Obama has an epiphany. Finally admits we are at war.

[Jay Canuck]

Is it your sub-moron Canuckystain view of the world that we have to be at war with Nigeria to recognize that one of Nigeria's citizens engaged in an act of war against us?

You truly are retarded.

so is your answer yes the U.S is at war with Nigeria or no but should be?

Proving once again that you are retarded.

We are not at war with Nigeria and there's no rational reason to argue that we should be at war with Nigeria, either.

Do you practice in front of a mirror to be this stupendously stupid or does it (tragically) come "naturally" to you?

but you said "act of war"....i'm confused and since you think I'm retarded why don't you help someone less fortunate than you and practice some compassionate conservatism with me and explain just what an act of war is then for me?

 

[Jay Canuck]

shucks! - Lie-Ability is not much of a conservative role model....can't even help a retarded Canadian.

 

[Liability]

so is your answer yes the U.S is at war with Nigeria or no but should be?

Proving once again that you are retarded.

We are not at war with Nigeria and there's no rational reason to argue that we should be at war with Nigeria, either.

Do you practice in front of a mirror to be this stupendously stupid or does it (tragically) come "naturally" to you?

but you said "act of war"....i'm confused and since you think I'm retarded why don't you help someone less fortunate than you and practice some compassionate conservatism with me and explain just what an act of war is then for me?

You don't grasp that an ACT of war entails an action? Really? This like baffles you?

You are far too stupid to be engaged in this kind of discussion.

Seriously.

You truly wish to have us believe that even YOU believe that the only individual who can engage in an ACT of war HAS to be acting on behalf of a nation?

Let me clue you in, you schmucky Canucky dishonest douchebag.

When the United States (the nation due south of Canuckystain) was attacked on 9/11/2001, it was not the attack of a particular "nation." It was an attack by a group of fanatics collectively known as terrorists, primarily that group of terrorists known as al qaeda.

When the United States Congress authorized the use of our military forces in response, Congress did not declare war on any one nation. It was officially declaring war on many different entities. I could post -- for the umpteenth time -- the phrasing of the AUMF, but I know a stubborn dishonest fucktard like you will fail to read it (or comprehend it) anyway.

So if you honestly care, fucking look it up via Google. Then report back to all of us which entities Congress authorized the President, as our Commander in Chief, to use our military might against.

 

[Jay Canuck]

so u want the President to declare war on the underwear bomber?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is not a Declaration of War, but rather a grant of military force to a President. No President should be doing such a thing without a Declaration of War. But Congress, Dems and Pubs and Indies, as a group is chicken.

 

[JakeStarkey]

so u want the President to declare war on the underwear bomber?

Keep it up and Lie-ability is going to want the President to declare war on mapleworld.

 

[Jay Canuck]

if maple syrup was worth as much as oil it could be worth it.

 

[Jay Canuck]

wait a minute......a litre of maple syrup is way more expensive than a litre of oil.

 

[CMike]

You are being purposefully obtuse. If there was no operational relationship then there was no justification in trying to use that claim to help justify the invasion. When I said there was no link I was saying there was not a relationship between the two that helped provide legitimate justification. You are clearly going to continue your semantic charade and as already proven, you refuse to admit when you are wrong. What was the latest? Was it you who claimed the US had charges against bin laden before 1996?

What a moron.

Here you are claiming sudan offered bin laden to the US. That's not true. They offered him to Saudi Arabia.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1899787-post600.html


This is you claiming bin laden had already been charged for the 93' wtc bombing by the time Sudan offered him to SA in 1996. Unfortunately, the first time the US indicted bin laden for anything wasn't until 1998.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1899808-post604.html


Those are great examples of you making false claims that you ignore when proven wrong.

Curve once again you are wrong.

Click on the link and you can hear Clinton himself tap dancing why he didn't accept Sudan's offer to take OBL in custody.

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.

9/11 Commissioner former Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Clinton told the Commission during his private interview that reports of his comments to the LIA were based on "a misquote."


During his interview with the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was accompanied by longtime aide and former White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, along with former national security advisor Sandy Berger, who insisted in sworn testimony before Congress in Sept. 2002 that there was never any offer from Sudanese officials to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.

But other evidence suggests the Clinton administration did not take advantage of offers to get bin Laden -- and that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was exploding during this time period.

At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president's attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.

On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."

During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.

Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.

Then came the bombshell offer:

"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.
Still, with the extraordinarily fortuitous offer on the table, back in Washington President Clinton had other things on his mind.

A timeline of events chronicled in the Starr Report shows that during the period of late January through March 1996, Mr. Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was then at its most intense.







It doesn't matter if he was indicted. It's not a law enforcement issue. THATS' THE PROBLEM.

It's a war, not a law enforcement issue.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Okay. Now it's clear you just make stuff up. I've always said there was never any link or relationship. It was CMike and Liability who introduced the "operational relationship" strawman. You know you are so wrong you won't even quote my post because it proves you are lying and you want to ignore that as much as possible. Dude, you're simply sick.

Are you going to call CMike a stupid mother fucker for saying there was a relationship between iraq and alkida? Or is that just another flip flop on your position?

but THERE WAS A LINK YOU FUCKING DUMBASS!!!!!!! It was said in the report from the Pentagon.

Some people can't even remember the lies they tell 15 posts back

Holy shit man. When I said "Link" it's the same fucking thing as a "relationship." They mean the same thing in this context. Are you guys soooooooo desperate you cling the most petty possible things? Lol.

