Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaadverse
I don't know what you call saying I lack a moral or ethical compass, I take it personally. It wasn 't a victim card, it was a comment. There was no reason for it, it added nothing to the discussion. you made the remark to my posting that If Saddam and the UN simply followed the rules that each Party agreed to, or If 41 had won a second term, it would have made the whole exercise unnecessary. It is a fact, and I pointed out your criticism about caring about the rule of law had a big blind spot. They both broke a law, the reasons was corruption to circumvent the agreement. Considering the circumstances, he was justified to demand compliance.
You want to ignore that and rant, fine. I look at it that Bush really wanted the UN to step up. He didn't want to go without the UN approval. You can go with the cherry picking intelligence and illegal wire taps. and all the rest if you want, You never answered my original points, didn't even know people died and were infected from the Anthrax. Saying it's irrelevant is exactly that. I'm not sure how you can state you are for the rule of law and leave my original points unanswered.
|
you seem to confuse conjecture with "fact".
the issues you bring up, the terrorist attacks, the anthrax attacks, hussein circumventing the un mandates on trade, the un watchdogs profiteering on those madates....thay have no, repeat NO bearing on the decision of the bush administration to violate american laws on domestic spying, or their conduct in disseminating disinformation and false rumours in order to provide justification for their acts.
that you continue to repeat the guilt of others as somehow granting a pass to the bush administration for their transgressions is why you lack a compass. not once have you attempted to show that the bush administration is not guilty (a good choice as they are not defensible), you merely say "but the other guys were guilty" as if this excuses the bush administration of their guilt.
it doesn't.