You guys,,,,

Strawman argumentation and insults.

Lets take ‘em one at a time.

Charlie raises the VRWC strawman. I did not say that. I think all politicos, and most commentators latch onto ‘memes of the week’. It means ‘that which certain groups are arguing’. No implication of mind control, or any specific charge against the ‘right’.

Charlie once again accuses me of thinking of the CIA as some single-minded entity. I would just point out that I didnt even make a single statement about the CIA. Dragonflies, in his orginal post, spoke of the CIA as an enemy of Bush in Iraq. And I merely reported that others speak of the CIA as having pushed Bush in the direction of war. How is it fair to blame me originating the notion of the CIA as a singular entity?

Seems like Charlie really wishes I were someone who I am not.

Rick – well what to say. String of insults. Very convincing and impressive.

PeterUK – To support your response to me, perhaps you could point to the evidence that Iraq was, in fact, purchasing yellowcake.

Flenser – “To say that Iraq “was not purchasing yellowcake” marks you as a fool or a liar. Nobody has said that Iraq ever consumated the transaction.”

Huh? As you say, the transaction was not consumated. And so how is it a lie or foolish to say that they were not purchasing? In fact, not only was the transaction not consumated, there seems not to have been any transaction at all. What is there? One minister making one comment that we might be interested in expanding commercial relations? Even if that was about uranium – an unsupported guess, even if plausible – it is a hell of a long way from a transaction. Especially since nothing ever came from that one comment.

As for Bush – I did not say that he claimed they bought it. But he did mention the possibility in the course of making a case for war. And there was nothing in fact there that could possibly justify a war.

Or is one completely ambiguous comment by one minister, never followed up, a casus belli?