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

[Mojo2]

Choke on this, bitch.

Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa eda row - Telegraph

This may be the "smoking gun" we have overlooked about Iraq and ties to terrorism past and proposed by Saddam.

And who better to head that effort for Saddam but the recognized leader of International Islamic terrorism in the 1970's - 1990's, who just happened to be living in Iraq at the time, none other than...Abu Nidal?!

Abu Nidal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

lol, so Saddam kills an infamous terrorist and that's the proof he was an accomplice to 9/11?

that's too stupid to be funny.

Saddam was hiding abu Nidal for years.
Next.
You're simply too stupid to get any of this.

And Abu Nidal was what part of 9/11?

"And Abu Nidal was what part of 9/11?"

W did not launch a war on the 9/11 terrorists.

He declared a WAR ON TERRORISM.

Abu Nidal was THE Terrorist of the 1970 - 1994 period.

Saddam was trying to get Abu Nidal to train a new generation of international terrorists.

When Nidal refused, pressure mounted on Saddam to get rid of anything that would implicate him in the US hunt for people to blame for 9/11.

Having it be discovered the Godfather of Terrorism was living five minutes (or whatever) from Saddam's palace would not look good for Saddam!

Wanting to avoid Iraq's being placed on "The Cowboy's" Terrorist Shit List, Saddam had gunmen put three bullets into Abu Nidal's brain.

And call it a suicide.

You people are ridiculous. Abu Nidal was killed in 2002. We invaded Iraq in 2003.

"You people are ridiculous. Abu Nidal was killed in 2002. We invaded Iraq in 2003."

And you are not understanding the proof we provided at your request in 2014.

 

[Camp]

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.

Choke on this, bitch.

Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row

By Con Coughlin

12:01AM BST 25 Aug 2002


Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa'eda fighters based in Iraq, The Telegraph can reveal.

Despite claims by Iraqi officials that Abu Nidal committed suicide after being implicated in a plot to overthrow Saddam, Western diplomats now believe that he was killed for refusing to reactivate his international terrorist network.

According to reports received from Iraqi opposition groups, Abu Nidal had been in Baghdad for months as Saddam's personal guest, and was being treated for a mild form of skin cancer.

While in Baghdad, Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, came under pressure from Saddam to help train groups of al-Qa'eda fighters who moved to northern Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. Saddam also wanted Abu Nidal to carry out attacks against the US and its allies.

When Abu Nidal refused, Saddam ordered his intelligence chiefs to assassinate him. He was shot dead last weekend when Iraqi security forces burst into his apartment in central Baghdad. The body was taken to the hospital where he had had cancer treatment.

Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa eda row - Telegraph

This may be the "smoking gun" we have overlooked about Iraq and ties to terrorism past and proposed by Saddam.

And who better to head that effort for Saddam but the recognized leader of International Islamic terrorism in the 1970's - 1990's, who just happened to be living in Iraq at the time, none other than...Abu Nidal?!

Abu Nidal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the Muslimgauze album, see Abu Nidal (album).
Abu Nidal
(أبو نضال)
Abu Nidal in an image released in 1976
Born Sabri Khalil al-Banna (صبري خليل البنا)
May 1937
Jaffa, Mandatory Palestine
Died 16 August 2002 (aged 65)
Baghdad, Iraq
Resting place
al-Karakh Islamic cemetery, Baghdad, in a grave marked "M7"
Nationality Palestinian
Alma mater Cairo University
Occupation
Militant Mercenary
Organization
Fatah – The Revolutionary Council
(فتح المجلس الثوري), more generally
known as the Abu Nidal Organization
Movement Palestinian rejectionist front

Abu Nidal (Arabic: أبو نضال meaning "father of [the] struggle"; May 1937 – 16 August 2002), born Sabri Khalil al-Banna (Arabic: صبري خليل البنا), was the founder of "Fatah – The Revolutionary Council" (Arabic: فتح المجلس الثوري), a militant Palestinian splinter group also known as the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO).[1]

At the height of his power in the 1970s and 1980s, Abu Nidal was widely regarded as the most ruthless of the Palestinian political leaders.[2] In a rare interview given in 1985, he told Der Spiegel: "I am the evil spirit which moves around only at night causing ... nightmares."[3]

Abu Nidal formed the ANO in 1974 after splitting from Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and taking up a rejectionist stance. Acting as a freelance mercenary, the United States Department of State believe he was responsible for attacks in at least twenty different countries, killing or injuring over 900 people.[4] His organization's most notorious operation was the simultaneous Rome and Vienna airport attacks on 27 December 1985, when gunmen opened fire on the El Al ticket counters at both locations, killing eighteen people and wounding 120.

