Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida
You know what I'm not "buying?"
I'm not buying any notion of explaining your entrenched position based on the fact that it was somehow a discussion of language directed at Bulldawg. You dug in, and that doesn't dig you out. You were responding to Bulldawg, but you were also advocating a larger opinion, one that is well known on the board.
My first response, the one about Saddam sealing his fate, was a reply to Bulldawg, as previously stated.
The second response was an analysis of the language of the article.
I'm not buying that you just put out an "opinion" when you explicitly stated that the other posters didn't understand the language of the report. It was a presumption of expertise (which may be true) to marginalize the counter-opinions.
I wasn't trying to marginalize anybody's opinions. I found it curious that the headline didn't match the direct quote in the article. The headline said "no link." The direct quote said "no operational links."
Why would that word "operational" be included as one of the few direct quotes in the article, I asked myself. So, I wrote my opinion about that.
And I'm not buying that all the other "garbage" was what crapped up this thread. Your opinon is your own, and I think you raised some legitimate issues. When counterpoints were made, you deflected, per usual, into a discussion about semantics, and suggestions of superior knowledge about the workings of the military (assumed true) and the press corps. Others tried to assert that even if your understanding of the language of the DoD is accurate, the larger point advocated by the story is still accurate.
Thank you for conceding that I raised some legitimate issues.
Seems a number of folks decided to take issue with me, rather than what I was saying.
Superior knowledge? Versus inferior knowledge? I don't view things that way. Knowledge is knowledge. I offered my opinion about the article and what it meant. That's all.
Utlimately, it does not vindicate the intelligence reports, nor the reasons the administration asserted for invading Iraq. It's abundantly clear to everyone that your wrangling of words--mixed in with your other posts on this thread and others--was a defense of the administrations position.
Which has exactly ZERO to do with the article that was posted...from leaked anonymous sources...before the official report was published.
It has ZERO to do with me defending anything or anybody.
It was simply an observation that for some strange reason, the direct quote in the story didn't match the headline.
The direct quote in the story could also be taken to mean two different things.
For pointing that out, that makes me apologist for the administration?
That's totally wrong and really tiresome. It's 2008, not 2004.
You'll of course deny that, and claim that you were only trying to clarify the language and the sourcing of the story. The body of your post, on this thread, suggests otherwise.
That's what I'm not buying.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but since it's an opinion about me on a personal level, I'll tell you flat footed that you're wrong in this case.