That's a different argument. The premise that I was addressing was that without 9/11 there would not have been an invasion of Iraq.Originally Posted by Franco
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
That's a different argument. The premise that I was addressing was that without 9/11 there would not have been an invasion of Iraq.
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
That's interesting. Your post that I originally responded to said, "Why he did a 180, I'll never know." Now you possibly know? Okiedokey.
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
Step up to the plate, Tiger. Would we have invaded Iraq withou 9/11?
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
The two are not related, other than the administration lied to use 9-11 as a false justification for their invasion of Iraq.
So, NO, Bush/Cheney could not have falsely blamed 9-11 on Iraq if 9-11 had not occurred.
If you are using our invasion of Iraq to PROVE they were involved with 9-11, surely you can see the flawed logic in your argument.
My neighbor was snooping around my fence line looking for his dog. My log-pinch turned up missing. I accuse him of stealing it, so I throw a dirt clod at his head.
Now, did my throwing a dirt clod at his head prove he stole my log-pinch? Well, if my log pinch hadn't turned up missing, would I have accused him of stealing it, and thrown the dirt clod at him? NO. So that proves he stole my log pinch a la Hew-istic logic, right?
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
No, I just proved your theory impossible, unless he used the same soothsayer Nancy and Hilary used to see into the future. And that assumes he really believed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11, and could see into the future. Neither is likely.
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
..................
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
Once you answer my question I'll be happy to answer yours.
Be sure to rant on & use as many insults as you can in your answer; as that is always a sure sign of a mature, rational, logical mind that is confident of the subject matter that one is discussing
Why don't you tell us------------------
Jan. 11, 2004 <H1>Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?
O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11
(CBS) A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.
Now, O'Neill - who is known for speaking his mind - talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way the Bush White House is run.
In the book, O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.
At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
“The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said ‘X’ during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing ‘Y,’” says Suskind. “Not just saying ‘Y,’ but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election.”
The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in592330.shtml
</H1>
Say what??
Elizabeth, it's the big one regards,
M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
Freeway JYD
Mike Whitworth
No, its just a sign of Hew. Someone who is sharp, but often bites off more than he can chew. When that happens....insults start flying.
Note the failed argument he made that our invasion of Iraq proves they were linked to 911. When I point out his flawed logic, I get called a piece of something.I wear all the names I get called here as a badge of honor!
Edit: oh, I almost forgot: tick tick tick.... (saves MK the trouble)
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote