Why did Bush lie about Saddam being 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 ...

I thought "al Qaeda" was behind 9/11. Is that not correct?

No, you're a retard with your hands down your pants.

Why don't you man up to admitting your thread title is a lie you can't back up.

Fuck you, I'm watching my Patriots kick ass.

LOL, I knew you weren't going to man up and admit the thread title is a lie. It's the nature of liars. You lie.

 

[kaz]

You're only focusing on feelings,

That's all you've posted as proof.
Try again?

You are the only one talking about feelings. I quoted the Constitution.

Look man, if you want to continue with the discussion focus on my argument, the Constitution. If you don't, keep talking about feelings. I have no idea what you are talking about or what the relevance of your feelings to this is. I quoted the Constitution and pointed out the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. If you disagree with that , argue it. If you keep talking about your feelings I'm not responding anymore to your posts in this discussion.

Obviously we agree on most things, we are thanking each other regularly and we don't disagree very often. But your obsession with your feelings on this is pointless to me. You want to discuss the Constitution or not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs"Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

Hmmmmm Hilary thought Saddam aided al Qaeda...
As did the above if you want to use Google and find this web site:
Reasons for War Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

Regardless of the rhetoric, Bush was the only one who invaded Iraq. And he did it from ignorance. Not from study, research or with careful planning. Just brute force. The kind an ignoramus uses.

Please explain both Hillary's and Kerry's vote for war. Do you think that Hillary with her insider information didn't know what she was talking about? Are you going to hold your nose and vote for her any way? Of course you will. Saying that Bush acted alone is BS, he went to Congress and they said YES. You know all of this but damn be the facts.

Now Clinton terror bombing Serbia for 72 days, he definitely acted alone. Same with the regime change in Libya and now Syria.

Why don't you explain the 147 Democrats who voted against the war.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 ...

I thought "al Qaeda" was behind 9/11. Is that not correct?

No, you're a retard with your hands down your pants.

Why don't you man up to admitting your thread title is a lie you can't back up.

Why is it Congress said there was a lot of lying going on then? In 2004 Congress made a report.

Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia I'm using wikipedia for ease. I have looked through this report before and picked out bits that were telling, but due to time constraints right not, it's wikipedia. However, I'm taking quotes that are from the report.

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

"Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say. The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about."

"The report also describes the subsequent review made by Colin Powell and analysts from the State Department with analysts from the CIA. In the speech, Powell said that "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Despite this, the Committee concluded that "[m]uch of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for inclusion in Secretary Powell’s speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect.""

Basically it comes down to this. Intelligence from the CIA was as dodgy as hell. Intelligence from the Pentagon was better. Bush listened to the CIA.
Why were the CIA doing what was not in their job description? Why were they going around essentially making stuff up or presenting an image that simply wasn't true?

Would they do this because they thought they should or did they do this because they were told to?

The first report didn't find evidence. Well hardly surprising, these guys work in secret. Cheney says to the director of the CIA "hey, don't mention this but we want to prove this" then the director of the CIA says to his guys on the ground, go find me this, anything." and what do you have?

Bush didn't know anything about it, apparently, didn't say anything to anyone. So when he stood up to speak he wasn't "lying" because supposedly he "didn't know.

It's not that hard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 ...

I thought "al Qaeda" was behind 9/11. Is that not correct?

No, you're a retard with your hands down your pants.

Why don't you man up to admitting your thread title is a lie you can't back up.

Fuck you, I'm watching my Patriots kick ass.

LOL, I knew you weren't going to man up and admit the thread title is a lie. It's the nature of liars. You lie.

The thread title is true. The Bush administration led the American people to believe something that wasn't true. That is a lie.

 

[kaz]

It's not that hard.

Nowhere did that address what I am challenging, that the thread title is a lie. It didn't say anything about 9/11.

And if W is a liar, so are the Democrats. The big lie in Iraq is the Democrats saying you were lied to. You did this hand and hand with your twins, the Republicans. I'm not interested in your petty, partisan bickering fighting the Republicans for the steering wheel while you both drive down the same road. I'd like to have a foreign policy that makes more sense. Being in the middle east at all doesn't make sense. Blowing the cover off energy exploration at home makes perfect sense.

 

[deltex1]

Leon Panetta Obama has 8216 lost his way. 8217 Created 8216 vacuum 8217 for Islamic State. - The Washington Post

 

[Freewill]

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs"Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

Hmmmmm Hilary thought Saddam aided al Qaeda...
As did the above if you want to use Google and find this web site:
Reasons for War Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

Regardless of the rhetoric, Bush was the only one who invaded Iraq. And he did it from ignorance. Not from study, research or with careful planning. Just brute force. The kind an ignoramus uses.

Please explain both Hillary's and Kerry's vote for war. Do you think that Hillary with her insider information didn't know what she was talking about? Are you going to hold your nose and vote for her any way? Of course you will. Saying that Bush acted alone is BS, he went to Congress and they said YES. You know all of this but damn be the facts.

