Reply #78: First, let me say I am sorry for being so out to lunch on this...

[originalpckelly]

and for writing off the opinion of anyone. I hope you'll understand that was before I started thinking about this whole deeply respecting other points of view thing.

I think the reason I did that was that it didn't make sense. "No more blood for oil?" It seemed too outrageous to be true, and that disbelief instead of being directed at those people who actually took this nation to war for oil, was directed at the people saying the outrageous truth.

It isn't as if I believe Bush was on the level or anything, but I always focused on the things we knew beyond a reasonable doubt and were widely reported. We know they purposefully distorted the intelligence, and we know they outed a CIA officer when her husband spoke up.

That is what I thinking about, that it was more reasonable, because it is so outrageous for someone to take a nation to war for a oil. No one would believe that could be true, well we know better now that old Rove finally had to start talking about the truth.

I just thought it was so outrageous that it couldn't be true.


So I wrote it off.

A second reason I did that, is that "no more blood for oil" doesn't quite explain the thought process which allows someone to come to that conclusion. I know that there are probably facts to arrive at it, but I didn't know those.

Had I, and had I been helped along in my understanding by someone who could explain to me why they believed it to be true, I am pretty darn sure I would have come to the same conclusions, or at least held it as very likely to be true.



I hope my explanation helps you to understand why I felt that way. Thanks for you indulgence and patience.