The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 94

Thread: Revisionism ala Ronald Reagan

  1. #31
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    And that justifies spending a couple hundred billion and over 4,000 American lives in our attempt to "Nation Build"? Where Bush and his staff made the big mistake was in staying in Iraq after we determinded that there were no WMD's left in Iraq.
    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.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    If you read the memos and memoirs from admin officials, you will see that his thinking "possibly changed" long before 9-11.
    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.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Just because we would NOT have invaded without 9-11, does NOT prove the inverse that you are implying--that since 9-11 occurred, that means we should have invaded.
    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.

  4. #34
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    Step up to the plate, Tiger. Would we have invaded Iraq withou 9/11?
    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!

  5. #35
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    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.
    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!

  6. #36
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    The two are not related, other than the administration lied to use 9-11 as a false justification for their invasion of Iraq. And what percent of America would have said, "We've known for 20 years that Saddam has WMDs and we've been dickin' around with sanctions for the past 12 years, but hey, you know what, NOW is when we should invade Iraq" and supported an invasion had there not been a 9/11? And name me more than 10 Congressmen who would have voted for a full-blown invasion without 9/11. But hey, thanks for reaffirming that you truly are a piece of .........um, work, when it comes to American politics.

    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? LOL (at you)....you're pushin' too hard. You're a much better internet Cliff Clavin than internet Mark Twain. When you try to get all witty it falls, well....flat. C'mon, Cliffy, you gotta dance with the girl you brought to 6,000 posts...
    ..................
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    OK, here's where we divide delusional whack jobs from those who disagree but are capable of rational discussion. If you really believe that we would have invaded Iraq without 9/11 having happened, you're officially a whack job (and a borderline ignoramus who has zero understanding of national politics). So let's give you the acid test....do you think the invasion of Iraq would have occurred without 9/11 having happened?
    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

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    Step up to the plate, Tiger. Would we have invaded Iraq withou 9/11?
    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>

  9. #39
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    I will second that. I also liked George H W Bush 41
    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

  10. #40
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjh345 View Post
    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
    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

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •