Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida

DadsDream said

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.

Click to expand...

Yes it does, and yes it is. For two reasons. Diminishing the larger point of the story and focusing on the minutia of the story completely does not change that the Administration Either lied or intentionally misled the American people to support a war based on false premises.

What would be the motivation to focus on some obscure detail, while completely missing the big picture based on God-knows what obfuscated, complicated military jargon besides A. Ego B. Attention hoarism, or C. A slick, backchanneling way of justifying what the Administration said before the war or at the very least, a subtle way to justify or excuse away the degree of misinformation which came out of the Bush administration. Or justify a reason that was provided by the Bush camp which was put simply--patently misleading or downright FALSE.

I choose option C. It was not simply "an observation," and if it was simply "an observation" you would have conceded its non-sequiter nature and relevance once so many others bowled you over the head with it--but no, we all know what's really at work here. If it was "just an observation" you wouldn't have dug your heels in so deep despite the obvious lack of basic logic or common sense.