Revisionism ala Ronald Reagan

[mjh345]

I gave you the choice between whackjob and someone who rationally disagrees. You declined to answer (although I've got my hunch). Answer, don't answer....I'm not holding my breath either way.

I did not decline to answer; I simply deferred my answer until you answer my question which was proffered to you first.

You tried to answer my question with a question. That is not responsive or the way productive conversations occur.

Still waiting for your answer regards

[Roger Perry]

Can you really not grasp the concept that he is trying to get through your noggin? Hew NEVER said anything about the invasion being justified. His point is that it was only possible because 9/11 happened...not justified because of 9/11. There is no way that someone with such thin skin has such a thick head.

Bush 43 would have found a way to start a war with Iraq to get rid of Saddam even if 9/11 had never occured. It was his number one priority from his first day in office as told by Paul O'Neill Bush's Treasury Secretary.

“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.

[dnf777]

Can you really not grasp the concept that he is trying to get through your noggin? Hew NEVER said anything about the invasion being justified. His point is that it was only possible because 9/11 happened...not justified because of 9/11. There is no way that someone with such thin skin has such a thick head.

So only Hew gets to set the rules of discussion? Okay.

That is an irrelevant fact, true as it may be, but does NOT justify anything, and THAT is what I AM discussing. You cannot prove that we would NOT have found another bogus reason to invade Iraq, can you? CAN YOU???

I can't, so I don't pretend to.

If we can't agree on what the issue even is, then perhaps we should both just save some bandwidth?

[dnf777]

Bush 43 would have found a way to start a war with Iraq to get rid of Saddam even if 9/11 had never occured. It was his number one priority from his first day in office as told by Paul O'Neill Bush's Treasury Secretary.

“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.

Very nice citation. Unfortunately, they won't engage in that discussion, but rather obsess on irrelevant axioms and feed-back loop logic. Hey, Bush is their Messiah, and can do no wrong! He even got to sit next to another Texas icon, Jerry Jones during the Superbowl! That proves he was right....right?

[huntinman]

If we can't agree on what the issue even is, then perhaps we should both just save some bandwidth?

You running away from POTUS again??

[BonMallari]

Very nice citation. Unfortunately, they won't engage in that discussion, but rather obsess on irrelevant axioms and feed-back loop logic. Hey, Bush is their Messiah, and can do no wrong! He even got to sit next to another Texas icon, Jerry Jones during the Superbowl! That proves he was right....right?

Bush a Messiah...show me one person on here who thinks that way...Jerry Jones is no Texas icon, he is from Arkansas, the only person that thinks he is an icon is Jerry himself...you know DNF some times your hatred for all things Texas rears its ugly head, no sure why and really dont care, but it blurs your ability to have a rational debate

[M&K's Retrievers]

You running away from POTUS again??

And give up his moderator duties?

Say it isn't so regards,

[Roger Perry]

We had a discussion prior to POTUS about the low quality of Bush 43 appointees. O'Neill was a prime example, what has he done since writing the book no one other than yourself may have read.

But do us all a favor - The last three POTUS who wore an R behind their name had, IMO, declining quality in their cabinets. Why don't you post those cabinets, a chance do something on your own without being spoon fed & we'll discuss. This thread is supposedly about Reagan, IMO one who got his job from AUH20's pioneering effort, & forgot what his veto pen was supposed to do.

I've worked a lot for large corporations, there are those whose established reputation was going against the grain. Some show success, generally they are individuals who have little to offer, which was my opinion of O'Neill. But Bush 43 never did have a Treasury Secy worth his salt.

Here is an interesting article about the Reagan Administration.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

[dnf777]

Bush a Messiah...show me one person on here who thinks that way...Jerry Jones is no Texas icon, he is from Arkansas, the only person that thinks he is an icon is Jerry himself...you know DNF some times your hatred for all things Texas rears its ugly head, no sure why and really dont care, but it blurs your ability to have a rational debate

My claiming Bush is the republican Messiah is just like many here saying Obama is mine! As long as I hear that, I'll continue to label Bush as your side's messiah. Its also as patently false as saying I have a hatred for Texas. I grew up there and love the Lone Star state to this day. Like any other place, it has its faults as well. Unfortunately, one of its biggest mistakes became president.
And sorry, I understand your resistance to having Jerry named as a Texas icon, but the owner of the self-procalimed "America's Team" is an icon. A poor one at that, but an icon. I'm from the Houston area, so never cared too much for Dallas in the first place.

[ducknwork]

So only Hew gets to set the rules of discussion? Okay.

That is an irrelevant fact, true as it may be, but does NOT justify anything, and THAT is what I AM discussing. You cannot prove that we would NOT have found another bogus reason to invade Iraq, can you? CAN YOU???

I can't, so I don't pretend to.

If we can't agree on what the issue even is, then perhaps we should both just save some bandwidth?

How does you not understanding the point he is making equate 'setting the rules of discussion'? You lost me there, chief.

As for the rest of your response, I'll save breath and bandwidth because it's obvious you can't 'get it'. (In my best JDog impression)