Now Clinton terror bombing Serbia for 72 days, he definitely acted alone. Same with the regime change in Libya and now Syria.

Why don't you explain the 147 Democrats who voted against the war.

I would have voted against the war so I have nothing to explain.

So, please tell me how you support Hillary, and a question isn't an answer to a question.

 

[Freewill]

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 ...

I thought "al Qaeda" was behind 9/11. Is that not correct?

No, you're a retard with your hands down your pants.

Why don't you man up to admitting your thread title is a lie you can't back up.

Fuck you, I'm watching my Patriots kick ass.

LOL, I knew you weren't going to man up and admit the thread title is a lie. It's the nature of liars. You lie.

The thread title is true. The Bush administration led the American people to believe something that wasn't true. That is a lie.

As long as you can keep your own doctor we'll be fine.

 

[kaz]

I would have voted against the war so I have nothing to explain.

So, please tell me how you support Hillary, and a question isn't an answer to a question.

Hillary Clinton who lived in the White House for 8 of of 8 1/2 years before 9/11 happened. How would she know what was going on?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're only focusing on feelings,

That's all you've posted as proof.
Try again?

You are the only one talking about feelings. I quoted the Constitution.

Look man, if you want to continue with the discussion focus on my argument, the Constitution. If you don't, keep talking about feelings. I have no idea what you are talking about or what the relevance of your feelings to this is. I quoted the Constitution and pointed out the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. If you disagree with that , argue it. If you keep talking about your feelings I'm not responding anymore to your posts in this discussion.

Obviously we agree on most things, we are thanking each other regularly and we don't disagree very often. But your obsession with your feelings on this is pointless to me. You want to discuss the Constitution or not?

The part of the Constitution you posted does not show the Iraq war was unconstitutional.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're only focusing on feelings,

That's all you've posted as proof.
Try again?

You are the only one talking about feelings. I quoted the Constitution.

Look man, if you want to continue with the discussion focus on my argument, the Constitution. If you don't, keep talking about feelings. I have no idea what you are talking about or what the relevance of your feelings to this is. I quoted the Constitution and pointed out the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. If you disagree with that , argue it. If you keep talking about your feelings I'm not responding anymore to your posts in this discussion.

Obviously we agree on most things, we are thanking each other regularly and we don't disagree very often. But your obsession with your feelings on this is pointless to me. You want to discuss the Constitution or not?

The part of the Constitution you posted does not show the Iraq war was unconstitutional.

This Constitutional business is a red herring. We haven't fought a "Constututional" war since WW2. Thats just not how things are done. And no court has ever ruled any military action unconstitutional.

 

[kaz]

You're only focusing on feelings,

That's all you've posted as proof.
Try again?

You are the only one talking about feelings. I quoted the Constitution.

Look man, if you want to continue with the discussion focus on my argument, the Constitution. If you don't, keep talking about feelings. I have no idea what you are talking about or what the relevance of your feelings to this is. I quoted the Constitution and pointed out the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. If you disagree with that , argue it. If you keep talking about your feelings I'm not responding anymore to your posts in this discussion.

Obviously we agree on most things, we are thanking each other regularly and we don't disagree very often. But your obsession with your feelings on this is pointless to me. You want to discuss the Constitution or not?

The part of the Constitution you posted does not show the Iraq war was unconstitutional.

Thanks! Appreciate you actually addressing my post.

Not very specific though. I'll repeat my argument, maybe you can direct your argument more to which part you're not agreeing with.

1) Here are the only statement in the Constitution regarding the military.

Preamble: "provide for the common defence"

Article 1. Section 8. "provide for the common defence"

2) The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. By the 10th amendment, all powers not enumerated to the Federal government are prohibited. They are forbidden to do it.

3) So, the Federal government is authorized to defend us, there is no other authority for the military.

4) Iraq was not for the defense of the US. It was policing the world, not an enumerated power. At best you could argue it's in our economic interest, oil, but that's still not defense. I also disagree it's in our long term economic interest. Buying Middle East oil becomes an excuse to not solve our own energy issues. We need to develop at home, there's plenty of energy here, and that is far better to our economy to spend that money here rather than in the Middle East.

I also pointed out, not to you, but in the discussion, when we are propping up despots who teach their children to call on our destruction in their schools, does that not give you a nagging feeling that what we're doing is not exactly of moral fiber? We're doing bad things, that should nag at good people, and I know Todd from all the discussions we have been in, you are a good person.

 

[theHawk]

I consider this to be Bush's biggest lie about Iraq and Saddam.

Rightwingers like to distract from the event that Bush tried to link Saddam to - 9/11. Even the dumbest of rightwingers should now be convinced that Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. However, if any of them still think so - please provide credible proof.

I heard and saw Bush live on TV when he first tried to make this link. If there are any doubters - just Google "bush links saddam to 9/11"...

I did exactly as you asked and googled it.

