Why did Bush lie about Saddam being connected to 9/11?

[Freewill]

Bush had trouble putting together two coherent sentences about anything so he left the explanation of the linkage between 911 and the Saddam to his minions but he did try. "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

The historical record pretty clearly demonstrates the distortions the administration employed to make the case that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Inspectors who said they didn't exist were ignored, false stories about aluminum tubes and yellowcake from Africa were peddled assertively, Iraqi defectors that were known liars were used as anonymous sources alleging Saddam’s WMD development, etc.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday.

The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman.

The shipment, which until recently was kept secret, involved a U.S. truck convoy, 37 cargo flights out of Baghdad to a transitional location, and then a transoceanic voyage on board a U.S.-government-owned ship designed to carry troops to a war zone, he said.

The "yellowcake" uranium transfer was requested by the Iraqi government at the encouragement of the U.S. government, Whitman said.

500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq Pentagon says - CNN.com

This old story has been thoroughly debunked. Do you know the history on that yellowcake?

Q: Was it recently revealed that the U.S. found uranium in Iraq after the invasion in 2003?

A: No. Uranium recently shipped from Iraq to Canada was left over from Saddam Hussein’s defunct nuclear weapons program and had been in sealed containers, under guard, since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. Claims that this material is "vindication" for President Bush’s WMD claims in 2003 are completely false.

Uranium in Iraq

Hey stupid, nuclear weapons aren't the only WMD you know.

Iraq had quite the stockpile of chemical weapons. In fact Saddam used them, on his own people - SEVERAL times.

Not in 2003, when we invaded, he didn't.

Of course he did, and what you think that he forgot how to make them?

Saddam was an asshole who had to go. Personally I don't know why we invaded rather than just killing his ass, but it is what it is. He was butchering his own people and threatening the stability of the entire region and don't forget , defying UN resolutions.

Now, let's get back to the title of this thread. Has Liekhota as yet admitted that his thread is a lie?

As I recall the reason we just couldn't bomb his was because he used body doubles.

 

[Political Junky]

Looks like Bush finally admits it, but denies anyone in his administration ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

 

[Tuatara]

Bush had trouble putting together two coherent sentences about anything so he left the explanation of the linkage between 911 and the Saddam to his minions but he did try. "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

The historical record pretty clearly demonstrates the distortions the administration employed to make the case that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Inspectors who said they didn't exist were ignored, false stories about aluminum tubes and yellowcake from Africa were peddled assertively, Iraqi defectors that were known liars were used as anonymous sources alleging Saddam’s WMD development, etc.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday.

The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman.

The shipment, which until recently was kept secret, involved a U.S. truck convoy, 37 cargo flights out of Baghdad to a transitional location, and then a transoceanic voyage on board a U.S.-government-owned ship designed to carry troops to a war zone, he said.

The "yellowcake" uranium transfer was requested by the Iraqi government at the encouragement of the U.S. government, Whitman said.

500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq Pentagon says - CNN.com

This old story has been thoroughly debunked. Do you know the history on that yellowcake?

Q: Was it recently revealed that the U.S. found uranium in Iraq after the invasion in 2003?

A: No. Uranium recently shipped from Iraq to Canada was left over from Saddam Hussein’s defunct nuclear weapons program and had been in sealed containers, under guard, since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. Claims that this material is "vindication" for President Bush’s WMD claims in 2003 are completely false.

Uranium in Iraq

Hey stupid, nuclear weapons aren't the only WMD you know.

Iraq had quite the stockpile of chemical weapons. In fact Saddam used them, on his own people - SEVERAL times.

Not in 2003, when we invaded, he didn't.

Of course he did, and what you think that he forgot how to make them?

The UN resolutions were working. He had stopped his weapons program by then. This is old news.

Saddam was an asshole who had to go. Personally I don't know why we invaded rather than just killing his ass, but it is what it is.