Patrick Seale, Abu Nidal's biographer, wrote of the attacks that their "random cruelty marked them as typical Abu Nidal operations".[5] Reports describing the purges implemented by Abu Nidal and close associates provided further evidence of his and his organization's nature.

Abu Nidal died of between one and four gunshot wounds in Baghdad in August 2002. Palestinian sources believe he was killed on the orders of Saddam Hussein, but the Iraqi government insisted he had committed suicide.[6] The Guardian wrote on the news of his death: "He was the patriot turned psychopath. He served only himself, only the warped personal drives that pushed him into hideous crime. He was the ultimate mercenary."[7]

Abu Nidal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Old story that was attacked immediately by other media. It was based on a anonymous source and an alleged document. The telegraph admitted it could not verify the document as genuine. In addition it conflicted with accounts by both Kuwait and Egyptian intelligence reports. Not a shred of evidence of the stories veracity has ever been brought forward. Interestingly, the story came out during the same time frame as the stories about the hijackers being trained on an abandoned airliner at Baghdad airport and the report of Iraqi intelligence meeting with al Qaeda in Prague.

Are you sure you aren't overlapping that discounted story over this story of Saddam killing Abu Nidal to prevent his being used as circumstantial evidence implicating Saddam in the 9/11 attacks? Or as a center of terrorism or a haven for terrorism.

I agree Iraq was a hot bed of terrorism and Saddam supported terrorist. But he did not support al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was a threat to Saddam.
Nidal had been forced out of Libya by Gaddafi when Gaddafi wanted to distance himself from the terrorist reputation. Nidal had by this time outlived his usefulness in many respects. He fled to Iraq knowing he was not really welcome there. Saddam was not receptive to having a terrorist leader surrounded by gun totting body guards in his backyard. Nidal was a Shite terrorist and the last thing Saddam needed was someone like Nidal becoming allied with the Shite's. Nidal knew his days were numbered and he knew he needed to get out of Iraq.
I believe the accounts of Nidal working with Kuwait and Egyptian intelligence with the hope of receiving assistance from them in moving to a safer environment with financial support. I believe the accounts that Saddam going after him for those reasons are more sensible and logical than the Telegraph story.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, so Saddam kills an infamous terrorist and that's the proof he was an accomplice to 9/11?

that's too stupid to be funny.

Saddam was hiding abu Nidal for years.
Next.
You're simply too stupid to get any of this.

And Abu Nidal was what part of 9/11?

"And Abu Nidal was what part of 9/11?"

W did not launch a war on the 9/11 terrorists.

He declared a WAR ON TERRORISM.

Abu Nidal was THE Terrorist of the 1970 - 1994 period.

Saddam was trying to get Abu Nidal to train a new generation of international terrorists.

When Nidal refused, pressure mounted on Saddam to get rid of anything that would implicate him in the US hunt for people to blame for 9/11.

Having it be discovered the Godfather of Terrorism was living five minutes (or whatever) from Saddam's palace would not look good for Saddam!

Wanting to avoid Iraq's being placed on "The Cowboy's" Terrorist Shit List, Saddam had gunmen put three bullets into Abu Nidal's brain.

And call it a suicide.

You people are ridiculous. Abu Nidal was killed in 2002. We invaded Iraq in 2003.

"You people are ridiculous. Abu Nidal was killed in 2002. We invaded Iraq in 2003."

And you are not understanding the proof we provided at your request in 2014.

You provided proof of nothing.

You know, I remember debunking Abu Nidal nonsense on a different forum years ago. But rightwing myths never die.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

You're done

Administration Quotes Linking 9 11 to Iraq

If you read through the quotes not one, that I saw, made that direct connection. A connection to al Qaeda yes, to 9/11 no.

