Bush Covered It

You must have stopped reading at "way to dodge." Keep reading and then maybve you can attempt to answer my legitimate question.

 

Those were not the primary justifications for going to war. Those are the back-fill from the GOP who are desperately trying to cover their collective a$$es for exaggerating the "threat" that Saddam posed.

He WAS a tyrannical dictator AND practiced genocide, but we are talking about what happened AFTER GWI, not BEFORE. Saddam did ALL those horrible things BEFORE he invaded Kuwait while we were still his allies.

 

I harken back to the time around the SOTU 2003 when every administration official was making statements on all the talking heads programs conjuring up images of mushroom clouds. The vast majority of the US did not support the war based on your mythical "humanitarian" reasons, so the administration decided to exaggerate (at the very least) their "intelligence" to drum up support for the war.

As one of the duped, i am da##ed upset about it. I did not support this action in Iraq until the SOTU 2003 when Bush mentioned uranium from Africa along with the "massive" stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that we were told for a certainty were in Iraq.

I was pissed at Clinton for lying about his bl0wj0b, but I am absolutely livid that a president exaggerated and manipulated evidence to drum up support for a war that did not need to be fought. We could have finished Afghanistan and actually *gasp* caught OBL instead, but Bush just had to go clean up his daddy's mess.

 

Exactly, so let's backtrack a bit...

You said:
Bush is being criticized roundly by the Democrats for attempting to fulfill (covering) what were essentially Democratic promises.

I said:
1. invading Iraq under false pretenses does not constitute "covering it" so i believe that criticism is justified.
2. I don't think that ANYONE faults Bush for looking for OBL in Afghanistan so that can't fall under criticism.

You said:
Saddam was not a tyrannical dictator and practitioner of genocide? News to us all.

I then asked if Clinton stated ousting Saddam as a promise to catch the terrorists.

You just conceeded that he did not.

In conclusion, the issue that most of us on the board have regarding Bush and Iraq, that he invaded under false pretenses was not a democratic promise and thus Saddam has no business being in this arguement and I fail to see what other criticism you are speaking of.

 

Obviously not, but then that's the only real answer that you can give since it's a fictional chain email that is apparently part of some disinformation campaign

What point? That "Bush Covered It"? You already agreed that "that was already cited as a mistake of the piece."

False. The original point was that you just copied and pasted the email without any commentary whatsoever.

Either you thought it was true, or you were sending us telepathic messages as to what you really meant, you only switched to this point (which is dubious in and of itself, nobody criticizes the Bush Administration for fighting terrorism, but instead for the WAY in which it does so) when it became obvious that you had been duped by an urban legend.

It's not because it was "from an email that has been around before"; it's because it came from a well documented piece of propaganda that has been exposed as mythical, from the same source of similar mythical e-mails.

Something is wrong with you that we are three pages in and you can't admit that you goofed; Give it up.

 

Perhaps. The original e-mail uses cover in a past tense, meaning it's already been done

 

You're still waiting? I'm still waiting on your point by point justification as to why the contentions and implications of the e-mail are true. WHere is it?

PS, the embassy bombing suspects were rounded up in 1999. How did Clinton fail on this and "Bush covered it"?

Also, please provide me the dates on which the Khobar Towers, Riyadh & Cole bombers were "covered" by Bush and apprehended or killed and which President is credited with doing so.

Thanks sweetie.

 

Just an OT comment I don't expect any response to:

I hate it when people do this. The second you suggest the possibility of something different than what CNN or FOXnews or the Bush Administration tells you, it's all the sudden a "conspiracy!"

Yelling "conspiracy" sarcastically has become an easy and, unfortunately, accepted way to completely dismiss any concern or accusation that hasn't been repeated literally in an official press statement or nightly newscast.

I don't think this is a conservative or liberal thing, I think it's just some people who so much want to believe that the powerful in this country tell the truth that they're willing to suspend disbelief indefinitely.

The world is a lot easier to live in when you can believe in your leaders - that's why so many people continue to believe in them, long, long, long after they've lost the right to be trusted.

Carry on.

 

Very well said.

 

So true. You are a breath of fresh air - you get. And that is why I am unfortunately a cynic.

 

Shame on me for what, recognizing that this is garbage?

Did you see the other two urban legend emails that come from this same source? You're saying that a form e-mail that has gone to millions of people, with documented lies in it, that says "please forward to as many people as possible", is not part of a disinformation campaign?

Shame on you for being so gullible to fall for it, and shame on you for being so pigheaded and rolling around in your own mess by prolonging this thread well past the point of exhaustion.

Have some balls, admit that you goofed and move on. At first it was kind of amusing to see you try to backpedal and contort but now its kind of sad. You really are being your own worst enemy on this.

 

Giddyup, how much does not having the last word bother you?

A whole lot it looks like...

EDIT: you know you really are your own worst enemy.

I'll let you have it so that this thread can float to the bottom and you can try to move on.

 

Kinda like the misconception you spread by posting to start this thread?