Revisionism ala Ronald Reagan

[ducknwork]

Well then, could this then be the reason Bush turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the warnings he received in August 2011 about an impending attack the CIA notified him about?

I think your tin foil hat is a little too tight. It must be cutting off circulation to your brain if you really think that he was willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives in an attack in our country just to get rid of Saddam. Please tell me that your question was not serious. PLEASE. I would really hate to think that you would actually believe something so pathetic.

[Cody Covey]

Well then, could this then be the reason Bush turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the warnings he received in August 2011 about an impending attack the CIA notified him about?

You don't really believe that Bush allowed 3000 civilians to die so he could start a war where 4000+ soldiers have died?

[Roger Perry]

You don't really believe that Bush allowed 3000 civilians to die so he could start a war where 4000+ soldiers have died?

I would hope not.

[dnf777]

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.

Exactly Duck. But why does a non-related tragedy somehow get used to persuade otherwise opposed populace (and congress) into condoning a war?
If we knew at the time Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, isn't that sort of unethical to use an emotionally charged tragedy to promote one's agenda?

Now we're coming back around to the original point.... discussing, not arguing, if you please.

[M&K's Retrievers]

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.

Now that's funny. I don't care who you are.

[Steve Hester]

Well then, could this then be the reason Bush turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the warnings he received in August 2011 about an impending attack the CIA notified him about?

Since August 2011 hasn't even happened yet, I have to consider this post null and void......

[Roger Perry]

Since August 2011 hasn't even happened yet, I have to consider this post null and void......

Ok, I went back and fixed it. Now you can reply to it.

[ducknwork]

Ok, I went back and fixed it. Now you can reply to it.

I'll take the liberty of fixing it for Steve...

Since this was posted by Roger Perry, I have to consider this post null and void......

[mjh345]

What did 9/11 have to do with Saddam and Iraq?

Hey Hew, some of us delusional whack jobs and borderline ignoramuses are still waiting for your answer to this question; and how it may have influence Cheney's thinking

Enlighten us please grasshopper

[YardleyLabs]

Let's not forget the Democratic hero, Clinton. Clinton was the one who ordered FNMA to loosen up loan qualifications so that just about anyone could qualify for a home mortgage if they wanted it. That was the ongoing practice that helped artificially inflate real estate prices due to a very strong buyer demand. Then once the market was loaded with people who couldn't afford those mortgages, the bubble burst.

A nice rhetorical; argument, but completely meaningless with respect to what happened. The mortgages that caused the failures were issued long after Clinton left office (2002-2005) and were underwritten by commercial instruments unrelated to FNMA. Even in 2006, Bush was taking credit for the massive expansion in our "ownership society" that happened on his watch.