Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
One nice thing about finding ("cherry picking) editorial pieces is I can often find people better able to communicate points that I agree with than I can. From yesterdays WSJ editorial page, accept it for what it is or reject it - just know there are many with the view shared here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212...gn2008_mostpop |
ace, your editorial's arguments are supported by......???? .....compared to the linked support for every point in my last post.
Can you refute, with facts, anything in my last post?
I responded to what you posted, in your post directly before your most recent one:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Bush stated that he never said there was an operational relationship. I think he came to the conclusion there was a relationship based on circumstantial evidence. I accept the fact that there may have been occasions when he did not make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence and other times when he did. ......
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Here are the relevant Bush and Cheney quotes, ace....can you single out the one(s) where either official "make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", or come up with a relevant quote that I might have missed?:
|
....and you ignored my question...... the list of Bush and Cheney quotes is in the lower portion of my last post....
waiting for you. Feel free to cite your own quotes of occasions where either Bush or Cheney, "make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence",
when it came to assertions that "Saddam had relations with al Zarqawi"....
If you believe this, it should be a simple exercise to point out when and where, before September 15, 2006....Bush "make[s] it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence", when it came to assertions that "Saddam had relations with al Zarqawi"....
Bush's false statements about this are my prime example of him lying us into war, and keeping us there, all of these years. You claim that it was only "on occasion" that Bush said unqualified things like the last time he said it, (August 21, 2006),and that....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2460645&postcount=63
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Getting back on track...
Ace: You read up on the PNAC? I'm curious as to your impression.
|
I don't know what is real, exaggerated, politicized, or made up, regarding the organization from the websites I have visited. It seems the constant is that the organization is or was made up of a group of conservatives with a belief in maintaining and using US military strength. It seems that the philosophy of the people in the organization comes from the Reagan administration and has influenced Bush 41 and Bush 43.
I still don't understand the relevance of the organization. If I want to know what Chaney thinks about our military and how he would like it used in the world, all I have to do is trace his very public track record and public statements on the subject. He has not been deceptive on this topic, nor has he been deceptive about his views regarding executive power. Bush has not been deceptive either. I don't get it.... |
Show us the occasion, or occasions, where Bush qualified this:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
President Bush February 6, 2003
...We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.....
|
In between these two dates, ace...February 6, 2003, and August 21, 2006.... if Bush qualified these assertions as "based on circumstantial evidence", point me to where and what he said.....
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
August 21, 2006
Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. ....
|