WikiLeaks: The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection Confirmed, Again

A former Guantanamo detainee “was identified as an Iraqi intelligence officer who relocated to Afghanistan (AF) in 1998 where he served as a senior Taliban Intelligence Directorate officer in Mazar-E-Sharif,” according to a recently leaked assessment written by American intelligence analysts. The former detainee, an Iraqi named Jawad Jabber Sadkhan, “admittedly forged official documents and reportedly provided liaison between the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Sadkhan’s al Qaeda ties reached all the way to Osama bin Laden, according to the intelligence assessment. He reportedly received money from Osama bin Laden both before and after the September 11 attacks.

Now you are looking for a direct connection. This is how it went. Bush and Co. say We were attacked on 911 by al Qaeda. Saddam has direct ties and is harbouring and training al Qaeda. I don't know about the rest of you but that is painting a picture of a direct tie.

If you actually read the Wikileaks document it talks about one guy (Jawad Jabber Sadkhanthat) who went AWOL in the Iraqi army, served time for forging documents and was wanted for theft so he fled Iraq in 1997. He had no ties to Saddam but he did recieve money from US citizen Shaykh Jawad. All the other Iraqi-al Qaeda ties in the Wiki document came after the US invasion in 2003.

Quotes for any of that? Because you like to cherry pick one or two facts and then assume a bunch of stuff to maek your point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now you are looking for a direct connection. This is how it went. Bush and Co. say We were attacked on 911 by al Qaeda. Saddam has direct ties and is harbouring and training al Qaeda. I don't know about the rest of you but that is painting a picture of a direct tie.

Your inference = lie?

 

[kaz]

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;

I'm not sure how any of those provide powers that go beyond defense as I said. It does clarify that defense includes the high seas, which I agree with. definitely don't see any that apply to Iraq. Can you tell me which one you're thinking of?

 

[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.

Slippery slope fallacy.
Carry on.

How can I have committed a slippery slope fallacy when I didn't make a slippery slope argument? That's just silly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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;

I'm not sure how any of those provide powers that go beyond defense as I said. It does clarify that defense includes the high seas, which I agree with. definitely don't see any that apply to Iraq. Can you tell me which one you're thinking of?

I'm not sure how any of those provide powers that go beyond defense as I said.

I'm not sure how any of those limit our military to only defense.

definitely don't see any that apply to Iraq. Can you tell me which one you're thinking of?

Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, (Don't see a limitation to defense here, do you?)

 

[kaz]

Thats total nonsense.
What constitutes "national interest" is a shifting phenomenon. We saw what abandoning Afghanistan did for our national interest in 9/11.
We could be energy self sufficient tomorrow. It's simple. Increase taxes on imported oil by 1000%. Price of gas now $10/gal. That will curtain use and bring domestic supply in line with demand.
Really want to do that?
Every president since Nixon has promised a program of national energy self sufficiency. It has never happened. With fracking maybe there's a chance but I doubt that as well since oil is a fungible commodity and it will be sold to the highest bidder.

Who are you quoting when you quote "national interest?" Since you are addressing me, that would imply I stated it was justification, I didn't. I said defense. You may want to read up on proper quoting. I argued what the Constitution says, "defence." Defense means defending the American people. Not advancing our national interest. The Nazis could have argued conquering the world was in their national interest. It certainly wasn't defense. The Spanish American war was probably in our national interest, it certainly wasn't for defense either and should not have happened.

Defense is in the Constitution, national interest isn't. Our national interest should be advanced by our people, charities, businesses, and other free associations of Americans.. Politicians and bureaucrats only act in their own interest.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats total nonsense.
What constitutes "national interest" is a shifting phenomenon. We saw what abandoning Afghanistan did for our national interest in 9/11.
We could be energy self sufficient tomorrow. It's simple. Increase taxes on imported oil by 1000%. Price of gas now $10/gal. That will curtain use and bring domestic supply in line with demand.
Really want to do that?
Every president since Nixon has promised a program of national energy self sufficiency. It has never happened. With fracking maybe there's a chance but I doubt that as well since oil is a fungible commodity and it will be sold to the highest bidder.

Who are you quoting when you quote "national interest?" Since you are addressing me, that would imply I stated it was justification, I didn't. I said defense. You may want to read up on proper quoting. I argued what the Constitution says, "defence." Defense means defending the American people. Not advancing our national interest. The Nazis could have argued conquering the world was in their national interest. It certainly wasn't defense. The Spanish American war was probably in our national interest, it certainly wasn't for defense either and should not have happened.

