• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Rumsfeld covered Iraq briefing papers with Biblical texts

The war in Iraq was waged to secure oil and global economic assets. The data was misrepresented to get public support, it was never the actual reason for going to war.

Unfortunately, that misrepresentation had the adverse effect.

Paul
 
Will, this statement is ludicrous. While I agree there was cherry picking going on, it wasn't from the bible. The only people who will view this issue as giving the invasion of Iraq an appearance of a holy war are people who already view it as a holy war.

I have to go with Jerry on this one in a round about way. The war in Iraq was about establishing a U.S. sphere of influence in a resource rich geographic area of the middle east. Or as it was put in the PNAC, "Secure and expand zones of democratic peace." Bush had Iraq on the brain, and in the days after Sept. 11th he saw an opportunity to justify a strategy his closest advisers had been working on for years.

I know what the war was fought about, the point here is how Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated Bush by controlling what he THOUGHT the war was about. It demonstrates what critics have said all along, that Bush was a puppet president, incapable of carrying out the responsibilities of his position.
 
I know what the war was fought about, the point here is how Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated Bush by controlling what he THOUGHT the war was about. It demonstrates what critics have said all along, that Bush was a puppet president, incapable of carrying out the responsibilities of his position.

I am trying really hard to understand what you are basing this information on. I would like to see some proof that Bush was manipulated?

I have no idea how you figure some inconsequential biblical text on a briefing has anything to do with being manipulated. This was not some kind of Crusade to wipe out Islam or recapture the holy land.
 
I am trying really hard to understand what you are basing this information on. I would like to see some proof that Bush was manipulated?
Dude -- dont hold your breath. I've been waiting of WEEKS for him to back up a claim he made; thus far he hasnt even bothered to put up a single post to that effect.
 
I am trying really hard to understand what you are basing this information on. I would like to see some proof that Bush was manipulated?

I have no idea how you figure some inconsequential biblical text on a briefing has anything to do with being manipulated. This was not some kind of Crusade to wipe out Islam or recapture the holy land.

How would there be "proof" that Bush was manipulated?
 
Dude -- dont hold your breath. I've been waiting of WEEKS for him to back up a claim he made; thus far he hasnt even bothered to put up a single post to that effect.

Your complete lack of civility and incessant hostility is the reason I don't respond to you. Consider this a response.
 
Your complete lack of civility and incessant hostility is the reason I don't respond to you. Consider this a response.
You mean your complete lack of any ability to actually defend your argument, don't you? Becauise that's all anyone here has ever seen from you.

BTW... not defending your position because you're feelings were hurt?
You're NEVER going to make it in the real world, sport.
 
Last edited:
How would there be "proof" that Bush was manipulated?

Well you are stating matter of factly that...

"I know what the war was fought about, the point here is how Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated Bush by controlling what he THOUGHT the war was about. It demonstrates what critics have said all along, that Bush was a puppet president, incapable of carrying out the responsibilities of his position." - WillRockwell

So this leads me to assume that someplace information was given or leaked that Bush was coerced or mislead into invading Iraq.

All this after it has been shown a few times now this was not the case. It was also shown he wanted to invade Iraq even before his presidency.

So I am asking what proof exists that he was manipulated by Rumsfeld or Cheney, and how the biblical quotes on a briefing substantiate your (thus far) unsubstantiated claim.

PS If this is just your opinion on the subject, then that would clarify it for me and others as well.
 
Last edited:
How would there be "proof" that Bush was manipulated?
Seems to me that this is up to -you- to determine and then illustrate, as -you- made the claim.

But you won't, because you know you can't. You'll continue to simply dodge the issue, like you're trying to do with your response, above.

One has to wonder, how you can make the claim tha GWB was manipulated of you did not have that proof at hand?
 
Mountain out of a mole hill.

Clinton had other doodles on his papers.
Uncovered a couple years ago; revealing his priorities:

PresidentialDoodles.com

zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture52-bill-clintons-co-presidential-doodles-revealed-http-www-presidentialdoodles-com.jpg


.
 
Bush maintained that this was never a war on Islam, and Obama maintains the same thing. But pictures annotated with biblical text are going to give America a black eye because it gives an appearance that it was otherwise.

I believe not so much that Bush lied, but that he was betrayed by those he trusted.

Article is here.

Meh, I doubt Bush was intelligent enough to co ordinate a war on Islam, look how he screwed up Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention Katrina.

Seems nothing to me, just a few scribblings. If US wanted a crusade, i'm sure they would have brought more pitch forks
 
Last edited:
First of all, Donald Rumsfeld was against water boarding. Just so you all know.

Once the government of the United States decided to invade Iraq it was the president's job to sell it to the people.

It wasn't his job to say things like, "well, Frank over at CIA says that Saddam doesn't have any WMDs but Charley and Pete and Liz say it's a slam dunk that he has them. I'm not sure who to believe. I'm so apprehensive."

I think a lot of people live far far away from the real world.
 
First of all, Donald Rumsfeld was against water boarding. Just so you all know.

Source?

Once the government of the United States decided to invade Iraq it was the president's job to sell it to the people.

It wasn't his job to say things like, "well, Frank over at CIA says that Saddam doesn't have any WMDs but Charley and Pete and Liz say it's a slam dunk that he has them. I'm not sure who to believe. I'm so apprehensive."

I think a lot of people live far far away from the real world.

Of all the things the president should not "sell", war would top the list to my mind.
 
Bush maintained that this was never a war on Islam, and Obama maintains the same thing. But pictures annotated with biblical text are going to give America a black eye because it gives an appearance that it was otherwise.

I believe not so much that Bush lied, but that he was betrayed by those he trusted.

Article is here.

Eh. The Islamic Fascists hate us as it is and most of the Arab and Muslim populations don't like us. What's a little more in terms of why they shouldn't tolerate us? It's kind of at the point where the bucket of water is so full that adding another drop is immaterial.
 
Rumsfeld Rejected Waterboarding - The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives

Of all the things the president should not "sell", war would top the list to my mind.
That's just not the way it works. Never has worked that way. The people have to be behind the effort or it won't work. The president can't come off all wobbly and weak when we're about to attack another country. He didn't tell us anything that he himself wasn't told. There was six months of diplomacy once he had permission to invade.
 
That's just not the way it works. Never has worked that way. The people have to be behind the effort or it won't work. The president can't come off all wobbly and weak when we're about to attack another country. He didn't tell us anything that he himself wasn't told. There was six months of diplomacy once he had permission to invade.

I was not suggesting that it is not how things are done, only that I do not think it should be done. If a president cannot be honest and straightforward about why we send our best and brightest to fight and die, then we should not send them.
 
Back
Top Bottom