Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:48 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
It is clear that that was his primary justification, even if he doesn't say the words "primary motivation" each time he mentions it.

I've asked you to find me a speech from the appropriate time period which suggests that something else was the primary motivation. So far, you haven't.


If he never mentioned WMD as the "primary motivation", but gave more than one reason for the invasion of Iraq, how can you possibly know which one of the reasons given for the invasion was the primary motivation?

If Bush cited both spreading democracy and weapons of mass destruction as reason for the invasion without ever stating which one was the more important reason, how do you know that one was the primary motivation and the other one wasn't?


He held Bush's head in the toilet until he agreed with him.

Cycloptichorn
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:49 pm
@Cycloptichorn,

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:49 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
He gave WMD disarmament as the primary justification.


You've made this claim several times now, Brandon, but can you give a single quote where Bush said that WMD were the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq?

You're not just making this up, are you?

I did above, but I'll repeat it for you:
http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/ci_ct_iraq_2003031901.html
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:52 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

It only counts of Brandon says it counts. He can pretend it doesn't and he will hold our heads in the toilet until we agree.

Taunts are now all that's left to you, reasoned argument having failed. I'm still right unless you can find a quotation from president Bush that disproves my assertion. Green Witch is still as wrong as when she made her statement.


You're still incorrect, even though you've dropped points you can't argue against that I raised. Your initial response didn't address what Green Witch actually wrote, but instead the argument you wish to have....

Cycloptichorn

The president didn't give spreading democracy as his primary justification for invasion during the run up to the invasion. He gave WMD disarmament as the primary justification. That was an innacurate assertion by Green Witch. If you can't give me a counter example, I can't imagine what all this other noise is supposed to accomplish.


Amazing you can't see the trap you've fallen into, Brandon.

Here's Green Witch's post:

Quote:

Well, let's face it - The Bush Administration is going to be the gold standard of what happens when bible thumping loonies get into power. It will serve as a lesson for generations to come.

(PS - what's Conservative about deposing foreign dictators to spread "freedom" and spending tax money like a bunch of drunkin' frat boys?)


When did she make any mention of WMD? When did she say 'before the invasion, this was the reason given?' The reason given today by Conservatives is that we were 'spreading democracy' in the Middle East. It's too embarrassing to mention the other reasons, which were lies.

Nobody gives a **** about your tired arguments re: the 'primary' justification given at the time, Brandon. Seriously. Why don't you catch up to our modern reality and just admit what you know is true: that Conservatives and Bush supporters have tried to whitewash the whole thing since it was revealed what a mistake they made.

And as I said before: what's conservative about attacking people based on their potential WMD programs, Brandon?

Cycloptichorn

The motivation she attributes to president Bush for deposing foreign dictators is incorret when applied to Afghanistan or Iraq. In the case of Iraq, this can be seen by looking at what president Bush himself consistently gave as the reason we ought to invade. If you don't agree, give a counter-example.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:53 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
He gave WMD disarmament as the primary justification.


You've made this claim several times now, Brandon, but can you give a single quote where Bush said that WMD were the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq?

You're not just making this up, are you?

I did above, but I'll repeat it for you:
http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/ci_ct_iraq_2003031901.html


Brandon, in which part of your link does Bush state that WMD are the 'primary' reason for attacking Iraq?

He starts by saying -

Quote:

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.


In his first sentence, 'freeing the populace' is prominently mentioned. Hard to see how you could argue it wasn't a primary reason given.

Not to mention my outstanding question to you: what is Conservative, about attacking a country out of fear of their weapons programs?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:54 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger

I don't see him say WMD is the primary reason. I see him list 3 reasons and you assume they are in an order.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:56 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
He gave WMD disarmament as the primary justification.


You've made this claim several times now, Brandon, but can you give a single quote where Bush said that WMD were the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq?

You're not just making this up, are you?

I did above, but I'll repeat it for you:
http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/ci_ct_iraq_2003031901.html


Nowhere in the linked text does Bush state that WMD were the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Are you conceding you're unable to support your claims?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:56 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
It is clear that that was his primary justification, even if he doesn't say the words "primary motivation" each time he mentions it.

I've asked you to find me a speech from the appropriate time period which suggests that something else was the primary motivation. So far, you haven't.


If he never mentioned WMD as the "primary motivation", but gave more than one reason for the invasion of Iraq, how can you possibly know which one of the reasons given for the invasion was the primary motivation?

If Bush cited both spreading democracy and weapons of mass destruction as reason for the invasion without ever stating which one was the more important reason, how do you know that one was the primary motivation and the other one wasn't?

Because he gave this reason consistently, and in critical addresses seeking permission or concurrence it was clear that it was the primary reason. I am at work and have to go to a meeting now, so all of you imbeciles can claim victory.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:57 pm
@Brandon9000,
Victory.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:58 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon, we had won before the whole conversation had even started. That's the beauty of you A2K Conservatives - you seem determined to argue that the past didn't happen, and even if it did, none of the bad things that happened were in fact the Republican's fault, b/c of their good intentions.

Laughing

The country has decided that this argument is wrong and that you are wrong. That is why the Republican party has been solidly trounced in the last couple of elections and will likely continue to do so in the future.

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 02:23 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:

Because he gave this reason consistently, and in critical addresses seeking permission or concurrence it was clear that it was the primary reason. I am at work and have to go to a meeting now, so all of you imbeciles can claim victor

It seems that Bush also was consistent in giving a "free Iraq" as a reason for invading since we have at least 2 instances of that occurring.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 03:29 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

Because he gave this reason consistently, and in critical addresses seeking permission or concurrence it was clear that it was the primary reason. I am at work and have to go to a meeting now, so all of you imbeciles can claim victor

It seems that Bush also was consistent in giving a "free Iraq" as a reason for invading since we have at least 2 instances of that occurring.

I'm back. Good meeting. Anyway, here is a speech the president made 3 days before the invasion started, stating clearly why he was going to war. Green Witch was wrong and you're wrong.

It's at: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/fea/20030317/202/316

Here are the first few paragraphs:

Quote:
Transcript of President Bush's Speech on Iraq

March 17, 2003


My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.

For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq.

Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage.

It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 04:25 pm
@Brandon9000,
C'mon you guys. Brandon has actually posted the first few paragraphs of Bush's speech on the subject.

And he clearly says he is doing all this because Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and...

...all that.

No reason for Bush to lie, is there?

Has he ever lied?

No reason to question his intelligence (in both respects of that word), is there?

Jeez!
0 Replies
 
candide
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 09:29 pm
A Bush speech!?!?!?! What the hell?? Laughing Rolling Eyes Laughing Rolling Eyes Laughing

Lets just try and forget the whole Bush thing ever happened.
0 Replies
 
candide
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 09:52 pm
Remember when that idiot came out of that jet wearing a flight suite? Laughing Laughing

Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:46 pm
@candide,
3 piece?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:54 pm
@Steve 41oo,
No...3 peace!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 03:20 pm
I wasn't watching the tee-vee yesterday, so i didn't see. Can anyone tell me . . . did the boy let the door hit him in the ass?
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 03:39 pm
@Setanta,
Movement on Guantanamo, torture, Iran, CIA secret prisons...hopefully extraordinary (outsourced torture) rendition is next.
0 Replies
 
candide
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 09:58 am
http://search.hp.my.aol.com/aol/redir?src=image&clickedItemURN=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trueblueliberal.com%2Fwp-content%2Fphotos%2Fbush_flight_suit_1.jpg&moduleId=image_details.jsp.M&clickedItemDescription=Image Details

this one
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » BUSH IS GONE!
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:06:14