Defense is in the Constitution, national interest isn't. Our national interest should be advanced by our people, charities, businesses, and other free associations of Americans.. Politicians and bureaucrats only act in their own interest.

Your interpretation is noted as belonging to you alone. Based on that the US has not fought a Constitutional war since the Mexican War. It is a non starter.

 

[Camp]

Thats total nonsense.
What constitutes "national interest" is a shifting phenomenon. We saw what abandoning Afghanistan did for our national interest in 9/11.
We could be energy self sufficient tomorrow. It's simple. Increase taxes on imported oil by 1000%. Price of gas now $10/gal. That will curtain use and bring domestic supply in line with demand.
Really want to do that?
Every president since Nixon has promised a program of national energy self sufficiency. It has never happened. With fracking maybe there's a chance but I doubt that as well since oil is a fungible commodity and it will be sold to the highest bidder.

Who are you quoting when you quote "national interest?" Since you are addressing me, that would imply I stated it was justification, I didn't. I said defense. You may want to read up on proper quoting. I argued what the Constitution says, "defence." Defense means defending the American people. Not advancing our national interest. The Nazis could have argued conquering the world was in their national interest. It certainly wasn't defense. The Spanish American war was probably in our national interest, it certainly wasn't for defense either and should not have happened.

Defense is in the Constitution, national interest isn't. Our national interest should be advanced by our people, charities, businesses, and other free associations of Americans.. Politicians and bureaucrats only act in their own interest.

The purpose of the lies told by the Bush administration were to establish the imminent threat posed by Saddam and Iraq. That gave the US the right to "defend" itself. Without the threat of WMD's tied to the terrorist that had already attacked us and vowed to do it again, there was no constitutional excuse to invade Iraq.

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure how any of those provide powers that go beyond defense as I said.

I'm not sure how any of those limit our military to only defense.

They don't, the 10th amendment does. So to answer my question that you haven't answered, do you know what the Constitution being a document of enumerated powers means? That's what my whole argument is predicated on, and you don't seem to know.

I definitely don't see any that apply to Iraq. Can you tell me which one you're thinking of

Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, (Don't see a limitation to defense here, do you?)

Yes, the wars have to be Constitutional. That they can declare war doesn't mean they can declare war on anything they want, they can declare war when it's an enumerated power.

I always find it bizarre when conservatives make that argument. You just validated all the sick socialist economic policies of the left. Congress voted for it, didn't they?

 

[kaz]

Thats total nonsense.
What constitutes "national interest" is a shifting phenomenon. We saw what abandoning Afghanistan did for our national interest in 9/11.
We could be energy self sufficient tomorrow. It's simple. Increase taxes on imported oil by 1000%. Price of gas now $10/gal. That will curtain use and bring domestic supply in line with demand.
Really want to do that?
Every president since Nixon has promised a program of national energy self sufficiency. It has never happened. With fracking maybe there's a chance but I doubt that as well since oil is a fungible commodity and it will be sold to the highest bidder.

Who are you quoting when you quote "national interest?" Since you are addressing me, that would imply I stated it was justification, I didn't. I said defense. You may want to read up on proper quoting. I argued what the Constitution says, "defence." Defense means defending the American people. Not advancing our national interest. The Nazis could have argued conquering the world was in their national interest. It certainly wasn't defense. The Spanish American war was probably in our national interest, it certainly wasn't for defense either and should not have happened.

Defense is in the Constitution, national interest isn't. Our national interest should be advanced by our people, charities, businesses, and other free associations of Americans.. Politicians and bureaucrats only act in their own interest.

Your interpretation is noted as belonging to you alone. Based on that the US has not fought a Constitutional war since the Mexican War. It is a non starter.

Now you're just babbling.

My "interpretation" that "defense" as stated in the Constitution means Defense is my interpretation? It's what the Constitution says.

And your mexican war comment is just bizarre, no idea what you're talking about. Clearly we were attacked in WWI, WWII and as I said Korea and Vietnam (if we had actually fought it to win) were defensive as the Soviet Union was a treat. I have no problem with Grenada either for the same reason, and Kennedy should not have murdered the freedom fighters at the bay of pigs, but helped them.

