Well, the Politicker posted about this question, but didn't really attempt to answer it. If Bush believed the UN was "irrelevant" or "impotent", Then the whole issue of getting weapons inspectors back in the country was a charade, wasn't it. And by charade, I mean he lied and manipulated people because his intent was to invade Iraq all along. If you believed that weapons inspections would fail like North Korea, then why go through the trouble of getting Hans Blix back in the country in the first place? The question isn't should we or shouldn't we have invaded Iraq, it is why did we invaded in the manner we did? Sure, we can agree to disagree about the necessity of invading, and we can agree to disagree about whether to invade again 12 years ago or give the inspectors another 6 months. But Bush sold the war idea to Congress by saying it would be used as leverage to get weapons inspectors in there, with war as a last resort. And then what happened?

If you believed that weapons inspections would fail like North Korea, then why go through the trouble of getting Hans Blix back in the country in the first place?

The logic behind that for me, as I can only speak for me, was that I supported that push in the ideolistic hope that the UN wouldn't neuter the inspections. The inspections themselves may go smoothly, but the UN was unwilling to layout concrete punishments for violations, and that, for me anyways, reduced the legitimacy of the inspections themselves. Without a set of concrete punishments and some sort of timeline, I had no reason to believe that they wouldn't be running all over the desert for another 12 years.

Again, my point wasn't really to answer your question, but rather to tell you not to expect a satisfactory answer, as the answers you will recieve are from a different paradigm than yours, (which makes it inherently difficult to understand).

Jordan, I understand your point wasn't really to answer my question. My point was, that if Bush believed as you believed concerning inspections, why didn't he say so from the beginning? To go through all the trouble of getting inspectors back into the country, only to turn around and yank them out indicates that Bush wasn't being honest up front. It shouldn't matter what paradigm you are coming from in order to see that. And as for running around the desert for another 12 years, I'd rather have weapons inspectors running around for 12 years than the National Guard.

To go through all the trouble of getting inspectors back into the country, only to turn around and yank them out indicates that Bush wasn't being honest up front. It shouldn't matter what paradigm you are coming from in order to see that.

Well which is it? Is Bush and evil mastermind or a retarded bumbler? He can't simultaneously be planning an ellaborate plan to hoodwink the entire world while at the same time be attempting to undermine that same plan.

And as for running around the desert for another 12 years, I'd rather have weapons inspectors running around for 12 years than the National Guard.

Perhaps. I feel better with the National Guard there. It seems to me that soldiers are better at finding weapons than weapons inspectors.

Evil mastermind or retarded bumbler? Hmmmmmm....how about evil bumbler?

Forgive me, I didn't know you were one of those blind partisans.

You offered 2 options in your "Well which is it?" question. Were you "blind" to a third option because of your partisanship?

No, but the two options I gave are mutually exclusive. You can combine the words in a cute little partisan swipe like you did, but that doesn't combine the meaning.

And yet,whether you want ot classify it as a "cute little partisan swipe" or not, the third option remains a viable choice,despite you not offering it up as an alternative.

And yet,whether you want ot classify it as a "cute little partisan swipe" or not, the third option remains a viable choice,despite you not offering it up as an alternative.

You are trying to obfuscate the issue.

I'm not debating that its an option, I'm saying that the fact that its an option is irrelevant to the discussion. I said that he can't be both the mastermind and the bumbler, which you claim he is. The fact that you peg him as "evil" in addition to being a "bumbler" doesn't address the fact that that description catagorically rejects the previous statements you've had, being that he was mastermining a plan to go into Iraq since the world began.

I never said Bush was masterminding a plan to go into Iraq since the world began.I never said he was both a mastermind and a bumbler. He certainly was planning to invade Iraq, but YOU are using the term "mastermind", not me. I don't find anything "masterful" about it. Your "paradigm" is trying to dictate to me that I must choose between Bush being an "Evil Mastermind" or "Retarded Bumbler". I say there are more choices. You are right, he can't be both a mastermind and a bumbler. But he can be an Evil Bumbler.

I never said Bush was masterminding a plan to go into Iraq since the world began.

Obviously you've never heard of hyperbole.

He certainly was planning to invade Iraq, but YOU are using the term "mastermind", not me. I don't find anything "masterful" about it.

Fine, it doesn't have to be masterful. The fact is that you WERE inferring that he had a plan to invade Iraq regardless of any events that happened. If he knew that he was going to be going into Iraq no matter what anyone did, then he was working against his own plans by doing many of the thigns he did in the UN.

I say there are more choices. You are right, he can't be both a mastermind and a bumbler. But he can be an Evil Bumbler.

You honestly think he is evil, don't you.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: