Quote:
Originally posted by Rodeo
I dont have a "Bush lied core belief." If I did, I would have a pretty thin "core." You have never inquired about the whole "Bush lied" thing, so I'll assume you just want to trot it out to dodge difficult issues, as you just did.
You sidestepped the issue, twice. Second guessing is one thing. Saying you would not shoot that guy in the heart all over again if you knew he was holding a hair dryer is another.
Apparently, that simple premise escapes you.
|
No, it does not escape me, Rodeo. I have not sidestepped anything. I simply refuse to play the "what would you have done if you had known this...?" game. I'm more grounded in reality than that. I'm able to look at what we knew at the time and tell you what I would have done with that knowledge. I would have attacked.
So you think we know better now. Based on what you choose to sift out of the information that has come to light since we attacked, you claim you would not have attacked. How incredibly disingenious. You are basing your arguments on what we should have done in light of information we did not have, and somehow you think that is valid. Stick to what we knew at the time. These recently released papers were available to our decision-makers at that time. They give further support for the decision they made. Continuing to ignore them and pretend they do not exist, refusing to discuss them, only further detracts from your credibility. Pressing the issue by continually asking what I would have done if I had known "X" is simply childish. It's a game of make-believe, no more.