The Middle East....NRA, etc and arguing....

[Gloria]

So you think we should have left Saddam in power?

No. He was behaving badly. He had to go. But rather than waste time trying to "convert" an Islamic country to democracy.....we should have put another dictator in place. One who would be a good U.S. puppet.

[jon71]

So you think we should have left Saddam in power?

Yes. He may have been a bad guy but removing him from power wasn't worth a single American life.

[Yogi Bare]

Yes. He may have been a bad guy but removing him from power wasn't worth a single American life.

I agree, Jon.

The fact that the invasion was instigated under false pretenses makes the loss of those American lives (and Iraqi lives) even more tragic. Equally tragic is that Dubya had no guilty conscience for sending our troops into harm's way unnecessarily.

[Gloria]

The entire civilized world, including the whole U.S. Congress (Senator Joe Biden, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton etc.), and every living ex-president agreed that Sadam should go.

I think it would have been a pretty good trick to sway the WORLD with "false pretenses".

But that is exactly what our current unpopular president is trying to do by blaming a full scale terrorist attack on an unknown video.

[Yogi Bare]

The fact that the invasion was instigated under false pretenses makes the loss of those American lives (and Iraqi lives) even more tragic. Equally tragic is that Dubya had no guilty conscience for sending our troops into harm's way unnecessarily.

I think it would have been a pretty good trick to sway the WORLD with "false pretenses".

I agree that it would have been a pretty good trick. The fact is: the world WASN'T swayed by the false pretenses. Dubya practically had to go it alone in starting the war, as he couldn't even get the United Nations Security Council to buy into his claim that Iraq possessed WMDs.

[Kouak]

I agree that it would have been a pretty good trick. The fact is: the world WASN'T swayed by the false pretenses. Dubya practically had to go it alone in starting the war, as he couldn't even get the United Nations Security Council to buy into his claim that Iraq possessed WMDs.

Well he did get Tony Blair to go along. But not getting much of the rest of the world to join us should have been a red flag to our leader. Can we say colorblind?

[Yogi Bare]

I agree that it would have been a pretty good trick. The fact is: the world WASN'T swayed by the false pretenses. Dubya practically had to go it alone in starting the war, as he couldn't even get the United Nations Security Council to buy into his claim that Iraq possessed WMDs.

Well he did get Tony Blair to go along.

Yes, you are correct with regards to Tony Blair. That's why I said "practically".

But not getting much of the rest of the world to join us should have been a red flag to our leader. Can we say colorblind?

I don't think he was color blind, but rather was obssessed with completing what his daddy didn't do during Desert Storm. In addition, Dubya wanted to exact revenge against Saddam Hussein because: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." But, in order to do those things, he had to come up with a compelling sounding reason to do so and also to try and convince other countries to join in on his private, personal war. Hence, the WMD fairy tale.

[Gloria]

Quote Originally Posted by Yogi Bare View Post


He has been caught in many lies. Even in the debate last night, he was lying, and, in one instance, the moderator, Candy Crowley, actually pointed out to him that he was.

I thought I would bring this over to the Middle East Thread because it is more relevant here.

I thought Mitt did a very good job of debating with two opponents.

What Candy pointed out...she retracted the next day and admitted that Romney was right.

Here is Candy on CNN. Anderson Cooper asks her "Tell us your thoughts during that moment." He means: You went in and you tried to help Obama. You acted like an airhead weather reporter.....

Candy: "I kneeeew that the president had said, you know, these "acts of terrors" (sic) won't stand or whatever the -- the whole quote was. And -- I -- I -- I -- And I think, actually... Y-y-you know, because right after that, I did turn around and say, "But you were totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't." So he was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word."

Wrong word?? What word?? I guess it was the word TERRORISM. That is what the Obama administration is trying to cover up.

Then Jason Chaffetz steps in to give her a little lecture: "I felt like it wasn't necessarily your place to try to be fact checker right there. I happened to think that your assessment of that was wrong, and so I was a bit frustrated on that particular point. I think you did great on other parts of it, but I really felt like you have two candidates disagreeing; it's not the role of the moderator to try to say, "Well, Mr. President, you're right."


The bottom line is that Obama waited two weeks before referring to a "terror attack". He blamed it on the video for two weeks, and everybody knows this, and he lied through his teeth at that debate.

[LumpyPostage]

I thought he waited three days, then five days. Now it's two weeks?

I also think Romney did well in the debates. He has certainly been more consistent than Obama. Biden was the funniest though.

[jon71]

Romney lied in the debate and Candy Crowley was correct to call him on it. There was no backtracking. This article has a word-for-word transcript of both the debate and a transcript of the Presidents speech the day after the terror attacks.