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.


Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
The guy has, what, a 28% approval rating? Surely 72% of Americans are not liberal lefties.
that doesn't answer the question. It's not about approval ratings, its about absolute hate. Go read some of the liberal blogs. You'll see what I'm talking about.


The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
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.
Do you even read the post you're replying to before ranting? Read my post again. I said:

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.

I QUITE CLEARLY was referring to the particular war we've been discussing. I never said you were arguing that there was no possible justification for war in the generic sense.

Furthermore, your original post DID NOT limit possible justifications to "any offered so far".

Here it is:

And again our Justification for telling the leader of a sovereign Nation to leave? WMD? Not so. Don't say 9/11 or you'll look like an idiot, Don't say "to stop terrorism", again you'll look stupid, Don't say to give the Iraqi people freedom as that was the excuse two years after the fact and then we have to go to war with about half the nations of the world. Burma anyone? N. Korea? Saudi Arabia? So again the justification besides Bush wanting to make himself look non-wimpish?
So again, show me where you limited the possible justification to those expressed so far by the Bush administration. You didn't, and this is just another diversionary tactic.

As to not answering arguments you yourself have done that.
Oh really? Quote....not paraphrase, but quote....ONE question that was asked that I have not answered. Mischaracterizations of what I said preceded by "Are you saying...." when I quite clearly wasn't saying that don't count. I did answer those by indicating your response was a strawman and I wasn't saying that.

Have you noticed the difference between how you and I respond to each others posts in this thread. I quote your statements VERBATIM and respond to them immediately below the quote. Heck, if the post is long I even separate the different thoughts and arguments (which are otherwise verbatim and unedited) in order to respond to each and every one.

You? You usually summarize and mischaracterize what I've said, and then respond to the subtle (and not so subtle) mischaracterization. Such a tactic can be fairly effective if the "victim" plays along by accepting and arguing the altered viewpoint. I'm not allowing you to do that here though. Either respond to the arguments I'm actually making or you'll be called out and exposed for doing otherwise.

Back to the allegation that, "As to not answering arguments you yourself have done that".

In fact, I haven't seen really many questions from you at all. That's probably because you've already got it all figured out in your mind and don't really want or need input or thoughts from anyone else as you are in full "defend my position" mode as opposed to "exchange and consider other ideas" mode.

But I'll play along. Ask me any question(s) you want about my views on the War in Iraq. Make them precise. I'll answer them. This'll be fun because it'll probably piss off both the Bush haters and the Bush lovers.

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.
I seriously doubt you have more ties to 9/11 than I do. I had friends that died on that day, so you can stuff your attempt to take some kind of high road and moral authority on the subject and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine.

That's also where you can stuff your continued strawman arguing too. Unless you can show where I have tied 9/11 to Iraq you're responding to arguments I HAVEN'T MADE.

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?
And explain to me how the Republicans announced policy is different than the Democrat's announced policy when the Republicans were in power in Congress. Then explain to me how that fits in with Congressional approval ratings going down since the switch in power.

NYC Poke

The Veil of Ignorance
Sep 24, 2007
that doesn't answer the question. It's not about approval ratings, its about absolute hate. Go read some of the liberal blogs. You'll see what I'm talking about.
There's plenty of that on both sides. I seem to recall there was some pretty visceral hatred of the most recent former president as well. Comes with the territory.

NYC Poke

The Veil of Ignorance
Sep 24, 2007
Speaking of ties to 9/11 (and going a bit off point) this is a fascinating story.

  • In a 9/11 Survival Tale, the Pieces Just Don’t Fit

    Published: September 27, 2007

    Tania Head’s story, as shared over the years with reporters, students, friends and hundreds of visitors to ground zero, was a remarkable account of both life and death.

    She had, she said, survived the terror attack on the World Trade Center despite having been badly burned when the plane crashed into the upper floors of the south tower.

    Crawling through the chaos and carnage on the 78th floor that morning, she said, she encountered a dying man who handed her his inscribed wedding ring, which she later returned to his widow.

    Her own life was saved, she said, by a selfless volunteer who stanched the flames on her burning clothes before she was helped down the stairs. It was a journey she said she had the strength to make because she kept thinking of a beautiful white dress she was to wear at her coming marriage ceremony to a man named Dave.

    But later she would discover, she said, that Dave, her fiancé, and in some versions her husband, had perished in the north tower.

    As a matter of history, Ms. Head’s account made her one of only 19 survivors who had been at or above the point of impact when the planes hit. As a matter of emotion, her story deeply moved audiences like college students to whom she spoke and visitors at ground zero, where she has long led tours for the Tribute W.T.C. Visitor Center for visitors including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Gov. George E. Pataki.

    “What I witnessed there I will never forget,” she told a gathering at Baruch College at a memorial event in 2006. “It was a lot of death and destruction, but I also saw hope.”

    Much of Ms. Head’s account was posted on the Web site of the World Trade Center Survivors’ Network, a nonprofit organization for which she served as president and as point person for corporate donations.

    But no part of her story, it turns out, has been verified.

    The family and friends of the man to whom she claimed to be engaged say they have never heard of Tania Head and view the relationship she describes with the man, who truly died in the north tower, as an impossibility.

    A spokeswoman for Merrill Lynch & Company, where she told people she worked at the time of the terror attack, said the company had no record of employing a Tania Head.

    And few people, it seems, who embraced the gripping immediacy and pain of her account ever asked the name of the man whose ring she had returned, or that of the hospital where she was treated, or the identities of the people she met with in the south tower on the morning of 9/11.

    “She never shared those details, and it was nothing we wanted to probe,” said Alison Crowther, the mother of Welles Remy Crowther, a man who died on 9/11 and who is credited with rescuing a number of people from the south tower, including, by Ms. Head’s account, Ms. Head. “I felt it was too private and painful for her.”

    In recent weeks, The New York Times sought to interview Ms. Head about her experiences on 9/11 because she had, in other settings, presented a poignant account of survival and loss. But she canceled three scheduled interviews, citing her privacy and emotional turmoil, and declined to provide details to corroborate her story. During a telephone conversation on Tuesday, she would not explain her reticence, saying only that she had not filed any claims with the federal Victim Compensation Fund. “I have done nothing illegal,” Ms. Head said.

    She has retained a lawyer, Stephanie Furgang Adwar, to represent her. Also on Tuesday, in response to a question about the accuracy of Ms. Head’s account, Ms. Adwar said in an e-mail message, “With regard to the veracity of my client’s story, neither my client, nor I, have any comment.”

You can read the rest of the story here: &oref=slogin

A paper in Barcelona recently reported that she is the daughter of a wealthy former Spanish diplomat, and that injuries to her arm that she claimed to have sustained on 9/11 actually happened to her when she wrecked her Ferrari. Weird stuff.