I'm not the isolationist you falsely paint me to be. But engaging in wars of choice like Iraq that have nothing to do with defense is across the line.

 

[kaz]

Thats total nonsense.
What constitutes "national interest" is a shifting phenomenon. We saw what abandoning Afghanistan did for our national interest in 9/11.
We could be energy self sufficient tomorrow. It's simple. Increase taxes on imported oil by 1000%. Price of gas now $10/gal. That will curtain use and bring domestic supply in line with demand.
Really want to do that?
Every president since Nixon has promised a program of national energy self sufficiency. It has never happened. With fracking maybe there's a chance but I doubt that as well since oil is a fungible commodity and it will be sold to the highest bidder.

Who are you quoting when you quote "national interest?" Since you are addressing me, that would imply I stated it was justification, I didn't. I said defense. You may want to read up on proper quoting. I argued what the Constitution says, "defence." Defense means defending the American people. Not advancing our national interest. The Nazis could have argued conquering the world was in their national interest. It certainly wasn't defense. The Spanish American war was probably in our national interest, it certainly wasn't for defense either and should not have happened.

Defense is in the Constitution, national interest isn't. Our national interest should be advanced by our people, charities, businesses, and other free associations of Americans.. Politicians and bureaucrats only act in their own interest.

The purpose of the lies told by the Bush administration were to establish the imminent threat posed by Saddam and Iraq. That gave the US the right to "defend" itself. Without the threat of WMD's tied to the terrorist that had already attacked us and vowed to do it again, there was no constitutional excuse to invade Iraq.

Here's where you are wrong. His having WMDs, which he did, is not a reason to invade him in the middle east either unless he is credibly threatening us with them. He wasn't.

Your party paraded the same lies as the Republicans did, then you lied again and said they lied to you. Frankly if your party really is so weak and gullible that you are lead by the nose by the Republicans as you claim, it's no wonder Putin keeps kicking Obama's ass over and over. Maybe you're right, you're not ready for the big leagues.

 

[Camp]

Thats total nonsense.
What constitutes "national interest" is a shifting phenomenon. We saw what abandoning Afghanistan did for our national interest in 9/11.
We could be energy self sufficient tomorrow. It's simple. Increase taxes on imported oil by 1000%. Price of gas now $10/gal. That will curtain use and bring domestic supply in line with demand.
Really want to do that?
Every president since Nixon has promised a program of national energy self sufficiency. It has never happened. With fracking maybe there's a chance but I doubt that as well since oil is a fungible commodity and it will be sold to the highest bidder.

Who are you quoting when you quote "national interest?" Since you are addressing me, that would imply I stated it was justification, I didn't. I said defense. You may want to read up on proper quoting. I argued what the Constitution says, "defence." Defense means defending the American people. Not advancing our national interest. The Nazis could have argued conquering the world was in their national interest. It certainly wasn't defense. The Spanish American war was probably in our national interest, it certainly wasn't for defense either and should not have happened.

Defense is in the Constitution, national interest isn't. Our national interest should be advanced by our people, charities, businesses, and other free associations of Americans.. Politicians and bureaucrats only act in their own interest.

The purpose of the lies told by the Bush administration were to establish the imminent threat posed by Saddam and Iraq. That gave the US the right to "defend" itself. Without the threat of WMD's tied to the terrorist that had already attacked us and vowed to do it again, there was no constitutional excuse to invade Iraq.

Here's where you are wrong. His having WMDs, which he did, is not a reason to invade him in the middle east either unless he is credibly threatening us with them. He wasn't.

Your party paraded the same lies as the Republicans did, then you lied again and said they lied to you. Frankly if your party really is so weak and gullible that you are lead by the nose by the Republicans as you claim, it's no wonder Putin keeps kicking Obama's ass over and over. Maybe you're right, you're not ready for the big leagues.

