- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,716
- Reaction score
- 790
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
He was not doing anything in regards to invading it. Talking about it off handedly, before 9/11 even happened, is not equivilent of going into Iraq over 9/11 or even legitimately planning Iraq right after 9/11.
Amazing, you can not only see THROUGH the internet, but you apparently see into an alternative dimension in which things happen differently than in reality. This is a rather impressive talent you have. Perhaps you should talk to FOX to see if they’ll make a reality show based around it.
You’re trying to build a strawman right now, so I figure you’d know what it means, but apparently you don’t.
No, you didn’t say anything about “invading”…which was exactly my point. You disproved something I didn’t say, unless you take HALF of a sentence out of context. I was talking about invading. The person I was responding to talked about “invaiding”. THAT was the discussion. THAT was the context of my statement.
You not saying anything about “invading” wasn’t me creating a strawman, that was the entire basis for my complaint with your pathetic attempt at “debunking” me. You “debunked” half of a sentence by taking it completely out of context due to your desire to NOT address “invading”, which is directly what I WAS addressing.
YOU created the strawman, when you tried to prove me wrong by “proving” that Bush talked about Iraq at some nebulus point prior to invading…which I never denied, I was speaking specifically about invading which was obvious in the context and if you had addressed my entire sentence.
Not at all. Its just that you apparently are getting pissy that you and those thanking you little high-five party is being busted up due to, you know, reality and that the strawman you built up and began to wallop on was exposed as the dummy it was. Its not my fault I have to point out the context of what was said because you failed to address it at all and then immediately claimed victory…that’s yours. If you had actually dealt with what I said, instead of what you decided you had a better case against, this wouldn’t have had to happen.
Thanks for the reassurance…but nothing pathetic about it. You’re just upset because you tried to “disprove” something I never claimed and are upset cause I called you on it.
Which, looking at your time line above, isn't surprising. You're a rabid hyper partisan that can't see past "con" and has a world view completely twisted by ideology. You bag on about Reagan, Bush, Cheney, and Bush again and how horrible they are but of course mention nothing about Clinton's half assed efforts there or his policy of regime change that he put no bite behind and left his successors to deal with. You don't have the ability to judge things from an impartial position or through actual facts because you're more interested in scoring political points and attempting to land punches on the other side regardless of what you have to do to do so.
I won't sit here and say the Bush Administration didn't make blunders with Iraq. I won't sit here and say that Bush was thinking about Iraq before he was elected. I won't even say that if 9/11 didn't happen he wouldn't have found a way to go in. I may not believe all of that is true, but I can see it being possible. What I will sit here and say though is that anyone trying to say that he immedietely drove us into war with Iraq after 9/11 instead of going after the true enemies, the Saudis, is grossly mistaken and completely factually incorrect and will argue that till kingdom come, which is what I've done here. Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 to attack Iraq. I don't care what definition you want to use, there's none that equates 2 years to almost immedietely.
:lol: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.