Re: BUSH KNEW!
- From: "BillB" <bogus@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:27:50 GMT
"DP75089" <a165a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> They were lobbying for, in the short term, the willingness to take some
> sort of unspecified "military action". Raining 400+ cruise missiles down
> on Iraq is not an invasion, but it most certainly is a military action.
> Does this require further clarification, or are you starting to get it?
It seems you are being deliberately obtuse.
"That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's
regime from power."
"The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding
over the past several months."
" In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from
power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
"We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's
attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from
power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
How exactly do you think they planned on "removing" Saddam?
> You sure have raised taking liberties with someone's words to a real art
> form. How do you get from an urging for "willingness to take military
> action" in the "near term"....to "practically begging" for a "full scale
Ask 100 people with average intelligence and reading comprehension skills
what they were advocating with this letter: http://tinyurl.com/7ots
> You have a nasty habit of repeatedly engaging in the tired and transparent
> tactic of questioning someone else's knowledge in order to distract
> attention from your own bullshit. Note the last words of Section 8:
> "(except as provided in section 4(a)(2))"
> Section 4(a)(2) provides for:
> "MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the
> drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense,
> defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and
> training for such organizations."
> Not deployment of combat troops or direct use of ordinance, but supplying
> and training a military organization for the purpose of assisting that
> organization in carrying out the act. In other words, a military action
> by proxy. Remind you of any previous activities? Say, in Southeast Asia?
So what then does this law have to do with spending close to a half trillion
dollars invading Iraq? Why did you bring it up? What are you trying to
prove? You really don't believe the defence industry was drooling over the
prospect of a full scale invasion? Propping up resistance groups is chump
>> No they weren't. What does this have to do with the defence industry
>> motivations for promoting an invasion of Iraq?
> Until you can ask such questions, you first have to provide compelling
> evidence of someone calling for an invasion of Iraq. You haven't done
> that, all of your creative "reading between the lines" not withstanding.
It's not reading between the lines. It's plain English.
>> > The letter in question was signed by 18 PNAC members.
> So math isn't your long suit. You claimed that "all" those behind the
> letter were later appointed to high-level Bush Admin posts. I pointed out
> that it was more like "about half". You claimed again that you really
> meant, "all". Are you having trouble recognizing that 18 > 10?
uhhhhh did you really think I meant each and every member of PNAC landed a
top job in the Bush administration? When someone says "look at all the cars
in this parking lot" what do you take it to mean?
>> > OK. But I fail to see how this represents anything other than a
>> > logical
>> > and inescapable conclusion, given the facts of the time. It sure as
>> > hell
>> > is no "amazing coincidence".
>> Read between the lines.
> Translation: Make shit up when a literal reading doesn't fit your
> pre-conceived notions and agendas.
>> They were saying they needed a new Pearl Harbor
> They never said "they" needed anything. They drew an incredibly obvious
> conclusion regarding the unlikelyhood of public support for what they felt
> was needed, barring some major catastrophe. Even more obvious was the
> analogy of Perl Harbor.
Yes they were saying they needed a new Pearl Harbor to advance their agenda
in a timely fashion. That's what I said in the first place.
>> to get the US people to accept their plan for massive military spending
> ("rebuilding" in their euphemistic language), and very shortly afterward
> they got it. Seems like a
>> coincidence to me.
> Have someone explain "Occam's Razor" to you.
What does Occam's Razor have to do with it being a coincidence that they
said they needed a new Pearl Harbor to rapidly advance their agenda, and
then it happening a short time later? If they didn't cause or allow 9/11 to
happen it's a coincidence by any definition of the word.
- Re: BUSH KNEW!
- From: DP75089
- Re: BUSH KNEW!
- Prev by Date: Re: i quit pokerstars...their cash games just too tight
- Next by Date: Re: Tanya AKA misst74
- Previous by thread: Re: BUSH KNEW!
- Next by thread: Re: BUSH KNEW!