Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush's credibility is dead.
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush's credibility is dead.
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush's credibility is dead.
In some ways you are right, ie. the reason we went into Iraq kept changing. In other ways you couldn't be more wrong, because now the world knows that when Bush says he's going to do something it's going to happen.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush's credibility is dead.
In some ways you are right, ie. the reason we went into Iraq kept changing. In other ways you couldn't be more wrong, because now the world knows that when Bush says he's going to do something it's going to happen.
OK - lets see some "examples" where BUSH changed his story about the reasons for invading Iraq. It seems to me that the media(and the arm chair commanders) was/were the ones that kept changing things
Like you guys always like to spout "I'll believe it when I see (hear) it" - give me some proof of Bush waffling on Iraq, and I'll believe it.
CkG
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Cad: Like you guys always like to spout "I'll believe it when I see (hear) it" - give me some proof of Bush waffling on Iraq, and I'll believe it.
-------------
Well Hay laid it out for you, Cad, so now I'm sure you believe. Please post back and confirm. Thanks.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Happy, I love a man who hates a lie.
A pencil without lead is a straw.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
See Hay, like I alluded to in another thread, you can lead a horse to water....
Cad, define waffled please.
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
When listening to Powell at the UN on the radio, I listened to NPR, which broadcast more of the proceedings than anyone else. Regarding TV, my soundbites came not from Fox, or even CNN, but C-Span. Yeah every minute of it including watching people set up the microphones before the briefings. We could debate motivations for the changes CADkindaGUY, but that the emphasis changed is a matter of public record. Others here like to link to pages and pages of material, but that is not my style. Assuming your attention and access to news equalled mine, you know what I said is true. If I linked to a dozen papers, then you could argue they are biased or I am presenting someone elses perspectives not facts. Well, the Ari reference still holds, and I daresay that many here know exactly what I am referring to. BTW, I will state my bias. It is an anti-liar bias. I did not like it when Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, I did not like it when Nixon did it, I did not like it when Clinton did it, and I do not like it when Bush did it. A President lying to achieve a personal objective is a despicable President. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative. All the same to me. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to increase US involvement in Vietnam, and Bush lied about WMD's to get at Saddam. That the outcome was different justifies neither.
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Happy, I love a man who hates a lie.
A pencil without lead is a straw.
Just so long as your love doesn't produce a woody!:Q
OH MY GOD! I think I was just complimented by Moonbeam. AARGGH! My reputation is forever tarnished. How shall I ever live this down?
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
When listening to Powell at the UN on the radio, I listened to NPR, which broadcast more of the proceedings than anyone else. Regarding TV, my soundbites came not from Fox, or even CNN, but C-Span. Yeah every minute of it including watching people set up the microphones before the briefings. We could debate motivations for the changes CADkindaGUY, but that the emphasis changed is a matter of public record. Others here like to link to pages and pages of material, but that is not my style. Assuming your attention and access to news equalled mine, you know what I said is true. If I linked to a dozen papers, then you could argue they are biased or I am presenting someone elses perspectives not facts. Well, the Ari reference still holds, and I daresay that many here know exactly what I am referring to. BTW, I will state my bias. It is an anti-liar bias. I did not like it when Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, I did not like it when Nixon did it, I did not like it when Clinton did it, and I do not like it when Bush did it. A President lying to achieve a personal objective is a despicable President. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative. All the same to me. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to increase US involvement in Vietnam, and Bush lied about WMD's to get at Saddam. That the outcome was different justifies neither.
I know what you are trying to refer to, but it still doesn't mean that Bush lied to anyone. You can choose to think he lied to us all about his reasons for invading Iraq(WMD) but I think you are trying put Bush's decision to go to war on one thing (WMD) which I find laughable. There are/were many things which lead up to this war and WMD was put at it's forefront in the wake of 911, but that doesn't mean it was the ONLY reason for this war - and Bush never stated that it was the ONLY reason for this war.
I'm done with this crap - If you want to believe that the whole war was based solely on WMD then so be it - but you are wrong.
CkG
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
What happened? Bush accomplished the Neoconservative Agenda item of eliminating Saddum to achieve another foothold in the oil rich Persian Gulf, to create a few economic opportunities and to make another step toward eliminating Islamic competition in that area.
We were told Iraq was a serious threat yet I never felt threatened by them. Even Iraq's neighbors didn't feel very threatened and opposed war.
Buy hey it's a "win win". The Iraqi people are less oppressed and hopefully will see a brighter future. Of course to ensure this the US will need to build several military installations within their country and maintain a presence there so long as there is hostility. I predict hostility in perpetuity but we'll hope for the best. Oh and make use of "their" natural resources to help flip the bill. Sounds fair eh?
The U.S. now spends nearly $10 billion per year in ongoing operations in Afghanistan. That conflict is still ongoing. Last month the Taliban managed to take 2 districts on the Pakistani border and we've lost around 30 soliders thus far, several just recently. Some soliders in the field aren't allowed to aggressively fight back in fear of creating U.S. casualities.
No idea how much Iraq will cost per year but hey the economy is doing so great I'm sure there's more than enough money to deal with that. Bush's 2003 budget is 22% higher than just two years ago and Congress continued to spend as if money grows on camels. So it's covered.