his doctrine and his implementation of same is one thing,
>> certainly I can understand a pacifist not wanting to go along with
>> that --  but to then take it out to the illogical conclusion along the
>> lines of: "well, he's a war mongering chimp and he lies
besides" in
>> effort to refute that doctrine is, quite simply nonsensical.
>>
>
> Which may be why so few say that. More will say that he was too quick to
> make a rash judgment with apparently selective intelligence while ignoring
> or downplaying intelligence that disagreed with the Administrations
> viewpoint.

They may say that, and it's still conjecture. But, point taken on the
previous point, most don't use such harsh terms, not overtly anyway


>> If you think the world would be better off with Saddam in power, that we
>> should just roll over and not "stir things up" in the
world, just say so,
>> don't try to undermine our foreign policy by interjecting the
"Bush lied"
>> pomposity at every turn (and yes, Bob, I know you're not a primary
>> offender in that regard)
>>
>>
>>
>
> Simply because one doesn't like the war or the methods use doesn't
> indicate that they think the world would be better off with Saddam still
> in power. That's about as accurate as my saying you obliviously think the
> world is better off with the Communist Chinese in power as you haven't
> called for the US to change their regime.

If I thought we could win, I would. Perhaps we could have won that one (or
not needed to, and still may not -- see below), had not the usual suspects
undermined our efforts in Vietnam, That false, "Uncle Walter"
induced loss, coupled with Jimmy Carter's wimpshit handling of the hostage
crisis some 7 years later in Iran set us on the course we're playing now.


That said, the idea of freedom is unstoppable, as long as the world can see
that it hasn't been abandoned by the United States. Bush has proven beyond
a shadow of a doubt that we have not abandoned that end -- that is the
underlying long-term message behind the 25M Afghanis and 25M Iraqis voting
and pursuing freedom.

On the bright side, as a result of the Bush Doctrine, or perhaps merely
encouraged by it, China will come around on their own, they've not got any
choice, their people can get around the firewalls and see that we're in the
world freedom business, even if our own opposing party citizens cannot


--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5