Here is the result from the first link:

"The Bush administration view, as defined by the Colin Powell speech before the UN, postulated that there might have been a cooperative relationship, but that Saddam was not supportive of the 9/11 attacks"

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nice try, you pathetic hack.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I thought "al Qaeda" was behind 9/11. Is that not correct?

No, you're a retard with your hands down your pants.

Why don't you man up to admitting your thread title is a lie you can't back up.

Fuck you, I'm watching my Patriots kick ass.

LOL, I knew you weren't going to man up and admit the thread title is a lie. It's the nature of liars. You lie.

The thread title is true. The Bush administration led the American people to believe something that wasn't true. That is a lie.

As long as you can keep your own doctor we'll be fine.

That's a concession Bush lied. Case closed.

 

[kaz]

This Constitutional business is a red herring. We haven't fought a "Constututional" war since WW2. Thats just not how things are done. And no court has ever ruled any military action unconstitutional.

We haven't followed the Constitution, so it's a red herring? I'm not sure Dred Scott would agree with that.

So if we need to accept Woodrow Wilson's legacy of being policeman to the world without question, do we also need to follow FDR and Obama's socialist economic agendas too? Is that the IRS collecting taxes or the DOJ in the war on terror don't give us constitutional rights like showing just cause and getting warrants and presuming guilt OK since the courts upheld them? Should we just give up and accept it?

I'm actually pretty surprised to hear you argue that, particularly since you started with the red above being so right on.

Actually, I would give the Korean war as Constitutional also. I'd give the Vietnam war an OK too had we fought it to win it rather than be LBJ's economic policy. The "Domino Theory" was not theory, it was stated strategy by the Soviets and it was a direct threat to our defense. I'm not as you misstate actually OK with war when we are actually attacked. But the Middle East is a problem because we are there and shouldn't be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I consider this to be Bush's biggest lie about Iraq and Saddam.

Rightwingers like to distract from the event that Bush tried to link Saddam to - 9/11. Even the dumbest of rightwingers should now be convinced that Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. However, if any of them still think so - please provide credible proof.

I heard and saw Bush live on TV when he first tried to make this link. If there are any doubters - just Google "bush links saddam to 9/11"...

I did exactly as you asked and googled it.

Here is the result from the first link:

"The Bush administration view, as defined by the Colin Powell speech before the UN, postulated that there might have been a cooperative relationship, but that Saddam was not supportive of the 9/11 attacks"

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nice try, you pathetic hack.

How can there be a cooperative relationship but not support?

 

[kaz]

I did exactly as you asked and googled it.

Here is the result from the first link:

"The Bush administration view, as defined by the Colin Powell speech before the UN, postulated that there might have been a cooperative relationship, but that Saddam was not supportive of the 9/11 attacks"

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nice try, you pathetic hack.

Yes, I called him out, challenged his manhood, and demanded he admit he made it up or back it up. He has so far admitted he has no manhood, he's hiding.

 

[francoHFW]

http://news.google.com/news/url?sr=...D&bvm=section&did=-7496742630158746941&ssid=h

A bad day for bigots and haters...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're only focusing on feelings,

That's all you've posted as proof.
Try again?

You are the only one talking about feelings. I quoted the Constitution.

Look man, if you want to continue with the discussion focus on my argument, the Constitution. If you don't, keep talking about feelings. I have no idea what you are talking about or what the relevance of your feelings to this is. I quoted the Constitution and pointed out the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. If you disagree with that , argue it. If you keep talking about your feelings I'm not responding anymore to your posts in this discussion.

Obviously we agree on most things, we are thanking each other regularly and we don't disagree very often. But your obsession with your feelings on this is pointless to me. You want to discuss the Constitution or not?

The part of the Constitution you posted does not show the Iraq war was unconstitutional.

Thanks! Appreciate you actually addressing my post.

Not very specific though. I'll repeat my argument, maybe you can direct your argument more to which part you're not agreeing with.

1) Here are the only statement in the Constitution regarding the military.

Preamble: "provide for the common defence"

Article 1. Section 8. "provide for the common defence"

2) The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. By the 10th amendment, all powers not enumerated to the Federal government are prohibited. They are forbidden to do it.

3) So, the Federal government is authorized to defend us, there is no other authority for the military.

4) Iraq was not for the defense of the US. It was policing the world, not an enumerated power. At best you could argue it's in our economic interest, oil, but that's still not defense. I also disagree it's in our long term economic interest. Buying Middle East oil becomes an excuse to not solve our own energy issues. We need to develop at home, there's plenty of energy here, and that is far better to our economy to spend that money here rather than in the Middle East.

I also pointed out, not to you, but in the discussion, when we are propping up despots who teach their children to call on our destruction in their schools, does that not give you a nagging feeling that what we're doing is not exactly of moral fiber? We're doing bad things, that should nag at good people, and I know Todd from all the discussions we have been in, you are a good person.

Here are the only statement in the Constitution regarding the military.

I disagree.

The Congress shall have Power....

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;