Saddam's worst attrocitiies happened when the US was supporting him. He had mellowed out by 2001.

He was butchering his own people and threatening the stability of the entire region

Again, not in 2003 he was.

and don't forget , defying UN resolutions.{/QUOTE]All the UN inspectors said he was complying with them. All of them.
Disarming Saddam-A Chronology of Iraq and UN Weapons Inspections From 2002-2003 Arms Control Association

Now, let's get back to the title of this thread. Has Liekhota as yet admitted that his thread is a lie?

The title of the thread is accurate.

 

[pvsi]

Looks like Bush finally admits it, but denies anyone in his administration ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

NOBODY who believes in this sack of turd could ever be my friend - You are either with Bush or you are with the truth, and if you are with Obama you are with Bush on the other side of but cheek.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

lol

got your ass handed to you in the other thread so you start a new thread in the hopes people won't see your ass kicking

troll

btw.....YOU started the thread, it is up to YOU to provide links. you did not, because you are a liar.

I really don't mind being called a liar by someone who is too dumb to know such a basic fact.

[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]YPJCPcYCupY[/MEDIA] LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld - THE ULTIMATE CLIP (Edited) - YouTube[/ame]

I watched the entire video and nowhere in that video did you show that Bush lied about Saddam an 9/11. In fact your video shows that Bush said Saddam was not involved in 9/11. Did you even watch the video before posting it?

Bush had trouble putting together two coherent sentences about anything so he left the explanation of the linkage between 911 and the Saddam to his minions but he did try. "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

The historical record pretty clearly demonstrates the distortions the administration employed to make the case that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and were league with terrroist. Inspectors who said they didn't exist were ignored, false stories about aluminum tubes and yellowcake from Africa were peddled assertively, Iraqi defectors that were known liars were used as anonymous sources alleging Saddam’s WMD development and meetings with Al Qaeda.

Ya I mean Bush had 8 years of proof that every dem ever elected to office from 1992 to 2000 believed Saddam had WMD's, every dem appointed to high office by Clinton believed it and wasted no time telling the Country so even until the war started in 2003. You have been shown some of the quotes and chose to ignore them. Sorry but I won't give you or your buddies a pass on reality. Further in order for Bush to have lied it would have required that every 1st world Coun try in the world was in on the lie as their intel all said the same thing. It would have required that every intelligence agency in the US chose to lie to Congress when they independently briefed the Senate and The House, the Senate being run by Democrats. It would have required that the UN lied as well as THEY insisted their work was not done and that Saddam was hiding weapons. Well right up until we attacked then suddenly they claimed he had none, perhaps you can explain why up until we attacked the UN maintained teams to search for these weapons demanded that the programs continue and that material was missing?

 

[Lakhota]

Why did Bush ignore all the pre-9/11 warnings and then try to link Saddam Hussein?

• The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - NYTimes.com
  http://www.nytimes.com / 2012 / 09 / 11 / opinion / the-bush-white-house-was... - similar pages
  Sep 10, 2012 ... In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when ...
• Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News
  Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News - similar pages
  Fleischer insisted that Bush did not ignore the threats, saying that hijacking warnings were something that past White Houses have faced for decades. No one ...
• Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized ...
  http://www.businessinsider.com / new-report-shows-how-man... - 402k - similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... The Bush White House ignored even more warnings about September 11 than we thought, according to journalist Kurt Eichenwald, who has a ...
• New CIA Docs Show Bush Ignored Seven Different Warnings About Imminent Attacks Crooks and Liars - 248k -similar pages
  Jun 20, 2012 ... The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bushofficials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody ...
• NBC: Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 ...
  http://investigations.nbcnews.com / _news / 2012 / 09 / 11 / 13809524-evidence-piles-... - 227k - similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... Eichenwald wrote of the warnings in his new book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars. .... Let's just ignore the Clinton Administration saying the same things ... So after 9/11, Bush was tired of all the Middle East BS.
• The Bush Administration Know-It-Alls Who Failed to Heed Warnings ...
  http://www.thedailybeast.com / articles / 2012 / 09 / 11 / the-bush-administration-... - 353k -similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... If a damning New York Times report is true, the Bush White House ignored many more threats before 9/11 than were previously revealed.
• Bush Administration Ignored 9/11 Warnings -- NYMag
  http://nymag.com / daily / intelligencer / 2012 / 09 / bush-administration-igno... - 433k -similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... Eleven years to the day after September 11 and more than seven years after the release of the government's 9/11 Commission Report, newly ...
• Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice
  http://www.washingtonpost.com / wp-dyn / content / article / 2006 / 09 / 30 / AR2006093000282.html - similar pages
  Oct 1, 2006 ... Two Months Before 9/11, an UrgentWarning to Rice .... Bush's "neocons" and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the attacks.