You left out the part about the Saddam collusion and connection with al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam had or might have had WMD's would not have been enough to invade Iraq. Only when you add the collusion and connection to al Qaeda does the WMD factor make an invasion for the purpose of defense viable.
The rest of your post is just nonsense and garbage. The lies you speak of that were promoted by Democrats and others were based on the trust that Bush was providing accurate intelligence. They simply repeated his administrations lies because of that trust. But that is what the defense of Bush always falls back on, quotes made before Clinton bombed Iraq for WMD inspection violations and quotes dependent on Bush administration misinformation and lies. And by the way, I don't belong to a party. And while I might be gullible, I do not dishonestly omit facts the way you do, such as you did in your last post. WMD's + al Qaeda collusion and connection = need for self defense. Get it.

 

[kaz]

Thats total nonsense.
What constitutes "national interest" is a shifting phenomenon. We saw what abandoning Afghanistan did for our national interest in 9/11.
We could be energy self sufficient tomorrow. It's simple. Increase taxes on imported oil by 1000%. Price of gas now $10/gal. That will curtain use and bring domestic supply in line with demand.
Really want to do that?
Every president since Nixon has promised a program of national energy self sufficiency. It has never happened. With fracking maybe there's a chance but I doubt that as well since oil is a fungible commodity and it will be sold to the highest bidder.

Who are you quoting when you quote "national interest?" Since you are addressing me, that would imply I stated it was justification, I didn't. I said defense. You may want to read up on proper quoting. I argued what the Constitution says, "defence." Defense means defending the American people. Not advancing our national interest. The Nazis could have argued conquering the world was in their national interest. It certainly wasn't defense. The Spanish American war was probably in our national interest, it certainly wasn't for defense either and should not have happened.

Defense is in the Constitution, national interest isn't. Our national interest should be advanced by our people, charities, businesses, and other free associations of Americans.. Politicians and bureaucrats only act in their own interest.

The purpose of the lies told by the Bush administration were to establish the imminent threat posed by Saddam and Iraq. That gave the US the right to "defend" itself. Without the threat of WMD's tied to the terrorist that had already attacked us and vowed to do it again, there was no constitutional excuse to invade Iraq.

Here's where you are wrong. His having WMDs, which he did, is not a reason to invade him in the middle east either unless he is credibly threatening us with them. He wasn't.

Your party paraded the same lies as the Republicans did, then you lied again and said they lied to you. Frankly if your party really is so weak and gullible that you are lead by the nose by the Republicans as you claim, it's no wonder Putin keeps kicking Obama's ass over and over. Maybe you're right, you're not ready for the big leagues.

You left out the part about the Saddam collusion and connection with al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam had or might have had WMD's would not have been enough to invade Iraq. Only when you add the collusion and connection to al Qaeda does the WMD factor make an invasion for the purpose of defense viable.
The rest of your post is just nonsense and garbage. The lies you speak of that were promoted by Democrats and others were based on the trust that Bush was providing accurate intelligence. They simply repeated his administrations lies because of that trust. But that is what the defense of Bush always falls back on, quotes made before Clinton bombed Iraq for WMD inspection violations and quotes dependent on Bush administration misinformation and lies. And by the way, I don't belong to a party. And while I might be gullible, I do not dishonestly omit facts the way you do, such as you did in your last post. WMD's + al Qaeda collusion and connection = need for self defense. Get it.

Yes, I get it. You think the Democrats are weak and gullible and not capable of providing leadership. Clinton was President for 8 years, then W for six months when 9/11 happened, then according to you he lied to you and you all believed him, he led you by the nose. I think you're probably right. Putin is a great argument for you. He just calls Obama bitch at this point.

 

[kaz]

Bush and Co. say We were attacked on 911 by al Qaeda. Saddam has direct ties and is harbouring and training al Qaeda. I don't know about the rest of you but that is painting a picture of a direct tie.

Liberals aren't thinking that one through. You flip that around, and you just way lowered the bar that now by your own standard if W can just show there were contacts with al Qaeda at the time of the attack, he proved that Hussein was involved in 9/11.

Your argument is ridiculous. Hussein talking to al Qaeda then was not enough to state he was involved in the attacks, and saying he was talking to them then is not claiming they were involved in the attacks.

