Quote:
Originally Posted by Splum
I never said it was more than that, YOU did citing some biased "poll" without a source link. Politicians always spin and most intelligent people know that. At the time that Bush was making the case for war in Iraq I am almost 100% position MOST Republicans/conservative people supported that decision. It was only afterwards with the mismanagement of the war that conservatives tired of the Bush administrations strategy.
|
Lets recap:
I stated that he was trying to imply that Iraq was somehow involved with the 9/11 attacks so that people would support his invasion of it. I posted some quotes he made that were kind of ambiguous and could be taken as lumping Iraq in with the group responsible for 9/11.
You than said that
"Only HALF of the Americans would make that connection, the less intelligent poor Democratic half. So now Bush is at fault because people are assuming dumb asses?"
To which I replied that it was more like 70%. Here is my source. I'm going to assume the BBC checks their facts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
Then once you read that it is more like 70% so it can't just all be stupid democrats that believed him you say, "
Get real show me a politician that DOESNT spin?"
I point out that this is exactly what I am saying. Bush spun everyone and tried to imply that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks. He never said it, but he lumped them into the same group and people bought it. Not just stupid democrat people, but many people.
To this you reply with a bunch of garble about how 100% of conservatives supported his attack on Iraq and they only started to turn on him when they saw his mismanagement of it.
I'm now confused. We were never talking about the mismanagement of the war. The entire point of this is that Bush spun/misled (however you want to put it) much of the public during the lead up to the invasion and you have yet to make any argument proving otherwise.