[jeskibuff]

Originally Posted by DUH

Such anger, Jesk;

Anger? You bet. I find it absolutely unbelievable that someone can be so voluntarily stupid as you liberals. I find it ghastly that you would choose to undermine the security of our nation with your hairbrained notions simply because you want to maintain the security of your selfish agendas. It would be okay if your stupid notions only affected yourselves, but they affect everyone. If you want to destroy yourself, then that's your choice, but don't take the rest of the country with you. Yes, it angers me when people are so utterly selfish and self-centered.

Originally Posted by DUH

tell me again, where are those weapons of mass destruction the Bush administration warned us about 935 times?

I painfully sat through the movie "Zoolander" a couple weeks ago. I'm glad I didn't pay to see it. It had a couple of funny parts in it ("Prime Rib of Propecia" made me laugh), but for the most part the absolutely stupid characters played by Ben Stiller (and Will Ferrell) remind me too much of liberals. The characters are supposed to be larger-than-life and fictitious, but unfortunately such people exist in real life.

At one point in the movie, Ben Stiller ("Derek Zoolander") meets David Duchovny's character (J.P.Prewitt) in a cemetery. "Derek" asks "But why male models?", wondering why sinister masterminds use unwitting male models to carry out assassinations. Prewitt goes into a thorough explanation which makes complete sense (in the context of the movie plot) and satisfactorily nails the question. When it's all over, Derek responds: "Yes, but why male models?", the very question he just got answered!

This is exactly what we conservatives face when responding to liberal questions. "DUH" asks about WMDs and the 9/11-Iraq connection. "DUH" gets a thorough, reasoned explanation. When all done, "DUH" (a.k.a. Derek Zoolander) asks the EXACT SAME question again, as if he never heard a word of the explanation. Is he just plain dumb? Does he have some kind of mental block? Does he just refuse to listen to logic? Does he have some innate inability to connect the dots? Does he refuse to accept the response because it simply destroys his argument and that threatens his agenda?

So, "DUH" asks "where are those weapons of mass destruction?". He's heard the answer many times before, in this VERY thread. Does he think he's won some kind of argument because they weren't found in the quantities or forms they were expected to be in? Does he think that this is a liberal "victory"? What he seems to refuse to understand is that national intelligence is not always a black-and-white revelation. He can't seem to be able to place himself in the President's shoes, weighing the options: "Do I take a chance that Saddam has no WMDs because SOME people say there is none, or do I err on the side of caution to protect the American public because many others (including Saddam himself) say there IS?" Of course, I explained this at the end of post #7 as "danger within a box", hoping to penetrate DUH's impenetrable thick skull. As everyone can clearly see, it was a fruitless effort. The man is just too dense.

Now, as far as the "no WMDs found" argument goes, that's just more liberal wishful thinking. There are accounts of 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1500 gallons of chemical weapons agents and other "goodies", certainly enough to qualify as WMD ingredients, just not in the form anticipated: already weaponized. For more information, this blog does a nice job of summarizing and providing links to the info.

Originally Posted by DUH

Please don't say that "every other county thought..." nonsense; as we all know, most of Europe didn't believe us and we now have "Freedom Fries" because of it.

Who cares what "most of Europe" thinks? Our security shouldn't be determined by the opinions of other nations, should it? They'll be going down the tubes in the not-too-distant future anyway because of their inability to understand an enemy who has blended into their population and is determined to overthrow them. We've already seen the bombings in Spain, the riots in France and the murder of people like Theodore Van Gogh. We've seen the violent protests over cartoons which suggested Islam was not the peaceful religion it claimed to be(how ironic, eh?). At least France now has a conservative leader who understands the danger within. And despite DUH's refusal to understand that intelligence is an aggregate of many different sources, it is NOT "nonsense" to take into account the information from those many sources, weigh them and act upon them in the best interest of the nation.

Originally Posted by DUH

So, if "curveball" was discovered to be a complete liar before the war began, why did we go into Iraq again?

Once again, "DUH" demonstrates his unbelievable density. How many times must I explain that intelligence is an AGGREGATE of information? Curveball was ONE source of intelligence who later turned out to be a fraud. There were many other sources (INCLUDING SADDAM HIMSELF) that formed the AGGREGATE intelligence assessment. What is so hard to understand??? Here's a link to the definition of "aggregate" in case that's too big a word for your vocabulary, DUH.

