sirs, you have just got to stop lying. It isn't good for you and I will not let you get away with it. For example: YOU are the person who brought Pollack into this thread. When you brought Pollack into the thread, you specifically stated that he opposed the war from the get-go. That was a lie. It was YOUR lie. I challenged your lie.
As soon as I challenged your lie, you should have - - if you were an honest man instead of the liar you are - - run for documentation that Pollack did in fact - - from the get-go - - oppose the war. BUT HIS BOOK WRITTEN BEFORE THE WAR SUPPORTED AN INVASION. So naturally you could not do that. You could not prove that Pollack opposed the war from the get-go because in fact his book was inciting the people to SUPPORT an invasion of Iraq.
In fact, I went further than challenging your lie. I actually produced what evidence I could that it was a lie - - that Fisk had criticized him for supportng the war, that others had criticized him for supporting the war, and that his book was titled The Case for Invading Iraq. Not only did I challenge your lie, I went further and showed WHY I challenged it.
Now Fisk may or may not be the greatest reporter since Edward R. Murrow; probably not, but what the hell, good enough for me and a lot of other folks. Not good enough for a lot of Zionist flacks and their dupes, but that's OK too, they have a right to their opinion. The title of his book is not definitive either - - it's theoretically possible, though highly unlikely, that a man could write a book called The Case for Invading Iraq and in fact it's NOT a case for invading Iraq but a cookbook or a history of sexual perversion in 14th Century Mesopotamia or a religious tract on the salvation of levitators, but in my humble experience, living in the real world as I do and not in some fruit-bat's alternative universe, when a man writes a book titled The Case for Invading Iraq, dollars to donuts it more often than not DOES present the case for invading Iraq. Case closed. (unless you're a fucking moron)
So I feel, with considerable justification, that I have gone that extra mile. I not only challenged your ridiculous lie, I produced what evidence I had (short of actually reading the asshole's book, which I'm frankly not prepared to do - - any more than I'd have to read Mein Kampf cover-to-cover before daring to contradict Hitler or be able to state whether or not he was an anti-semite) and with the evidence I had, showed pretty conclusively how absurd it was to claim that Pollack had opposed the war from the get-go, when he actually wrote a book supporting it.
Now, what did YOU do when your Big Lie was challenged? Did you go that extra mile? Hardly. In fact you didn't even get up off your ass. Didn't produce one single shred of evidence that Pollack had in fact opposed the war from the get-go. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. In fact, absurdly, you claimed that it was MY obligation to prove that Pollack had not opposed the war from the get-go.
Get this. Although YOU introduced Pollack into the thread, WITH the claim that he had opposed the war from the get-go, suddenly it became MY obligation to prove that he didn't. Huh? Excuse me? YOU make the allegation that Pollack did oppose the war from the get-go, it becomes YOUR obligation to prove that he did when challenged.
Oh, and that little piece that you just quoted in your last post - - cute that you didn't provide attribution or date. A LOT of people backed off the project after it went sour and became critics, Pollack obviously being one of them, one of many. Criticizing the war long after it's become obvious what a fucked up idea the whole thing was is NOT "opposing the war from the get-go." It's just covering one's own ass.
Pollack is as I've previously pointed out a paid Zionist hack. He works under a Zionist boss in a Zionist institution financed by a Zionist billionaire and his credibility is actually lower than zero. You quoted him in support of the proposition that Bush did not lie the country into war. You couldn't have found a sleazier, more dishonest, more discredited individual to exonerate Bush if you had combed the cells of the local prison. Pollack has very good reason to calm the waters and to dispel the illusion that the war was the product of lies, because when that seeps out, people naturally want to know WHOSE lies, and where those lies came from and who promoted them and who benefited from them, and these questions are not good for friendly relations between the U.S.A. and Israel. Best NOT to leave any impression that the war was the result of a Big Lie. Best leave it to "faulty intelligence." And Pollack - - despite his frantic attempts to cover his ass and deny any part in promoting the failed war - - is still loyal to the Cause. He'll say whatever he has to say to squelch the perception that Bush or anyone else "lied the U.S.A. into the war."