Lahkota's still hiding from me, I took his manhood by challenging him to admit he made it up or back up his lie. He's still hiding. His manhood is in a jar on the mantle if he ever wants it back.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats total nonsense.
What constitutes "national interest" is a shifting phenomenon. We saw what abandoning Afghanistan did for our national interest in 9/11.
We could be energy self sufficient tomorrow. It's simple. Increase taxes on imported oil by 1000%. Price of gas now $10/gal. That will curtain use and bring domestic supply in line with demand.
Really want to do that?
Every president since Nixon has promised a program of national energy self sufficiency. It has never happened. With fracking maybe there's a chance but I doubt that as well since oil is a fungible commodity and it will be sold to the highest bidder.

Who are you quoting when you quote "national interest?" Since you are addressing me, that would imply I stated it was justification, I didn't. I said defense. You may want to read up on proper quoting. I argued what the Constitution says, "defence." Defense means defending the American people. Not advancing our national interest. The Nazis could have argued conquering the world was in their national interest. It certainly wasn't defense. The Spanish American war was probably in our national interest, it certainly wasn't for defense either and should not have happened.

Defense is in the Constitution, national interest isn't. Our national interest should be advanced by our people, charities, businesses, and other free associations of Americans.. Politicians and bureaucrats only act in their own interest.

Your interpretation is noted as belonging to you alone. Based on that the US has not fought a Constitutional war since the Mexican War. It is a non starter.

Now you're just babbling.

My "interpretation" that "defense" as stated in the Constitution means Defense is my interpretation? It's what the Constitution says.

And your mexican war comment is just bizarre, no idea what you're talking about. Clearly we were attacked in WWI, WWII and as I said Korea and Vietnam (if we had actually fought it to win) were defensive as the Soviet Union was a treat. I have no problem with Grenada either for the same reason, and Kennedy should not have murdered the freedom fighters at the bay of pigs, but helped them.

I'm not the isolationist you falsely paint me to be. But engaging in wars of choice like Iraq that have nothing to do with defense is across the line.

When did the Germans attack us in WW2?
So the Soviet Union, which never fired a shot at us was a threat, but Saddam, who had fired on US planes was not?
It must be nice to make up your own definitions of things. Bay of Pigs was as much of an adventure as anything.

 

[kaz]

When did the Germans attack us in WW2?

Keep this up and I'm just going to laugh at you. First of all, I didn't say "the Germans" I said we were attacked in WWII. Address what I said, not the voices in your head. The biggest pre-war attack was Pearl Harbor. You may have heard of that. The Germans attacked our shipping. I never said we have to be attacked by each individual enemy to fight them. We can also fight their allies. I mean duh. I can't believe you don't know this stuff, maybe you should read a book now and then.

So the Soviet Union, which never fired a shot at us was a threat, but Saddam, who had fired on US planes was not?

Yes. Saddam fired on US planes in Iraqi airspace. Attacking them then saying they attacked us in their own country is just silly.

It must be nice to make up your own definitions of things.

Defense? Seriously? You don't know what that means? LOL. Par for your course.

As for Bay of Pigs and Grenada, I am in agreement with the Monroe doctrine. I see that as in the interest of our neighbors and very reasonably defensive. In both Grenada and Cuba, communists on our borders were a direct threat to us.

 

[The Rabbi]

When did the Germans attack us in WW2?

Keep this up and I'm just going to laugh at you. First of all, I didn't say "the Germans" I said we were attacked in WWII. Address what I said, not the voices in your head. The biggest pre-war attack was Pearl Harbor. You may have heard of that. The Germans attacked our shipping. I never said we have to be attacked by each individual enemy to fight them. We can also fight their allies. I mean duh. I can't believe you don't know this stuff, maybe you should read a book now and then.

So the Soviet Union, which never fired a shot at us was a threat, but Saddam, who had fired on US planes was not?

Yes. Saddam fired on US planes in Iraqi airspace. Attacking them then saying they attacked us in their own country is just silly.

It must be nice to make up your own definitions of things.

Defense? Seriously? You don't know what that means? LOL. Par for your course.

As for Bay of Pigs and Grenada, I am in agreement with the Monroe doctrine. I see that as in the interest of our neighbors and very reasonably defensive. In both Grenada and Cuba, communists on our borders were a direct threat to us.

You have zero credibility because you have zero consistency. You're OK attacking Cuba, which posed no threat, because of the Monroe Doctrine, which isnt a law or anything. But you're not OK attacking Iraq, even though we had come to an ally's assistance and were enforcing UN sanctions. You're all over the map. That just won't fly, sorry.