Originally Posted by DUH

I kept asking why we were headed to war when there was no "proof" of the President's claims. All I received from you were the same attacks.

I have been accused (in this very thread by WhiteQueen96) of responding with long posts. There's a reason why: I ensure that each question posed is addressed. If you didn't get an answer to a question, most likely I've answered it thoroughly in a prior post and refuse to cut-and-paste the former response. I'm confident that I've addressed everything you've presented, DUH. If not, please point out a SPECIFIC question in a SPECIFIC post that hasn't been addressed. I refuse to be trapped by the standard liberal tactic of responding to the SAME QUESTIONS over and over again! If you are unable to grasp the first response, I may try a different approach (such as an allegory) in hopes of getting through to you. If you fail to grasp the answer after several tries, I must assume that you're either too dense to get it or that you voluntarily refuse to accept it because it destroys your argument. Perhaps it's a combination of the two, but it seems to be a pretty hefty weighting on the density side.

And let's talk about thoroughness, DUH. I've responded in detail to every one of your questions. Why have I not gotten any answers to the following questions I've asked of you?

1. Post #1: Q:"Just how does one reconcile statements like "the whole world hates Bush" after seeing this exhibition of adoration??" A: DUH responded with a link that not only didn't go to the article, but went to a COMPLETELY different site than intended.
2. Q: Why was Fred Thompson so popular when he espoused the same opinion as John McCain on Iraq, yet the media declared McCain unpopular BECAUSE of his support of the Iraq war? A: Silence
3. Q:"You would have qualified D-Day as a quagmire, wouldn't you?" A: Silence
4. Q:How dumb does one have to be to stand in solidarity with liars and fools like Gore, Kerry, Sheehan, Mooron, Glover & Pelosi? A: Silence
5. Q:What kind of fools think by raising taxes on corporations that they WON'T chase more of those businesses away? Obama is the latest fool to embrace that dumb logic. A: Silence
6. Q:Why aren't wealthy Dimocrats like Kerry and Edwards practicing what they preach by redistributing their own wealth? A: Silence
7. Post #8: Q:"Would you also have the stupidity to forfeit a football game the minute the opposing team makes a touchdown in the first quarter?"A:Silence
8. Q: "Do you have any concept how many tough battles there were between D-Day and V-E day?"A: Silence
9. Q:"It makes no sense to put a lot of effort into finding just one terrorist when there's a target-rich environment in Iraq and Afghanistan, does it?"A: Silence
10. Post #9: Q: "Have you even tried your link?" A: Silence
11. Most of all, I'd like to know what you would do in the situation where it was your decision on whether or not to open "the box". Just pretend that you're in charge of security in a high-rise office building and there's a suspicious box in the lobby. It certainly looks like a bomb. The person responsible for placing it there SAID it was a bomb. Sure, some other people said it wasn't a bomb, but can you trust them? Can THEY see inside the box? Do you take a chance and wait for it to explode or do you make the decision to go in and disarm it? You don't know whether or not it's really a bomb until one of those events occurs. See, you can't really answer this one honestly, can you DUH? The reasonable action is to take the safest approach and proceed to disarm it. The most stupid thing you can do is to ignore it, for if your assessment is wrong many people could die - many whose safety is entrusted to you. Make your decision, but either way you lose. Either you'll choose the unreasonable choice (leaving the box alone) or you'll be forced to admit that GWB took the appropriate action.

Originally Posted by DUH

This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

If there was misleading, it was done by Tenet's CIA. Read the timeline compiled in this Wikipedia article. Whether the CIA intentionally misled or simply got it wrong, the CIA is the agency responsible for vetting and delivering the gathered intelligence. The President's job is to assess the sometimes conflicting information provided from many different agencies and to respond accordingly. In order to do that, he must TRUST that those agencies are doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. Why are you libs so eager to place the blame on the Bush administration, rather than on the agency that got it wrong? Nevermind...rhetorical question, isn't it? Your anti-Bush/anti-Republican fervor has blinded you from reason and common sense.