Ed Oscuro wrote:How quash has portrayed that ancient debate is very different from what actually was written. This isn't about "should Hillary / more Democrats have opposed the war," this is just being honest about history. Again, quash isn't honest.
Don't blame your inability to read context on me being "dishonest". If you want to talk dishonesty, how about your claim that I "bought the lie" that Trump was against Iraq. I said he was against the war, not that he was
vocally against it
before it started. Even
Factcheck has this one right:
There is no evidence that we could find, however, that he spoke against the war before it started, although we did find he expressed early concerns about the cost and direction of the war a few months after it started.
Now, he did write in The America We Deserve that he was against most forms of intervention in the Middle East, which, ostensibly, would include a war with Iraq. However, this was before 9/11, so the scenario of a war with Iraq at that point in time was very different from the scenario we faced in 2003.
As you mentioned before, there was (curated) evidence to suggest that there were WMD's in Iraq, among other reasons we were being led to believe that we should enter the war, which is likely why he hesitantly supported the idea of invading Iraq a year prior to it; though as time went on and it become more apparent that the intelligence we were operating on was less than stellar, he may have changed his mind before the resolution was voted on. Given that at this time he was not a politician, nor was he among the people voting for such a resolution, nor was he vocal about the issue, it's hard to say when exactly he decided he was against the war. Factcheck does rightfully point out that he had a financial interest in being against the war immediately prior to it starting, so it's not like he didn't have any self interest in the matter; though it's not as if the people voting on the resolution (or indeed, those in the White House) didn't have any self interest in the matter, either.
As for my claim that most Democrats at the time were for the war: it's still completely true. Most Democrats that
could have stopped it voted in favor of it. House Democrats voted against it overwhelmingly, but not only was that not what you asserted, it was essentially an irrelevant protest vote, seeing as the Democrats did not hold a majority in the House at the time. Where Democrats did hold the majority was in the Senate, and your statement, exactly as it read, was:
(Go Midwest/Northwest/Exotic Places Senators!)
Senators. Senators. Se-na-tors.
You linked to an article where the first instance of Senators, the subject of your sentence, reads:
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution
There's no weaseling your way out of this one. You were wrong. Admit it.
This isn't even going into your incredibly obvious partisan leaning sympathy towards Democrats who voted for the war being absolved of any responsibility because they were being misled, whereas you make zero concessions to the Republicans who vocalized their dissent against the war. But hey,
honesty.
I understand what quash is saying too, probably
more than we're being candid about (change the context of "racism" to "MRA," for instance, which should help explain why quash brought up rapists twice, apropos of nothing.)
I don't recall bringing up anything regarding rape before the op-ed I linked, but even if I did, it hardly gives you anything to play armchair psychiatrist with.
Given that a cursory reading of my posts would lead you to believe that I'm against the mass migration of Arabs into Europe, surely you would also operate on the assumption that I don't want lighter sentences for rapists, given that it's one of the most rampant crimes they're committing on the continent right now?
Your grasping is pathetic and only exposes you as being desperate.
Knows exactly what kinds of racist things to say to appeal to racists who don't think that they're racist (etc.)
Of all the things that makes it increasingly obvious to anyone not drinking from your Kool Aid pitcher that the ideology you represent is an inherently flawed one rooted in fallacies of a bygone era, this one takes the cake.
You know those so-called reactionaries you hate so much? This is exactly the kind of argument they look for when they look to convert people to their side. Your entire logic flow here operates on the assumption that these people care about how they're being labeled by people who don't give two shits about them. All it takes to throw a wrench in this is to take a step back and say "Nah, fuck you, I know myself better than you do".
), but these latest unsightly growths shouldn't take long to address:
