Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied About It

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 22, 2005
2,552
1
666
57
Yukon
Well if you read this whole thread it would be pretty obvious. I've read enough of kaje's post to know for sure that he is not a liberal but everyone who disagree's w/ him calls him a liberal in every post.
Plenty of people across the political spectrum can be and are, disappointed with Bush. However, attacking the President daily with drive-by cut'n'pastes, ad nauseum, is a trait usually reserved for the far-left whack jobs. His main problem is that in his zeal to ridicule the President, he "looks like a duck". Thus, the confusion.
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
37
OKC
Yes, but not exclusively.

Personally, I don't hate Bush, but I sure don't like him. He's screwed up the election for the rest of the republicans and doomed us to the future of president hillary. Oh, and I think Iraq was a mistake. So now I need to go put on my turbin according to some people here.
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
37
OKC
Plenty of people across the political spectrum can be and are, disappointed with Bush. However, attacking the President daily with drive-by cut'n'pastes, ad nauseum, is a trait usually reserved for the far-left whack jobs. His main problem is that in his zeal to ridicule the President, he "looks like a duck". Thus, the confusion.
I'm glad he post these topics. I don't read them all but that's my choice. Also, I think we are all old enough to know that we can't believe everything we read.
 

Poke4Real

Territorial Marshal
Sep 12, 2006
9,735
5,210
1,743
Third Coast
kaje, I got your back on this one.

It's crap like this that gets me riled up:

You can do yourself a favor and use the “ignore” button. It’s too bad it doesn’t hide the thread titles also. This guy needs some life experience.
Ah, the condescension of Republicans knows no bounds does it? If we don't agree with the President, we're not experienced enough in life to understand.

Tell me something, how does namecalling and telling someone they need life experience refute your fearless leader's actions? It doesn't.

Another chapter in W's legacy. Pathetic.
 
Feb 8, 2007
3,773
3
668
OKC
Wow. The last few years could have been avoided with a check for 1 billion dollars to saddam. Tell me you guys aren't so stupid as to believe anything political is really that easy. Give him a billion, he'll go park somewhere else. The iraqis will just set up their own little government, noone will die, and we'll never hear from iraq again. Would a billion dollars make the shiites and sunnis get along? Would a new dictatorship not rise up again? Heck, the Iraqis could put together a game show, who wants to be a billionaire. The winner gets control over the country, gets to start making threats to the US, and bam he gets a billion dollars. Oh man. It's almost hilarious that kaje and poke4real actually think that this was as simple as a billion dollars. Agree with the war or not, I think anyone with a brain could realize that the situation in iraq isn't anywhere near as simple as a check for a billion dollars. Although I'm sure Ron Paul will get out his checkbook and handle this himself!
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,976
20,701
1,743
kaje, I got your back on this one.

It's crap like this that gets me riled up:



Ah, the condescension of Republicans knows no bounds does it? If we don't agree with the President, we're not experienced enough in life to understand.

Tell me something, how does namecalling and telling someone they need life experience refute your fearless leader's actions? It doesn't.

Another chapter in W's legacy. Pathetic.
As an Independent new to these discussions, I can't help but notice that namecalling isn't the exclusive domain of either side of the aisle or position around here.
 

OKCPoke

Territorial Marshal
Dec 19, 2006
5,570
6
668
Plenty of people across the political spectrum can be and are, disappointed with Bush. However, attacking the President daily with drive-by cut'n'pastes, ad nauseum, is a trait usually reserved for the far-left whack jobs. His main problem is that in his zeal to ridicule the President, he "looks like a duck". Thus, the confusion.
Good one... hahahahaha.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,715
18,021
1,743
The guy has, what, a 28% approval rating? Surely 72% of Americans are not liberal lefties.
Bush has a higher approval rating than the Democratically controlled congress. So what do you think that means?
 

NYC Poke

The Veil of Ignorance
Sep 24, 2007
38,776
45,652
1,743
Bush has a higher approval rating than the Democratically controlled congress. So what do you think that means?
Not much of anything. Congressional approval ratings are never very high to begin with. If anything, it means the Republicans don't like it because it's a Democratic-controlled Congress, and Democrats are frustrated because because their party, failing to have the votes to override a veto or overcome a filibuster, hasn't been able to advance an agenda.
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
68
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
Please quit making strawman arguments and attacking them rather than the arguments I'm actually making. It's incredibly irritating, and not very effective.



Actually, your original tirade was in direct response to HanesOnU who said, "So we should let someone like Saddaam just have a billion dollars? We said he could leave, he did not do that."

How, exactly is that an an attack on someone who disagreed with him. It seems to me that it's you that is on the attack. It is certainly consistent with the nature of your usual responses. You assert that anyone that disagrees with you is simply woefully uninformed, a Bush lover to the end against all reason, or stupid or duped by the Bushies.



It hasn't been "proven false" that reasonable intelligence indicated WMD was a real threat, merely that it turns out they weren't there when we got there. Foreign governments believed, based upon their own intelligence, he likely had a continuing WMD program. U.S. Intelligence certainly wasn't clear that he DIDN'T have a continuing program. We KNOW with out a doubt he had a program following Gulf War 1 and the ensuing years. We KNOW he continued to resist inspection (which is contrary to the argument that he has nothing to hide).
Using 20/20 hindsight doesn't definitively make that an invalid basis for what was done.

The WOT not proven false except in your opinion by your twisted argument that if the US takes action to root out one source of terrorism it must immediately do so at the same time against every source. That's not the way the real world works. Iraq was clearly a state sponsor of terrorist activity against the U.S. and its allies. To deny that is to deny reality. Reasonable minds can disagree whether that, in and of itself was appropriate moral justification for Gulf War 2.

AS I've said before, I believe reasonable minds can differ on whether the war was justified. You, apparently continue to think anybody that disagrees with you simply doesn't know what they're talking about because you've proven them false, false, false,.....when you really haven't done that very effectively at all.



I'd like to see some evidence that we would not have had considerable influence...near total control....in who replaced them. We still would have had the threat of military engagement if it was a Baathist successor. This is more of you pre-supposing facts not in existence. Furthermore, as has been pointed out quite effectively, Kaje's "quote" of the conditions left out at least one important condition. This was about more than just a million dollars.

As far as oil....of course it is a strategic interest in all of this....a valid one too. You're argument that we would not care one iota what happens there and is the only reason we have an interest, however, completely ignores the geopolitical realities of the region and the strategic value of having another potential future launching base and sphere of influence in the area.
I am not making strawman arguments and then attacking them. I responded tothe points YOU brought up as to reasons for attacking Iraq. Though I will say none of them were offered by the Government as the reason we went to war. As to not being effective? Says who? You? Who appointed you the judge of credibility and effectiveness? In this case that is simply a matter of opinion. I feel your arguments lack credibility and effectiveness. However, I will point out that as to credibility, approximately 75% of the people in the US take the same stance I have. I'd say the anti Iraq war argument is also a bit more effective based on those numbers.

That said you will never convince me nor will I convince you.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
Bush has a higher approval rating than the Democratically controlled congress. So what do you think that means?
Wow. Hilarious how you try to push the approval rating on a Democratically controlled Congress (which means 1 or 2 more Democrats than Republicans) onto only the Democrats. The approval rating is for Congress, not for Democrats in Congress.
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
68
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
Wow. Hilarious how you try to push the approval rating on a Democratically controlled Congress (which means 1 or 2 more Democrats than Republicans) onto only the Democrats. The approval rating is for Congress, not for Democrats in Congress.
Not to mention the fact that even when Congress was solidly controlled by the Republicans for all those years they were never highly regarded.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,976
20,701
1,743
I am not making strawman arguments and then attacking them. I responded to the points YOU brought up as to reasons for attacking Iraq. Though I will say none of them were offered by the Government as the reason we went to war. As to not being effective? Says who? You? Who appointed you the judge of credibility and effectiveness? In this case that is simply a matter of opinion. I feel your arguments lack credibility and effectiveness. However, I will point out that as to credibility, approximately 75% of the people in the US take the same stance I have. I'd say the anti Iraq war argument is also a bit more effective based on those numbers.

