Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Advocate says that Bush is getting "revenge" for 9/11

Was that akin to Roosevelt saying that Pearl Harbor was a day of infamy and then loosing America's military power against Japan?

Advocate wrote:

There is a ton of evidence that Bush knew that Iraq was not a threat to us. And when that became evident, he said we invaded to bring democracy, etc., to Iraqis.

Of course we could debate the issue you raise about the "ton of evidence" that "Iraq was not a threat to us," but I don't think the likelihood exists that either of us would gain anything in rehashing it. But I am interested in your comment that would seem to imply Bush has in some respect modified the reasons for the invasion after the fact.

Is that what you are claiming?

Absolutely! ...

Didn't you love Bush's excuse for the war that we are killing terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to at home.

Also, we are getting revenge for 9/11.

Also, we invaded to save the people from Saddam.

I am sure that were other excuses, with more to come.

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.)

... But Bush still has a problem that goes beyond style: We don't know if this war is primarily about (1) taking weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam's Hussein's hands, or (2) removing Hussein from power, or (3) bringing democracy to Iraq and revolutionizing the politics of the Middle East.

And, Foxfyre, if he faces inarticulate foot in mouthers like Advocate in the former post, he would be able to do the trial when he is half asleep, but Ticomaya reminded me that it is again time to remind the ignorant on the left that President Bush, unlike the fastest zipper in the West-Bill Clinton--did not attack Iraq unilaterally but received AUTHORITY from the Congress to do so.

And, Foxfyre, if he faces inarticulate foot in mouthers like Advocate in the former post, he would be able to do the trial when he is half asleep, but Ticomaya reminded me that it is again time to remind the ignorant on the left that President Bush, unlike the fastest zipper in the West-Bill Clinton--did not attack Iraq unilaterally but received AUTHORITY from the Congress to do so. Ignorant posters like Avocate can never remember that:

according to Bob Woodward, in "Bush at War" P. 351.

quote

"On October 10 and 11( 2001) the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to grant the president FULL AUTHORITY to attack Iraqw unilaterally. The vote in the House was 296 to 133, and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-head to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend against the threat of Iraq"

end of quote


Now to people that are not abysmally ignorant, that fact would be definitive, but for people who are obviously lost in an unthinking Anti-Bush miasma, it is necessary to state that the Congress COULD HAVE turned the President down or, at the very least, MUTED the resolution without giving the President the full go ahead to use the militay as he(President Bush) determines to be necessary and proper.

Advocate's ignorance does not allow him to understand that if he wishes to excoriate those who sent troops to Iraq he MUST include all of the Congress that voted for the resolution above---that includes a large number of Democrats!!!

Foxfyre-

Surely you know how I am using the word-

IGNORANT-Random House Dictionary --Unabridged-

quote-

"lacking knowledge or information as to a particular fact or subject"

I do believe that I can demonstrate by giving references to facts that some of his posts are indeed ignorant.

This is not, as some would say, an attack on the person,but rather on the fact that he or she does not KNOW the facts.

To quote Black's Law Dictionary-

"Ignorantia Praesumitur ubi sceintia non probatur" or

"Ignorance is presumed where knowledge is not proved"

Bush very recently said that we are there to kill terrorists so that we won't have to kill them at home. ...

... This, of course, is stupid.

He still brings up 9/11 in the context of the war in Iraq, although Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, or even terrorism.

BernardR wrote:

Advocate says that Bush is getting "revenge" for 9/11

Was that akin to Roosevelt saying that Pearl Harbor was a day of infamy and then loosing America's military power against Japan?

Well the thing is Possum FDR did not attack Nova Scotia because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor

dyslexia wrote:

BernardR wrote:

Advocate says that Bush is getting "revenge" for 9/11

Was that akin to Roosevelt saying that Pearl Harbor was a day of infamy and then loosing America's military power against Japan?

Well the thing is Possum FDR did not attack Nova Scotia because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor

Your right,he didnt.
Instead,he declared war on Germany.

I know you are aware of the insults( all, of course in violation of the TOS since they involved obsecenities and excremental comments) made by Kuvazs, Frank APisa( who may have been suspended); Cicerone Imposter( who may have been suspended), Senanta and advocate among others. Some, who are non-entities and never post anything worth responding to, I just ignore--Plain Ol Me and Dyslexia. Others, who I have dealt with, but I do not deal with anymore because I empathize with their unfortunate illness, such as Blatham, are in a special category.

I meet posters on a level playing field, Okie. If they choose to ignore evidence, to belittle it without showing that it is false or misleading ( of course they must prove that); and to blithely pass my response to their post by without even acknowledging that they have been rebutted, I must, of course, respond in kind with the lack of courtesy they have afforded me.

Let's keep driving the left back into the corner, Okie!!!

Yes of course Possum I think it's very important for you to adhere to your cadre of numbnuts like foxfyre who never answers a direct question and okie who never comprehends any question or mysteryman who never understands what the question is or lawers from kansas who's only skill is semantic parsing and of course gunga, onsigdavid and shiksa who regard civilization as having more guns than your neighbor, you obviously need to rely on others like finn whose iq is based on degrees of variance from dallas (how far is dallas from chicago?) You keep on keeping on with your opinion op-eds and perhaps someday you may post actual documented information but I doubt it.

dyslexia wrote:

Yes of course Possum I think it's very important for you to adhere to your cadre of numbnuts like foxfyre who never answers a direct question and okie who never comprehends any question or mysteryman who never understands what the question is or lawers from kansas who's only skill is semantic parsing and of course gunga, onsigdavid and shiksa who regard civilization as having more guns than your neighbor, you obviously need to rely on others like finn whose iq is based on degrees of variance from dallas (how far is dallas from chicago?) You keep on keeping on with your opinion op-eds and perhaps someday you may post actual documented information but I doubt it.

Frankly, dyslexia, judging solely on your prior postings at A2K, you are quite possibly the last person who ought to be making snide remarks about the intelligence level of any other poster here. You play up the dumb cowboy angle pretty heavily, but anybody paying a scant bit of attention understands you're just being yourself.