When are you going to re-state your claim that says anyone who thinks there was a relationship between iraq and alkida is a stupid mother fucker? Liability says there was a relationship but I don't see you calling him a stupid mother fucker. Why? Partisan pussy cat got your tongue? Lol

and herein lies your failure to understand the english language and the definition of words...
con·tact:
a. Connection or interaction; communication
c. Association

link:
1. To connect with or as if with a link
2. (tr) to connect by association, etc

in your feebleminded opinion link, relationship, contact and connection may not be interchangeable but to thinking Americans without a left wing political ax to grind, the definitions for the words are clear and concise. Plus I know how to use a dictionary...unlike you.

You have clearly stated there was NO connection...and then you backtracked after the lie you are responsible for was exposed....now grow the fuck up...and start posting factual information. Just so everyone sees the LIE you posted earlier and then retracted I will post a version of my post UNEDITED by you in another dishonest attempt to fool the other buffoons here who subscribe to your fucked up dishonest views.

Once again Curve light is shot down in flames.

Post #488:

Quote:
How does your punk whiny ass ignore the Pentagon report that points out no link between Iraq and alkida?

Post #504:

Quote: FROM CURVELIGHT
I always known there was no connetion.

Post #543...my response:

Quote:
for the record the Pentagon report acknowledged that there were Al Qaeda contacts with Iraq intel services but none of them developed into an "operational relationship".......

Post #545:

Quote:
What are you talking about? I just explained I always knew there was no link between iraq and alkida.

Post #571:

Quote:
Nobody ever claimed there was never any contact.

Post #575:

Quote:
con·tact:
a. Connection or interaction; communication
c. Association

link:
1. To connect with or as if with a link
2. (tr) to connect by association, etc

CurveLight...you seem to have trouble with basic english skills and comprehension...I recommend you repeat the 3rd grade...then come back.
as can be plainly seen CurveLight attempted to change it's position on whether or not there were contacts. First it's no and then secondly it's yes but it didn't develope into an operational relationship...which is WHAT I SAID BACK IN POST #543...

Dishonesty and spin is CurveLights game and it's exposed for all to see..... Where is your lapdog Starkey??

 

[CMike]

so u want the President to declare war on the underwear bomber?

We are already in a war with Al Qaida. The underwar bomber acted as an agent of Al Qaida.

 

[CMike]

It is not a Declaration of War, but rather a grant of military force to a President. No President should be doing such a thing without a Declaration of War. But Congress, Dems and Pubs and Indies, as a group is chicken.

We haven't had an official decleration of war since WWII.

Have you heard of Vietnam, Korea, the first gulf war?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is not a Declaration of War, but rather a grant of military force to a President. No President should be doing such a thing without a Declaration of War. But Congress, Dems and Pubs and Indies, as a group is chicken.

We haven't had an official decleration of war since WWII.

Have you heard of Vietnam, Korea, the first gulf war?

Stay in context, cmike. I wrote they shouldn't be doing that without a declaration of war.

 

[Liability]

so u want the President to declare war on the underwear bomber?

War has already been declared you tool.*

He is one of the enemy.

We don't need to declare war on him. We just need to treat him accordingly, you fucking imbecile Schmucky Canucky g-bag.


________________
*Despite the ignorant claims of idiot liberoidals who lack basic comprehensions skills, the AUMF is, in every pertinent legal respect, a declaration of war.

 

[Liability]

It is not a Declaration of War, but rather a grant of military force to a President. No President should be doing such a thing without a Declaration of War. But Congress, Dems and Pubs and Indies, as a group is chicken.

Good God in heaven, you liberoidals are amazingly stupid.

The AUMF does not have to use the magic phrase "declaration of war." All that is required, you fucking moron, for the United States to declare war is for Congress (that's the body explicitly authorized by the Constitution to do the deed) to authorize the use of the nation's military might against an enemy. Congress did that quite plainly, even invoking the War Powers Act itself, when they passed the AUMF.

IT was, in EVERY single solitary valid sense of the term, a "declaration of war."

Neither President Bush nor the present Commander in Chief (God help us) has therefore undertaken any such action without the prior assent of Congress.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Starkey and CurveLight have gotten their collective fat asses handed to them at least ten times in this thread...yet they keep coming back for more! I just don't understand the masochistic tendencies of liberal men...it's like they're just a bunch of goddam pussies who like getting bitchslapped around daily.

 

[CMike]

You are being purposefully obtuse. If there was no operational relationship then there was no justification in trying to use that claim to help justify the invasion. When I said there was no link I was saying there was not a relationship between the two that helped provide legitimate justification. You are clearly going to continue your semantic charade and as already proven, you refuse to admit when you are wrong. What was the latest? Was it you who claimed the US had charges against bin laden before 1996?

What a moron.

Here you are claiming sudan offered bin laden to the US. That's not true. They offered him to Saudi Arabia.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1899787-post600.html


This is you claiming bin laden had already been charged for the 93' wtc bombing by the time Sudan offered him to SA in 1996. Unfortunately, the first time the US indicted bin laden for anything wasn't until 1998.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1899808-post604.html


Those are great examples of you making false claims that you ignore when proven wrong.

Let me get this straight.

Sudan offers Bill Clinton OBL to take into custody. OBL is the most notorious terrorist in the world who already bombed the WTC once. He is a co conspirator.

And you think Bill Clinton was justified to not accept Sudan's offer because he wasn't indicted yet?

 

[Liability]

And as a public service reminder to our illustrious and glorious dear leader, President Obama, let the word go forth yet again,

"Errr- they are -- uhhhhhhmmmm -- trying to kill our people. Errrrr --- that is --- as I have --- uhhhhhh -- said, errrr, uhm, we are at --- ahhhh ---

war."

 

[Jay Canuck]

well I guess Lie-Ability and Mike can write a letter to Bush and tell him there is a connection!

No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says
No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says - Los Angeles Times

 

[Jay Canuck]

right from the ole boys mouth ha fuckin ha!