Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
Yes. Saddam fired on US planes in Iraqi airspace. Attacking them then saying they attacked us in their own country is just silly.So the Soviet Union, which never fired a shot at us was a threat, but Saddam, who had fired on US planes was not?
Defense? Seriously? You don't know what that means? LOL. Par for your course.It must be nice to make up your own definitions of things.
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.
OK so "defense" means attacked OR directly threatened. Granada posed no threat of course but you're ok with that because of the Monroe Doctrine. Remind me where "Directly threatened" appears in the Constitution. Vietnam is a great example of virtually no interest whatsoever but we went anyway. But thats OK becaue somehow somewhere there was a threat sort of, so that makes it all right.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.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.
Yes. Saddam fired on US planes in Iraqi airspace. Attacking them then saying they attacked us in their own country is just silly.So the Soviet Union, which never fired a shot at us was a threat, but Saddam, who had fired on US planes was not?
Defense? Seriously? You don't know what that means? LOL. Par for your course.It must be nice to make up your own definitions of things.
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.
I'm inconsistent?
I said defense is if we are attacked or if we are directly threatened, which I gave the examples of the domino "theory" and communist countries near our borders. That's unclear to you? Seriously?
You've been as consistent as my wife on PMS, you have no standard at all
OK so "defense" means attacked OR directly threatened. Granada posed no threat of course but you're ok with that because of the Monroe Doctrine. Remind me where "Directly threatened" appears in the Constitution. Vietnam is a great example of virtually no interest whatsoever but we went anyway. But thats OK becaue somehow somewhere there was a threat sort of, so that makes it all right.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.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.
Yes. Saddam fired on US planes in Iraqi airspace. Attacking them then saying they attacked us in their own country is just silly.So the Soviet Union, which never fired a shot at us was a threat, but Saddam, who had fired on US planes was not?
Defense? Seriously? You don't know what that means? LOL. Par for your course.It must be nice to make up your own definitions of things.
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.
I'm inconsistent?
I said defense is if we are attacked or if we are directly threatened, which I gave the examples of the domino "theory" and communist countries near our borders. That's unclear to you? Seriously?
You've been as consistent as my wife on PMS, you have no standard at all
No, you have no consistency at all. And your theory is the most idiosyncratic thing I've seen.
The truth is the President as CinC and Congress have wide latitude to say what is Constitutional in situations involving war, and so far no court has questioned that.
Here is the actual document. Jawad Jabber Sadkhan - The Guantanamo Files
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.
The thing is there were no contacts between Sadam and al Qaeda. Having someone in the Iraqi army who is arrested and dischaged and flees the country is not someone who is represented by Saddam or the country. It's like saying Timothy McVeigh had ties to Clinton. Also Saddam was not training or harbouring Al Qaeda either.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.
Irrelevant.The thing is there were no contacts between Sadam and al Qaeda. Having someone in the Iraqi army who is arrested and dischaged and flees the country is not someone who is represented by Saddam or the country. It's like saying Timothy McVeigh had ties to Clinton. Also Saddam was not training or harbouring Al Qaeda either.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.
And the point is. The US have been sponsors of terrorism for longer and to a much stronger degree.Irrelevant.The thing is there were no contacts between Sadam and al Qaeda. Having someone in the Iraqi army who is arrested and dischaged and flees the country is not someone who is represented by Saddam or the country. It's like saying Timothy McVeigh had ties to Clinton. Also Saddam was not training or harbouring Al Qaeda either.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.
Saddam was a 20yr sponsor of terrorism.
Please explain. I would like to hear it.The problem is the Iraq War came about because of a complex nexus of factors.
Yet conservatives believe more propaganda and ignore facts.Liberals are very simple minded and cannot entertain more than one idea at a time, so they get very confused and think you're trying to flim flam them.
The last resort of someone who's been beaten, inflammatory namecalling and insults.Like rubes at a carnival.
I think they just get frustrated because they can't belive what they just read.Then they get mad at you because they think you're trying to put one over on them.
Hey
The thing is there were no contacts between Sadam and al Qaeda
And the point is. The US have been sponsors of terrorism for longer and to a much stronger degree.
Nothing in the link nor the recommended google search for "bush links saddam to 9/11" confirm your claims.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"...
If you are not here to debate anything, please move along.And the point is. The US have been sponsors of terrorism for longer and to a much stronger degree.
I see, you don't even want to be taken seriously. You know, W can read your thoughts from his ranch in Crawford, I'd tighten the tin foil. Also, never wear clothing, the Republicans weave microfilm in the fabric. And never wear shoes, other than crocks. The pink ones are best, they confuse anyone tailing you. And wear a cape, it blinds the Republican's army of evil flying kangaroos.
Why do I keep hearing twilight zone music when I read your posts? That is a mystery.
I put up all the relevant quotes.Nothing in the link nor the recommended google search for "bush links saddam to 9/11" confirm your claims.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"...
Not when Bush and Co. use tems likeThey only show that Bush thought or believed that Saddam was supportive of al Qaida
Not for al Qaedaand that partial proof of that was that he was providing training facilities in Iraq.
