Changes

::You want to quote a dozen people who said there were WMDs?  Be my guest.  You're certainly free to present that information in your vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth.  Lord knows if you all post enough things with exclamation marks and boldface youre bound to convince the sort of people that impresses.  However if youre going to use a report, any report, it is an insult to all intellectual endeavor to ignore the report's principal finding and quote selectively and suggestively to prove that same untruth.

::You want to quote a dozen people who said there were WMDs?  Be my guest.  You're certainly free to present that information in your vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth.  Lord knows if you all post enough things with exclamation marks and boldface youre bound to convince the sort of people that impresses.  However if youre going to use a report, any report, it is an insult to all intellectual endeavor to ignore the report's principal finding and quote selectively and suggestively to prove that same untruth.

::<b>The report does have information that supports the WMD argument.</b>  However the report's principal finding contradicts the core of the argument.  Stop pretending.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::<b>The report does have information that supports the WMD argument.</b>  However the report's principal finding contradicts the core of the argument.  Stop pretending.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you should stop worshipping at the shrine of the Duelfer report, Rex. It isn't as though it is definitive for all time. It is one report. When it is raised to the status of the Holy Bible by you so that its findings are indisputable, it makes you a religious fanatic. It is a REPORT.. done by fallible men who were trying to compromise so both parties could get along and make a statement which set aside their squabbling. It also could be characterized as a cop-out compromise for political expediency. You mention <b>"The report does have information that supports the WMD argument,"</b> then discount the possibility in the very next breath. How objective is that viewpoint? You also dismiss all argument that there were any WMD. The sarin warheads discovered by the Polish troops and the Iraqi Survey group, those who were treated for injuries from the one which exploded in an IED (read the stories).. the finding of mustard gas bombs.. all don't matter? Look at the evidence. Don't just believe one report like it is your Bible. These are FACTS, not flights of fantasy. Set aside your political prejudice and try and look at the evidence.

I think you should stop worshipping at the shrine of the Duelfer report, Rex. It isn't as though it is definitive for all time. It is one report. When it is raised to the status of the Holy Bible by you so that its findings are indisputable, it makes you a religious fanatic. It is a REPORT.. done by fallible men who were trying to compromise so both parties could get along and make a statement which set aside their squabbling. It also could be characterized as a cop-out compromise for political expediency. You mention <b>"The report does have information that supports the WMD argument,"</b> then discount the possibility in the very next breath. How objective is that viewpoint? You also dismiss all argument that there were any WMD. The sarin warheads discovered by the Polish troops and the Iraqi Survey group, those who were treated for injuries from the one which exploded in an IED (read the stories).. the finding of mustard gas bombs.. all don't matter? Look at the evidence. Don't just believe one report like it is your Bible. These are FACTS, not flights of fantasy. Set aside your political prejudice and try and look at the evidence. You might also note that the special investigator for the Pentagon stated of your vaunted Iraq Survey Group who made this report that he had heard of "facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions" but the ISG had IGNORED that and not ever gone there, quote, "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond.." How throrough does that make their report's findings then? How definitive?