Revisionism ala Ronald Reagan

[ducknwork]

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.

You can believe that all you want, but the president can't declare war all by himself. I have a very hard time believing Congress would have had the stomach to vote to go to war if we were not attacked on our soil first.

[dnf777]

You can believe that all you want, but the president can't declare war all by himself. I have a very hard time believing Congress would have had the stomach to vote to go to war if we were not attacked on our soil first.

Do you believe Iraq or Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9-11 attack?

___ yes

___ no


As for whether or not we would have concocted another reason to invade Iraq, or whether we actually would have will never be known, so there's little point in arguing it.

What we do know, is that the Cheney/bush administration shifted the reason for the invasion several times. First it was linkage to 9-11. Then WMDs and mushroom clouds. Then to remove a tyrant who gassed is own people. To me, each time the came up with a new reason, it invalidated the previous one. Now that we know there were no WMDs or imminent threat, WHAT IS THE REASON? I've asked this several times here, and never got an answer.

And please note, I haven't called anyone a wacko, thick-skulled, obtuse, or any other insulting name or phrase. Just trying to understand the war-hawk position on this costly war. Lets keep it civil.

[Marvin S]

After President Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election, O'Neill took an executive job at International Paper in New York City. He was vice president of the company from 1977 to 1985 and president from 1985 to 1987.
In 1988, he was approached by President George H. W. Bush to be Secretary of Defense. O'Neill declined, but recommended Dick Cheney for the position. Bush then pursued O'Neill to chair an advisory group on education that included Lamar Alexander, Bill Brock, and Richard Riley. Under O'Neill's leadership, the group recommended national standards and unified testing standards.
O'Neill was chairman and CEO of the Pittsburgh industrial giant Alcoa from 1987 to 1999, and retired as chairman at the end of 2000. His reign was extremely successful, as the company's revenues increased from $1.5 billion in 1987 to $23 billion in 2000 and O'Neill's personal fortune grew to $60 million.
In 1995, O'Neill was made chairman of the RAND Corporation.

Maybe after all that, and then working for a failed administration, he retired?

Doc, it was IMO - I don't care what their resume says, I've seen an awful lot of really bad managers at the top. Revenue increases are most often a function of an orderly market & have little to do with the guy at the top.

& I notice he was involved with an education endeavor. Funny how most are involved but little of note is accomplished, it's a popular thing.

Here is an interesting article about the Reagan Administration.

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

Please understand I do not condone this type of action,FWTW. But do you believe Carter or Mondale would have done better? It's easy to complain about someone but mostly we were given bad choices in the 1st place. Gore-Kerrey regards.

Still want those cabinets to compare!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ducknwork]

Do you believe Iraq or Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9-11 attack?

___ yes

__X_ no


As for whether or not we would have concocted another reason to invade Iraq, or whether we actually would have will never be known, so there's little point in arguing it.

When did I say that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? I don't recall that...

As for your second paragraph, I'll just shutup now since there is no point in arguing it(thanks Mr. moderator...I guess now you and Hew get to set the rules for discussion?), although I tend to call these things 'discussions'. Maybe they are called arguments to those who seem to only want to stir the pot and like to 'argue'. Since we can't prove or disprove anything, and you don't think we should discuss our opinions, I am sending a PM to Chris to shut down POTUS, because if we can't 'argue' about opinions, then EVERY thread on here is worthless and should be deleted.

[Roger Perry]

You can believe that all you want, but the president can't declare war all by himself. I have a very hard time believing Congress would have had the stomach to vote to go to war if we were not attacked on our soil first.

If 9/11 had never occured Bush would still have used WMD as a reason to ask Congress to go to war with Iraq. According to O'Neill he was dead set on taking out Saddam.

Remember, the war with Iraq started March 20, 2003 almost 2 years after the attack on the world trade center.

[luvmylabs23139]

You running away from POTUS again??

WE can only wish!

[dnf777]

When did I say that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? I don't recall that...

As for your second paragraph, I'll just shutup now since there is no point in arguing it(thanks Mr. moderator...I guess now you and Hew get to set the rules for discussion?), although I tend to call these things 'discussions'. Maybe they are called arguments to those who seem to only want to stir the pot and like to 'argue'. Since we can't prove or disprove anything, and you don't think we should discuss our opinions, I am sending a PM to Chris to shut down POTUS, because if we can't 'argue' about opinions, then EVERY thread on here is worthless and should be deleted.

Argumentation is the process of making a claim, then definding it with justifications. It is one form of discussion. As far as I know, it does not include name calling and insulting. (not that YOU do that, but many if not most here do) I try not to, but obviously falter at times. I enjoy a lively "discussion", but if the logic and structure fall to pieces, and names and insults start flying, there's little point in continuing.

The best thing about POTUS is that it keep *most* of this behavior off the training forums.

[Roger Perry]

Doc, it was IMO - I don't care what their resume says, I've seen an awful lot of really bad managers at the top. Revenue increases are most often a function of an orderly market & have little to do with the guy at the top.

& I notice he was involved with an education endeavor. Funny how most are involved but little of note is accomplished, it's a popular thing.



Please understand I do not condone this type of action,FWTW. But do you believe Carter or Mondale would have done better? It's easy to complain about someone but mostly we were given bad choices in the 1st place. Gore-Kerrey regards.

Still want those cabinets to compare!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Perry
Here is an interesting article about the Reagan Administration.

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

Marvin S Quote: Please understand I do not condone this type of action,FWTW. But do you believe Carter or Mondale would have done better? It's easy to complain about someone but mostly we were given bad choices in the 1st place. Gore-Kerrey regards.

Marvin, you said this thread was about Reagan so I posted something about Reagan. We will never know if Carter or Mondale would have done better. i voted for Reagan.

[ducknwork]

If 9/11 had never occured Bush would still have used WMD as a reason to ask Congress to go to war with Iraq. According to O'Neill he was dead set on taking out Saddam.

Remember the war with Iraq started March 20, 2003 almost 2 years after the attack on the world trade center.

I understand all that...but read what I wrote. He could have screamed WMDs until the cows came home, but I don't believe that Congress would have approved it with the pre-9/11 mindset that this country had.

[Roger Perry]

I understand all that...but read what I wrote. He could have screamed WMDs until the cows came home, but I don't believe that Congress would have approved it with the pre-9/11 mindset that this country had.

Well then, could this then be the reason Bush turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the warnings he received in August 2001 about an impending attack the CIA notified him about?