That said you will never convince me nor will I convince you.
You responded

So your saying inciting a revolt, that resulted in tens of thousands of anti-Saddam iraqi's to be killed, is with in the terms of a cease fire? It's justified to go to war because Iraq refused to let inspectors in after a decade of searches. But not justified for them to refuse after we tried to start a civil war?
Unless you can quote where I made any such argument, you made a strawman argument. In fact, you know I clearly DIDN'T say anything of the sort. It was just a diversionary tactic.

You're doing it again, by saying "though I will say none of them were offered by the Government as the reason we went to war"....I NEVER SAID THEY DID, now did I? No I did not. You posited that there was absolutely no justification that could reasonably exist for the war. Your position did not limit it to "officially sanctioned by the Bush administration" justifications as you now apparently want to do.

Strawmen arguments are NEVER effective because they don't address the actual arguments being made. How can they refute such arguments if they don't actually address them? Answer...they can't.

As far as using popular opinion as an indication that your opinion is more effective and credible....I bet that you weren't using that argument immediately following 9/11 when Bush's approval ratings were high. It'd also be interesting to see how you equate popularity with credibility when the Democratic controlled Congress's ratings are even lower than Bush's.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,976
20,701
1,743
Not to mention the fact that even when Congress was solidly controlled by the Republicans for all those years they were never highly regarded.
Can you deny that Congressional approval ratings have dropped since the Democrats have been in power?
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
Can you deny that Congressional approval ratings have dropped since the Democrats have been in power?
Congress in general isn't doing anything the people want. They're being harder on Bush to get the Republican approval (that still support him) and they're not impeaching Bush to get the Democratic and some of the Republican approval.
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
68
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
You responded



Unless you can quote where I made any such argument, you made a strawman argument. In fact, you know I clearly DIDN'T say anything of the sort. It was just a diversionary tactic.

You're doing it again, by saying "though I will say none of them were offered by the Government as the reason we went to war"....I NEVER SAID THEY DID, now did I? No I did not. You posited that there was absolutely no justification that could reasonably exist for the war. Your position did not limit it to "officially sanctioned by the Bush administration" justifications as you now apparently want to do.

Strawmen arguments are NEVER effective because they don't address the actual arguments being made. How can they refute such arguments if they don't actually address them? Answer...they can't.

As far as using popular opinion as an indication that your opinion is more effective and credible....I bet that you weren't using that argument immediately following 9/11 when Bush's approval ratings were high. It'd also be interesting to see how you equate popularity with credibility when the Democratic controlled Congress's ratings are even lower than Bush's.
I never said there were NO justification possible for war. Who is doing the strawman thing now? I never said there was No possible justification for war. there is plenty of justifcation, just not any offered so far to justify THIS one. I said the reason offered by the Government for this war have not proven valid. Hell they change the official reason every year.

As to not answering arguments you yourself have done that.

As to how I felt after 9/11? I probably have a lot more ties to that then you do. MY Father, Brother and two Cousins worked construction on both towers.
I never said going after the Taliban in Afghanistan was wrong. It was 100% the right thing to do. GUTTING the effort in Afghanistan to go after Saddam was not. Please do not tie 9/11 to Iraq there is no connection. Feel free to tie 9/11 to the folks who have free access to Dubya from Saudi Arabia.

As to Congress approval rating going down, yes they have. Since The Dems basically have a slim margin and are handcuffed with not being able to override a veto, they are limited. The announced policy of the Republicans was to obstruct this Congress causing gridlock. Makes it hard to achieve anything. But the Republicans did a good enough job of making the public unhappy they got voted out. THAT is the ultimate dissatisfaction level, is it not?
 

OKCPoke

Territorial Marshal
Dec 19, 2006
5,570
6
668
Wow. Hilarious how you try to push the approval rating on a Democratically controlled Congress (which means 1 or 2 more Democrats than Republicans) onto only the Democrats. The approval rating is for Congress, not for Democrats in Congress.
Nice spin...again. I believe it's a rating for what the MAJORITY approve/disapprove...not what the minority can't affect.