 

[Theowl32]

So, why then has there been no charges against Bush for war crimes? Go ahead.

What is your theory?

Is it because the UN loves the Bush family?

Well, I am waiting.

Please do not give me the rightwinger thing. Where he claims the reason is the world did not want to prolong the scandal.

Yes, he said the reason obama did not push an investigation was because he did not want to drag the country any further. So, that means according to a moron like rightwinger obama simply let him get away with genocide and mass murder and high war crimes.

LOL at liberals.

The United States are not members of the ICC (International Criminal Court) which has stated that Bush and Co. would be brought up on war crimes and as for the UN the "United States threatened to use its Security Council veto to block renewal of the mandates of several United Nations peacekeeping operations, unless the Security Council agreed to permanently exempt U.S. nationals from the Court's jurisdiction."

Has anyone bothered to check our Constitution about where the ultimate decision for our country to go to war has to come from? It is not the President or the Vice President. You fill in the blanks. When the "witch hunt" begins, we need someone (an accuser preferably) to provide us with a rock solid definition of "weapons of mass destruction". Obama called the bombs used in Boston WMDs. So, what were SCUD missiles, for example? Let's go back to Jimmy Carter and his fiasco as president. What about Abe Lincoln and his abuse of the Constitution in the war of northern aggression? War Crimes? Really? Is this yet another attempt to hide the CURRENT crimes on humanity over the past 4 years? More smoke and mirrors or slight of hand maneuvers?

It is interesting that Bush would be prosecuted for war crimes when Kofi Anan told the UN to stand down in Ruwanda (an act for which he offered no more than an apology for later on as did CFR Clinton who refused American help to stop the genocide) while the Hutu hacked nearly a million Tutsi's to death in 100 days largely with government provided machetes and home made clubs with nails in them.

The genocide which could have been prevented with UN intervention proceeded unabated until rebel Tutsi's fought their way back into the country and stopped themselves while their fellow tribe members in Ruwanda had been disarmed by the government that armed the Hutu's with their weapons of mass destruction.

Yet Kofi Anan has never been prosecuted nor even publicly censured by the UN who as the article above points out used UN Resolution violations to justify his invasion of Iraq.

And now this criminal organization created primarily by the CFR and provided the land for its present world headquarters on American soil by David C. Rockefeller and his family. Meanwhile, Rockefeller is the Honorary Chairman of the CFR to whom Clarke is a trusted senior advisor.

The whole disclosure is as crooked as American Presidential elections in recent years have been and should be taken with a great deal of skepticism and seen for the deception it is.

Never mind, wake me up when they get to the trials against Bush.

 

[Lakhota]

Condoleezza Rice - We Didn't Tie Saddam to 9/11

Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq

​

 

[Political Junky]

Why did Bush ignore all the pre-9/11 warnings and then try to link Saddam Hussein?

• The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - NYTimes.com
  http://www.nytimes.com / 2012 / 09 / 11 / opinion / the-bush-white-house-was... - similar pages
  Sep 10, 2012 ... In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when ...
• Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News
  Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News - similar pages
  Fleischer insisted that Bush did not ignore the threats, saying that hijacking warnings were something that past White Houses have faced for decades. No one ...
• Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized ...
  http://www.businessinsider.com / new-report-shows-how-man... - 402k - similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... The Bush White House ignored even more warnings about September 11 than we thought, according to journalist Kurt Eichenwald, who has a ...
• New CIA Docs Show Bush Ignored Seven Different Warnings About Imminent Attacks Crooks and Liars - 248k -similar pages
  Jun 20, 2012 ... The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bushofficials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody ...
• NBC: Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 ...
  http://investigations.nbcnews.com / _news / 2012 / 09 / 11 / 13809524-evidence-piles-... - 227k - similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... Eichenwald wrote of the warnings in his new book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars. .... Let's just ignore the Clinton Administration saying the same things ... So after 9/11, Bush was tired of all the Middle East BS.
• The Bush Administration Know-It-Alls Who Failed to Heed Warnings ...
  http://www.thedailybeast.com / articles / 2012 / 09 / 11 / the-bush-administration-... - 353k -similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... If a damning New York Times report is true, the Bush White House ignored many more threats before 9/11 than were previously revealed.
• Bush Administration Ignored 9/11 Warnings -- NYMag
  http://nymag.com / daily / intelligencer / 2012 / 09 / bush-administration-igno... - 433k -similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... Eleven years to the day after September 11 and more than seven years after the release of the government's 9/11 Commission Report, newly ...
• Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice
  http://www.washingtonpost.com / wp-dyn / content / article / 2006 / 09 / 30 / AR2006093000282.html - similar pages
  Oct 1, 2006 ... Two Months Before 9/11, an UrgentWarning to Rice .... Bush's "neocons" and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the attacks.

What could be the motive for ignoring all those warnings, I wonder.

 

[Tuatara]

So, why then has there been no charges against Bush for war crimes? Go ahead.

What is your theory?

Is it because the UN loves the Bush family?

Well, I am waiting.

Please do not give me the rightwinger thing. Where he claims the reason is the world did not want to prolong the scandal.

Yes, he said the reason obama did not push an investigation was because he did not want to drag the country any further. So, that means according to a moron like rightwinger obama simply let him get away with genocide and mass murder and high war crimes.

LOL at liberals.

The United States are not members of the ICC (International Criminal Court) which has stated that Bush and Co. would be brought up on war crimes and as for the UN the "United States threatened to use its Security Council veto to block renewal of the mandates of several United Nations peacekeeping operations, unless the Security Council agreed to permanently exempt U.S. nationals from the Court's jurisdiction."

Has anyone bothered to check our Constitution about where the ultimate decision for our country to go to war has to come from? It is not the President or the Vice President. You fill in the blanks. When the "witch hunt" begins, we need someone (an accuser preferably) to provide us with a rock solid definition of "weapons of mass destruction". Obama called the bombs used in Boston WMDs. So, what were SCUD missiles, for example? Let's go back to Jimmy Carter and his fiasco as president. What about Abe Lincoln and his abuse of the Constitution in the war of northern aggression? War Crimes? Really? Is this yet another attempt to hide the CURRENT crimes on humanity over the past 4 years? More smoke and mirrors or slight of hand maneuvers?

It is interesting that Bush would be prosecuted for war crimes when Kofi Anan told the UN to stand down in Ruwanda (an act for which he offered no more than an apology for later on as did CFR Clinton who refused American help to stop the genocide) while the Hutu hacked nearly a million Tutsi's to death in 100 days largely with government provided machetes and home made clubs with nails in them.

The genocide which could have been prevented with UN intervention proceeded unabated until rebel Tutsi's fought their way back into the country and stopped themselves while their fellow tribe members in Ruwanda had been disarmed by the government that armed the Hutu's with their weapons of mass destruction.

