Posted on 09/04/2002 2:13:49 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
Senator Bill Nelson of Florida was just interviewed live by John Gibson. Astronaut Bill told Gibson he was in meetings with the Secretary of Defense today and Donald Rumsfeld has made no case against Iraq.
Bill says the American people will support an attack against Iraq, but the President must offer proof of Iraq's danger.
Nelson didn't offer any explanation on how to respond to Iraq's repeated violations of the terms of the Gulf War, or his Party's President Clinton's weak (non-existent) response to world wide terrorism.
Of course, John Gibson didn't ask him, either.
Only a moron would believe that.
Correction, it appears that a lot of morons actually believe that.
These people are AGAINST WAR. PERIOD. They don't want a war at all with Iraq, for any reason whatsoever. But instead of having the guts to come out and say this (which would earn them a bit of respect from me, at least), they dance around and throw out this "hasn't made the case" stuff. I guess it's encouraging because these people do, at least, seem to realize that "I just don't want any wars!" isn't going to quite cut it with the American public. Thus they know that they need some other excuse to oppose a war, ergo this "hasn't made the case" stuff.
The problem is that in the process of repeating "hasn't made the case" over and over again, the antiwar people give the impression that there is something Bush could actually say which would make them support a war on Iraq, which (of course) is completely false. There is nothing Bush could feasibly, plausibly do or say which would make these people support a war on Iraq. Nothing. But by pretending that their main problem is that the "case" "hasn't been made" the antiwar people get to pretend that they're more reasonable and thoughtful than they actually are.
If you try to rationally break down the argument of most of these people, you'll notice that they basically grant 99% of the pro-war peoples' arguments about everything from Saddam's evilness to whether he's making WMDs to whether he's in violation of UN resolution XYZ to whether he or his weapons could be linked to terrorism. You can throw all the information out there and the pacifists would just nod and say "Yes, but Bush still needs to Make The Case." The impression is thus formed that the knee-jerk pacifist faction consists primarily of a bunch of short attention span MTV watchers; they don't argue with you, they have no dispute with your facts, but they need Bush to give some sort of snazzy PowerPoint presentation on TV about the "case" for war against Iraq, condensing all the evidence and arguments into a 7-minute segment between commercials, in order to be able to make up their minds.
Now, to be fair, this isn't so. It isn't so that the antiwar-pacifist faction is so infantile as this. What they are is disingenuous, because when they keep saying "Bush hasn't made the case", it's not true that a sufficiently slick PowerPoint presentation would convince them. Nothing would convince them!
In short, when they say Bush "hasn't made the case" and imply that there is some sort of "case" he could make, they're just plain lying. In reality they just don't want to seem as unreasonable and dogmatic as they in fact are. And for the most part they'll get away with it. That's what galls me.
I always wonder how such stupid and dishonest people keep getting elected (but then I watch TV for a few minutes, and the answer becomes obvious. The average IQ in this country is about 70, much lower in Florida and California).
Someone should have informed Sen. Nelson that Sec. Rumsfeld's press conferences are televised and that any American who tuned in to hear him over the last few weeks heard him make the case against Saddam. Nelson's a liar.
Take the time to listen to what Bush, Cheney and Powell have actually said.
Most vaguely realize that the Saddam is absolutely hated by the majority in his own country but most don't realize that only Bush's politcal opponents have publicly talked of invasion.
Until I hear Scocroft, Kissinger, Schwartzkopf et al say we've got a damn good case against Iraq and we better get in there now, I too will remain skeptical.
He will soon have nucleur weapons. He already has lots of biological and chemical weapons. He gassed his own people, and sponsors terrorists set out to destroy America.
Gee, to think I always thought of myself as below average intelligence. Maybe I could become a brain surgeon after all.
No, they don't. Kissinger was completely misrepresented by the New York Times. And that "et al" which you blithely throw out there doesn't really include anyone, now, does it? (I just love it when people try to make a tiny list seem longer by adding "et al" to the end of it. How about "etc" and three dots? You could try that too, you know, just for variety...)
Nice try, though.
Every day the list grows longer
No, it doesn't. Did it get longer yesterday? How so? Who was added to the list? Lemme know.
Rumor has it even Bush I is included in this esteemed group.
Oh wow..."rumor has it"... that's really something to go on. Ok then I agree, war w/Iraq is a bad idea.
Until I hear Scocroft, Kissinger, Schwartzkopf et al
You mean ScoWcroft? (There's a "W" in there.) Funny, if you respect his opinion so much one would think you would know his name.
I would also like to know where exactly you get the idea that Schwartzkopf is against the war. Source?
As for "et al"... it's not a magic term that makes all lists longer. Sorry.
The Sudan-Iraq-Afghanistan Alliance: and the Russian connection (America's enemies unveiled)
Earlier US airplane hijack plot first uncovered in Philippines: police
And this:
And this:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.