In Reply To:
[reply] Fine. Your intellectual laziness, along with your blind acceptance of whatever the WSJ opinion editors tell you, is noted for the record.[/reply]
It is not intellectual laziness, it is not permissable. To do that to an obvious troll who cannot even read what I said without putting words in my mouth would be the height of stupidity.
Kaplan is a partisan of the most obvious sort. To take anything he says as fact is shocking. I stated clearly that the WSJ article agreed with the intelligence, and I hope you have the sense to read through the lines here....
BTW, "fact" number two is not supported by the statements of the international community or the UN Resolutions. Read them before posting such unsupportable nonsense. You say "2. The War in Iraq was about EXISTING WMDs, NOT "programs" or "program-activities"." Well, the resolution says, "Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,"
End of discussion. Your "facts" are clearly without merit, and you are obviously a troll with nothing of use to say.
It would be helpful if some semblance of sentence structure, grammar, and paragraphs were utilized in your responses.
To me and others, you repeat nonsense about "putting words in [your] mouth", but I have done nothing of the sort. You earlier claimed I utilize "strawman arguments", again with no indication to what you refer. Perhaps a primer on logic would help you:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php Thank you for your selective post of the UN Resolution. Another pertinent part states:
2.
Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
You can find the whole resolution HERE:
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm You conveniently ignore that part and parcel of Resolution 1441 was the reintroduction of weapons inspectors to Iraq. As I referenced earlier in this thread, the inspectors were working in Iraq, finding nothing of significance just like our troops today. They left only because of Bush's 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam to leave and the imminence of war. If you are going to rely on UN Resolutions to support your statements, you can't pick and choose only those parts of the Resolution and its enforcement mechanism that suit you.
"End of Discussion"? OK. Class dismissed.