Yet Kofi Anan has never been prosecuted nor even publicly censured by the UN who as the article above points out used UN Resolution violations to justify his invasion of Iraq.

And now this criminal organization created primarily by the CFR and provided the land for its present world headquarters on American soil by David C. Rockefeller and his family. Meanwhile, Rockefeller is the Honorary Chairman of the CFR to whom Clarke is a trusted senior advisor.

The whole disclosure is as crooked as American Presidential elections in recent years have been and should be taken with a great deal of skepticism and seen for the deception it is.

Never mind, wake me up when they get to the trials against Bush.

So we have given up on the argument for Bush and moved on to Kofi Anan, Rwanda and the UN. Thanks for playing.

 

[Theowl32]

So, why then has there been no charges against Bush for war crimes? Go ahead.

What is your theory?

Is it because the UN loves the Bush family?

Well, I am waiting.

Please do not give me the rightwinger thing. Where he claims the reason is the world did not want to prolong the scandal.

Yes, he said the reason obama did not push an investigation was because he did not want to drag the country any further. So, that means according to a moron like rightwinger obama simply let him get away with genocide and mass murder and high war crimes.

LOL at liberals.

The United States are not members of the ICC (International Criminal Court) which has stated that Bush and Co. would be brought up on war crimes and as for the UN the "United States threatened to use its Security Council veto to block renewal of the mandates of several United Nations peacekeeping operations, unless the Security Council agreed to permanently exempt U.S. nationals from the Court's jurisdiction."

Has anyone bothered to check our Constitution about where the ultimate decision for our country to go to war has to come from? It is not the President or the Vice President. You fill in the blanks. When the "witch hunt" begins, we need someone (an accuser preferably) to provide us with a rock solid definition of "weapons of mass destruction". Obama called the bombs used in Boston WMDs. So, what were SCUD missiles, for example? Let's go back to Jimmy Carter and his fiasco as president. What about Abe Lincoln and his abuse of the Constitution in the war of northern aggression? War Crimes? Really? Is this yet another attempt to hide the CURRENT crimes on humanity over the past 4 years? More smoke and mirrors or slight of hand maneuvers?

It is interesting that Bush would be prosecuted for war crimes when Kofi Anan told the UN to stand down in Ruwanda (an act for which he offered no more than an apology for later on as did CFR Clinton who refused American help to stop the genocide) while the Hutu hacked nearly a million Tutsi's to death in 100 days largely with government provided machetes and home made clubs with nails in them.

The genocide which could have been prevented with UN intervention proceeded unabated until rebel Tutsi's fought their way back into the country and stopped themselves while their fellow tribe members in Ruwanda had been disarmed by the government that armed the Hutu's with their weapons of mass destruction.

Yet Kofi Anan has never been prosecuted nor even publicly censured by the UN who as the article above points out used UN Resolution violations to justify his invasion of Iraq.

And now this criminal organization created primarily by the CFR and provided the land for its present world headquarters on American soil by David C. Rockefeller and his family. Meanwhile, Rockefeller is the Honorary Chairman of the CFR to whom Clarke is a trusted senior advisor.

The whole disclosure is as crooked as American Presidential elections in recent years have been and should be taken with a great deal of skepticism and seen for the deception it is.

Never mind, wake me up when they get to the trials against Bush.

So we have given up on the argument for Bush and moved on to Kofi Anan, Rwanda and the UN. Thanks for playing.

Oh, there is a trial for the "genocide" Bush took part in? No? Thought not.

All we have done is show what sort of hypocrite every fucking liberal scumbag is.

 

[Camp]

Why did Bush ignore all the pre-9/11 warnings and then try to link Saddam Hussein?

