• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Topic: Bush Rewriting History AGAIN

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Bush Rewriting History AGAIN

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    From a recent speech in Iowa:

    "The enemy declared war on us," Bush told a re-election rally in Cedar Rapids. "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president... The next four years will be peaceful years."

    Now quick. Somebody tell me when Saddam Hussein declared war on us? Is that why we forgot about bin Laden and went into Iraq? Because if Saddam delcared war on us, hell, I'm all for getting the bastard.

    Oh, wait. Weren't WE the ones who declared war on HIM?

  2. #2

    Re: Bush Rewriting History AGAIN

    Where's your intellectual honesty, Rob? While I disagree with Bush, it's obvious that Bush didn't mention Saddam or Iraq but instead was referring to "the enemy" as in Al Qaeda and Islamic Terrorism in general. Whether this is a silly thing to say or not, that's the clear implication. You're guilty of spinning things here just as much as O'Riley or anyone else you condemn.

  3. #3

    Re: Bush Rewriting History AGAIN

    Brady, we are in a war with Iraq not Al Qaida. That's what was being discussed and that's what Bush was answering for. Saddam did not work with Al Qaida and did not declare war upon us. Bush planned to attack Iraq before the election. He is a war-monger. He is not a peceful president.

  4. #4

    Re: Bush Rewriting History AGAIN

    Anyone who condemns O'Reilly is spending way too much time thinking about him - or that whole "news" network. They suck.

  5. #5

    Re: Bush Rewriting History AGAIN

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    Where's your intellectual honesty, Rob? While I disagree with Bush, it's obvious that Bush didn't mention Saddam or Iraq but instead was referring to "the enemy" as in Al Qaeda and Islamic Terrorism in general. Whether this is a silly thing to say or not, that's the clear implication. You're guilty of spinning things here just as much as O'Riley or anyone else you condemn.
    MY intellectual honesty? We're not FIGHTING Al Qaeda or terrorists. We're fighting Iraqi countrymen who don't like our occupation of their soil. That's our WAR. There is no war on terrorism. It has been forgotten and/or ignored in favor of taking over Iraq.

    And the last I heard, the Iraqis did not attack us. It's BUSH who is being intellectually dishonest when he makes statements like that. Just as he was intellectually dishonest every time he used 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence prior to invading the country. Technically he never accused Iraq of being part of it, but the inference was there.

    Get a clue, Brady.

  6. #6

    Re: Bush Rewriting History AGAIN

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Phoenix
    Brady, we are in a war with Iraq not Al Qaida.
    You’re trying to apply your paradigm to Bush’s speech while tossing Bush’s paradigm. You know just as well as I do that Bush often speaks of the “war on terror”. This is the war of which he speaks. Whether you or I agree that such terminology is appropriate is another matter. But be honest and don’t put words into someone else’s mouth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Phoenix
    He is not a peceful president.
    I never said he was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Phoenix
    Anyone who condemns O'Reilly is spending way too much time thinking about him - or that whole "news" network.
    <temporarily speechless> Anyone like Nick Phoenix, for instance?

    Quote Originally Posted by robgb
    We're not FIGHTING Al Qaeda or terrorists.
    But rhetorically, in the context of what Bush says, we are fighting a “war” on Al Qaeda and terrorists. I know, you don’t agree with that rhetoric, and in many ways, neither do I.

    Quote Originally Posted by robgb
    Just as he was intellectually dishonest every time he used 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence prior to invading the country. Technically he never accused Iraq of being part of it, but the inference was there.
    He must have learned that tactic from Michael Moore. It’s PRECISELY the one he uses in his “documentaries”! Plausible deniability. Both Bush and Moore use the same deceptive tactic that leaves them the ability to deny ever having said something false. You see, Rob, I can call a spade a spade. Can you?

  7. #7

    Re: Bush Rewriting History AGAIN

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    Both Bush and Moore use the same deceptive tactic that leaves them the ability to deny ever having said something false. You see, Rob, I can call a spade a spade. Can you?
    Yes, Bush is a liar and makes obvious inferences that mislead and point to lies. Moore's inferences, on the other hand, point to the truth. THAT's the difference.

    But you, of course, refuse to see that.

  8. #8

    Re: Bush Rewriting History AGAIN

    You must have a very fuzzy notion of truth if you believe that. For example, when Moore attempted to imply that Heston held a "gun rally" 48 hours after Kayla Roland was shot by juxtaposing his voicover with a very cleverly edited snippet from the NRA website, was that an inference of truth? NO! It was a clever deception for which he can weakly claim innocence since he technically didn't come out and say "48 hours". However, he did say "gun rally" and that wasn't true either.

    But I suppose since you're probably anti-NRA that, over all, you think Moore's deception amounts to "truth" since it paints your opponents in a bad light you believe they deserve.

  9. #9

    Re: Bush Rewriting History AGAIN

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    You must have a very fuzzy notion of truth if you believe that. For example, when Moore attempted to imply that Heston held a "gun rally" 48 hours after Kayla Roland was shot by juxtaposing his voicover with a very cleverly edited snippet from the NRA website, was that an inference of truth? NO! It was a clever deception for which he can weakly claim innocence since he technically didn't come out and say "48 hours". However, he did say "gun rally" and that wasn't true either.

    But I suppose since you're probably anti-NRA that, over all, you think Moore's deception amounts to "truth" since it paints your opponents in a bad light you believe they deserve.
    Sorry, Brady, as I've said before, I can't really address Bowling for Columbine because I've never seen it. I have looked at the websites you recommended, but the points brought up there seemed a bit iffy at best.

    You might be surprised to know that I'm in favor of gun ownership, although I do think there should be thorough background checks of those attempting to buy one, myself included. As for the NRA, they're a bit too paranoid for my taste.

    As for Fahrenheit 9/11, it merely confirmed facts I already knew to be true based on my own look into the various matters discussed (using both liberal AND conservative sources).

    I'm glad to hear that you've finally seen the movie. Didn't you at least think the section about Dick Cheney's one-time involvement with the gay rights movement was amusing? I was rolling on the floor.

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •