Reply #24: Dude, you're losing your shit... [View All]

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

You are defining the Levin amendment as "That which one must have voted for if one had any hope of Inspectors forestalling war."

You know that's bullshit. Your supposition is that 75 senators hoped that war would NOT be avoided, and you surely know that's false.

You can say "voting for the Levin amendment was evidence of wishing to avoid war" but you cannot say that failing to vote for the Levin amendment demonstrates that one did not hope war might be averted by UN inspections.

It's republican logic... if you don't vote for amendment X then you are in favor of Y, as defined by whoever is doing the arguing.

Why not say "Obama is in favor of sex shops being next to schools"? He isn't, of course, but it's the same sort of logic you're employing here.

I wish folks who promote fallacious syllogisms would not drag poor old Occam's name into it.

I would not have voted for the IWR, but that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with people re-writing history about it. Before the IWR vote, nobody in the world (especially Cheney) thought Iraq would let the inspectors back in. After the vote, the inspectors were back in within six weeks.

Personally, I would have been working to impeach Bush at the time.

It's a HORRIBLE vote for her, but it's dishonest to say she did not see the IWR as instrumental to the possibility of averting conflict. (You do know the IWR was six months before the war, right?)