• The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - NYTimes.com
  http://www.nytimes.com / 2012 / 09 / 11 / opinion / the-bush-white-house-was... - similar pages
  Sep 10, 2012 ... In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when ...
• Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News
  Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News - similar pages
  Fleischer insisted that Bush did not ignore the threats, saying that hijacking warnings were something that past White Houses have faced for decades. No one ...
• Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized ...
  http://www.businessinsider.com / new-report-shows-how-man... - 402k - similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... The Bush White House ignored even more warnings about September 11 than we thought, according to journalist Kurt Eichenwald, who has a ...
• New CIA Docs Show Bush Ignored Seven Different Warnings About Imminent Attacks Crooks and Liars - 248k -similar pages
  Jun 20, 2012 ... The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bushofficials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody ...
• NBC: Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 ...
  http://investigations.nbcnews.com / _news / 2012 / 09 / 11 / 13809524-evidence-piles-... - 227k - similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... Eichenwald wrote of the warnings in his new book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars. .... Let's just ignore the Clinton Administration saying the same things ... So after 9/11, Bush was tired of all the Middle East BS.
• The Bush Administration Know-It-Alls Who Failed to Heed Warnings ...
  http://www.thedailybeast.com / articles / 2012 / 09 / 11 / the-bush-administration-... - 353k -similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... If a damning New York Times report is true, the Bush White House ignored many more threats before 9/11 than were previously revealed.
• Bush Administration Ignored 9/11 Warnings -- NYMag
  http://nymag.com / daily / intelligencer / 2012 / 09 / bush-administration-igno... - 433k -similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... Eleven years to the day after September 11 and more than seven years after the release of the government's 9/11 Commission Report, newly ...
• Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice
  http://www.washingtonpost.com / wp-dyn / content / article / 2006 / 09 / 30 / AR2006093000282.html - similar pages
  Oct 1, 2006 ... Two Months Before 9/11, an UrgentWarning to Rice .... Bush's "neocons" and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the attacks.

What could be the motive for ignoring all those warnings, I wonder.

You are being sarcastic. Aren't you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The war was Unconstitutional.

How do you figure that?

Well, I did immediately follow the statement with the answer to your question, which you cut.

But enough about your feelings.
How about some proof it was unconstitutional?

What do my feelings have to do with anything?

Here you go:

US Constitution: Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

That is the authorized power. There is no other authorized power for the military. None.

Do you understand the phrase "enumerated powers" and how that applies to the Constitution?

What do my feelings have to do with anything?

Nothing. That's why your original claim was so unconvincing.

Um...still no idea what you are talking about. Why would the discussion bother you? What's disturbing about it?

There is no other authorized power for the military. None.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

The war of 1812 was clearly Constitutional, Britan was conscripting US citizens into their navy. I don't see what that has to do with fighting in the middle east over oil. Clearly without oil we would not be there. Then it just becomes an endless reason to fight more and more. We need to get out of that hell hole.

And propping up all those despotic governments to do it is wrong. When we have to do that, a critical mind would start to question the morality of what we are doing when we have to prop up governments that oppress their people and while preaching our destruction in their schools to their children.

Um...still no idea what you are talking about.

You felt it was unconstitutional. Your feelings are not convincing to me.

The war of 1812 was clearly Constitutional, Britan was conscripting US citizens into their navy. I don't see what that has to do with fighting in the middle east over oil.

I don't see what the War of 1812 has to do with your feelings about the constitutionality of the Iraq war.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Condoleezza Rice - We Didn't Tie Saddam to 9/11

Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq

​

Liekhota, have you yet admitted that Bush never claimed that Iraq was connected to 9/11?

 

[kaz]

The evidence is clear - Bush lied.

You have that in common with him, liar. You said he claimed al Qaeda was behind 9/11, you have no evidence for that because ... you ... lied ...

 

[kaz]

Stockpiles are irrelevant. It's the ability to make WMDs. If you supported the war for WMDs, you need to man up to it now and say it was the right decision to invade and stop playing political games for your party over your country. If WMDs are the reason, then that reason was valid.

