Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V

Ticomaya is exactly correct, Bush never accused Hussein for 9/11. The reason people in this country connect Iraq and 9/11 as a sort of broad context is because people aren't stupid, they understand Hussein's support and connection to terrorist groups, and 9/11 was caused by terrorists. There were many reasons for entering Iraq, but one was the mistrust of Hussein, as he was a rogue dictator that could not be trusted, and had defied the U.N. and the world community, and there was a fear that if he had WMD, it would wind up in the hands of terrorists. He had used them before, and it is possible he was behind the anthrax attacks. People know all of this, and despite the spin of the Democrats for years, you cannot wipe out what people remember in terms of what did happen.

Ticomaya is exactly correct, Bush never accused Hussein for 9/11. The reason people in this country connect Iraq and 9/11 as a sort of broad context is because people aren't stupid, they understand Hussein's support and connection to terrorist groups, and 9/11 was caused by terrorists. There were many reasons for entering Iraq, but one was the mistrust of Hussein, as he was a rogue dictator that could not be trusted, and had defied the U.N. and the world community, and there was a fear that if he had WMD, it would wind up in the hands of terrorists. He had used them before, and it is possible he was behind the anthrax attacks. People know all of this, and despite the spin of the Democrats for years, you cannot wipe out what people remember in terms of what did happen.

Ticomaya is exactly correct, Bush never accused Hussein for 9/11. The reason people in this country connect Iraq and 9/11 as a sort of broad context is because people aren't stupid, they understand Hussein's support and connection to terrorist groups, and 9/11 was caused by terrorists. There were many reasons for entering Iraq, but one was the mistrust of Hussein, as he was a rogue dictator that could not be trusted, and had defied the U.N. and the world community, and there was a fear that if he had WMD, it would wind up in the hands of terrorists. He had used them before, and it is possible he was behind the anthrax attacks. People know all of this, and despite the spin of the Democrats for years, you cannot wipe out what people remember in terms of what did happen.

Ticomaya wrote:

For c.i., who seems incapable of understanding this sentence:

"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president."

This comment, though in large sized font, is dishonest, unprincipled and demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity.

Con`fla´tion
n. 1. A blowing together, as of many instruments in a concert, or of many fires in a foundry.
2. a fusing together; merger of two or more things or ideas into one.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Con`fla´tion
n. 1. A blowing together, as of many instruments in a concert, or of many fires in a foundry.
2. a fusing together; merger of two or more things or ideas into one.

c.i.'s Word O' the Day.

Ticomaya wants it both ways: Bush and his henchmen informed the congress, the American public, and the world, that Saddam had WMDs.

Now, people like Ticomaya wants to argue symantics; not the "conflation" or lies.

Go figure.

okie wrote:

Ticomaya is exactly correct, Bush never accused Hussein for 9/11. The reason people in this country connect Iraq and 9/11 as a sort of broad context is because people aren't stupid, they understand Hussein's support and connection to terrorist groups, and 9/11 was caused by terrorists. There were many reasons for entering Iraq, but one was the mistrust of Hussein, as he was a rogue dictator that could not be trusted, and had defied the U.N. and the world community, and there was a fear that if he had WMD, it would wind up in the hands of terrorists. He had used them before, and it is possible he was behind the anthrax attacks. People know all of this, and despite the spin of the Democrats for years, you cannot wipe out what people remember in terms of what did happen.

WOW okie that's one of the most stupidest post you have ever made.

We invaded Iraq for the following reasons;
1. We couldn't trust Saddam (which means we have the right to invade any country who has a leader we don't trust).

2. He was a rogue dictator (so we can attack any country that has a "rogue" dictator).

3. He defied the U.N. (and Israel has never defied the U.N.).

4. We were afraid he had WMD's but we had very good intelligence that he didn't. So an accusation is all we need to invade any country we choose.

5. It was possible, but not at all probable, that he was behind the anthrax attacks. So just thinking anyone was behind something is all we need to attack someone.

Isn't it nice to know that thousands of Americans died or such stupidity.

AUMF

Saudi public leery of Bush
By DONNA ABU-NASR
January 14th, 2008

Saudi Arabia's warm official welcome for President Bush, the scion of a family with close ties to the kingdom's ruling family, masks his deep unpopularity among ordinary Saudis.

A recent poll found only 12 percent here view Bush positively - lower than Iran's president or even al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden - and more think warmly toward Iran than America.

Among the reasons are the chaos in Iraq that followed the U.S.-led invasion and the widespread Arab feeling that the United States is biased in favor of Israel and not serious in seeking Mideast peace. A recent editorial said everything the president touches "turns to dust and ashes."

Analyst Abdullah al-Fozan said in a recent column in Al-Watan daily that Bush's "black pages" have been piling up.

"You have the opportunity now to decrease that blackness ... by fulfilling the promise you made to help establish a Palestinian state," he wrote.

And an editorial in Saturday's Arab News, a Saudi English-language newspaper, said Bush's record makes it hard for Arabs to believe he can deliver.

"No Palestinian, no Arab believes he will, or can, deliver," the editorial said. "Everything he touches turns to dust and ashes. Iraq, Afghanistan - maybe now even Iran."

Turkish FM: U.S. launched war for Iraq oil
Posted : Mon, 14 Jan 2008

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 Turkey's finance minister says the United States is "after the oil" in Iraq, joining other high-profile officials making the assertion recently.

"The guy from miles away is invading Iraq claiming to put an end to the unfair system," Kemal Unakitan said, referring to U.S. President George W. Bush, the Anka News Agency reports. "But everyone knows they are after the oil. All the rest is just made up stories."

Unakitan's statements last week in Istanbul at an event sponsored by the Turkish business group MUSIAD came while Turkish President Abdullah Gul was meeting with Bush.

A senior Bush administration official said after the meetings that the two sides agreed to work together further on Iraq issues, such as the controversial oil-rich city of Kirkuk and the threat from Kurdish separatists.

Unakitan, however, was blunt in his criticism of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

"He brings his army forces in the name of bringing freedom and nobody objects. Indeed they support saying that they also were contributing to the peace efforts," he said. "What peace efforts? You all are coming there for your sake, for oil."

Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan caused an uproar after the September release of his book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World."

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil," Greenspan wrote.

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

For c.i., who seems incapable of understanding this sentence:

"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president."

This comment, though in large sized font, is dishonest, unprincipled and demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity.

Then your beef is with Linda Feldmann, the author of the article quoted by c.i.