I will keep it simple for you. 1. Bush promised no nation building in 2000 during debates with Al Gore. 2. Under Bush, a billion dollar green zone has been built in Baghdad so that the US "officials" could make unannounced visits to this green zone in a nation they "liberated" and built. if you need a link for either of the two statements, it is not worth my time to argue with you. YouTube George Bush you forgot, and google Baghdad green zone.

I'll keep it simple for you. I oppose Iraq because it was bad policy. We need to stop being policeman to the world.

You worship liars, who lied, and now you need to dig and spin your way out of it.

I don't have that problem.

LOL, grow up.

 

[kaz]

lol

got your ass handed to you in the other thread so you start a new thread in the hopes people won't see your ass kicking

troll

btw.....YOU started the thread, it is up to YOU to provide links. you did not, because you are a liar.

I really don't mind being called a liar by someone who is too dumb to know such a basic fact.

[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]YPJCPcYCupY[/MEDIA] LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld - THE ULTIMATE CLIP (Edited) - YouTube[/ame]

WOW good link.

Stockpiles are irrelevant. It's the ability to make WMDs. If you supported the war for WMDs, you need to man up to it now and say it was the right decision to invade and stop playing political games for your party over your country. If WMDs are the reason, then that reason was valid.

Sure, just because the administration invaded over stockpiles of WMDs, what relevance can that have?

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." ~ President Bush, 9.12.2002

"His regime has large, unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, including VX, sarin, mustard gas, anthrax, botulism and possibly smallpox. And he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons." ~ Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, 1.20.2003

"Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq -- was -- the main reason we went into Iraq -- at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. ~ President Bush, 8.21.2006

"It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there." ~ Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, 5.4.2006

Try reading my post and responding to the point I made, Skippy.

 

[kaz]

So who exactly are these "liberals" you are talking about? Gay liberals? Black liberals? Hispanic liberals? Because there are also conservative blacks and Hispanics. That's what happen when you have a coalition party like the Democrats. They have many different opinions because they have factions.

You can't really say that about Republicans. They may have a few minor differences, but they are 90% white and will eventually do as they are told.

MLK Jr. ""I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

You consider diversity skin color, I consider it content. We are in different worlds.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Stockpiles are irrelevant. It's the ability to make WMDs. If you supported the war for WMDs, you need to man up to it now and say it was the right decision to invade and stop playing political games for your party over your country. If WMDs are the reason, then that reason was valid.

I will keep it simple for you. 1. Bush promised no nation building in 2000 during debates with Al Gore. 2. Under Bush, a billion dollar green zone has been built in Baghdad so that the US "officials" could make unannounced visits to this green zone in a nation they "liberated" and built. if you need a link for either of the two statements, it is not worth my time to argue with you. YouTube George Bush you forgot, and google Baghdad green zone.

I'll keep it simple for you. I oppose Iraq because it was bad policy. We need to stop being policeman to the world.

You worship liars, who lied, and now you need to dig and spin your way out of it.

I don't have that problem.

LOL, grow up.

I respect your opinion, but disagree. I don't think being the police of the world is our problem, I think being the charitable organization of the world is our problem.

 

[kaz]

Um...still no idea what you are talking about.

You felt it was unconstitutional. Your feelings are not convincing to me.

I didn't talk about my feelings, you did. I quoted the Constitution. Look man, if you want a girlfriend to hold hands with and talk about your feelings, that works. But it has nothing to do with me, try to focus on the discussion.

The war of 1812 was clearly Constitutional, Britan was conscripting US citizens into their navy. I don't see what that has to do with fighting in the middle east over oil.

I don't see what the War of 1812 has to do with your feelings about the constitutionality of the Iraq war.

Um...OK, gay boy. You're only focusing on feelings, you're a one trick pony. I'll drop out of the discussion with you now. Let me know if you have any interest in the topic at some point rather than how you feel bout it.