Exactly and there has never been proof that he did at this time. He had back in the 80's but not in the 2000's.It has never been proved that Saddam was not building or seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction - you can't prove a negative
Pure speculation and zero evidence.- and he had plenty opportunity to move what he had to Syria in the days before the war began.
The Halabja chemical attack killed between 3200 and 5000 people. The An-Afal campaign killed 182,000. These are horrible attocities that were done when the US was supporting Saddam and continued to support him after. What I find odd was when Saddam was put on trial, he was tried for the lesser Dujail Massacre. This would be like trying Hitler for the Reichstagg Fire and ignoring his holocaust crimes. Somebody had something to hide.He used poison gas on the Kurds, and a mass killing of 300,000 people qualifies for using a weapon of mass destruction - if you consider that the killing of that many lives qualifies as "destruction."
Cherry picked intel. Please provide links as to his acquiring weapons of mass destruction, even back during the Clinton years. By the year 2000 Saddam wasn't even in the game anymore.Intel both by our angencies and British and French indicated he was bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, even back during the Clinton years, and Clinton, HRC, and Pelosi made the same claim based on the same intel.
If you are looking for an exact quote that says that, you will not find it but Bush and Co. said this "I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein." Bush and Co. in their speeches talk about being attacked by al Qaeda and referring to 911. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001" & "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein." & "Since September 11, We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s" These are lies and he is proclaiming direct ties between Saddam and the organization responsible for 911. The thread title says "connected" not "responsible" Bush and Co. are planting connections everywhere.No where can it be found where Bush stated that Saddam had a direct link to the 9/11 attack, only that he supported the same.
He didn't offer rewards but he did pay off a few familes of Suicide bombers who attacked Israel.He offered $25k rewards to the families of any suicide bomber who martyred himself agains US, British, or Israeli interests.
So you agree that the whole "ties to al Qaeda" was just to rally support for this invasion?I personally believe that, yes, Bush did want to invade Iraq to end the state of war extant from the first gulf war; to resolve the continuing problem of Iraqi power seeking in the ME; to bracket Iran between Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan (as an military ally) as a military strategy; to foster a new choice of self determination in the ME (Iraq & Afgh.) to offer something different than the old autocracies.
Not interested in discussing Obama at this point. I have not agreed with any of his policies surrounding Iraq but we are talking about Bush right now. Once I research more of the details surrounding Iraq during the Obama years I will visit an appropriate thread.Had Obama pressed al Maliki for a SOFA ...
Yesm we have exported terrorism. I personally beheaded a bunch of people just the other day.And the point is. The US have been sponsors of terrorism for longer and to a much stronger degree.Irrelevant.The thing is there were no contacts between Sadam and al Qaeda. Having someone in the Iraqi army who is arrested and dischaged and flees the country is not someone who is represented by Saddam or the country. It's like saying Timothy McVeigh had ties to Clinton. Also Saddam was not training or harbouring Al Qaeda either.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.
Saddam was a 20yr sponsor of terrorism.
d.
I know why it started, I just wanted to see your take on it. Thanks for the kind words. As Apu Nahasapeemapetilon would say, come again.Yesm we have exported terrorism. I personally beheaded a bunch of people just the other day.And the point is. The US have been sponsors of terrorism for longer and to a much stronger degree.Irrelevant.The thing is there were no contacts between Sadam and al Qaeda. Having someone in the Iraqi army who is arrested and dischaged and flees the country is not someone who is represented by Saddam or the country. It's like saying Timothy McVeigh had ties to Clinton. Also Saddam was not training or harbouring Al Qaeda either.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.
Saddam was a 20yr sponsor of terrorism.
d.
You are an obvious dumbass. The Iraq War has beem over for years. If you dont understand why it started by now you never will.
OK so you lied.I know why it started, I just wanted to see your take on it. Thanks for the kind words. As Apu Nahasapeemapetilon would say, come again.Yesm we have exported terrorism. I personally beheaded a bunch of people just the other day.And the point is. The US have been sponsors of terrorism for longer and to a much stronger degree.Irrelevant.The thing is there were no contacts between Sadam and al Qaeda. Having someone in the Iraqi army who is arrested and dischaged and flees the country is not someone who is represented by Saddam or the country. It's like saying Timothy McVeigh had ties to Clinton. Also Saddam was not training or harbouring Al Qaeda either.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.
Saddam was a 20yr sponsor of terrorism.
d.
You are an obvious dumbass. The Iraq War has beem over for years. If you dont understand why it started by now you never will.
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.
If you are not here to debate anything, please move along.And the point is. The US have been sponsors of terrorism for longer and to a much stronger degree.
I see, you don't even want to be taken seriously. You know, W can read your thoughts from his ranch in Crawford, I'd tighten the tin foil. Also, never wear clothing, the Republicans weave microfilm in the fabric. And never wear shoes, other than crocks. The pink ones are best, they confuse anyone tailing you. And wear a cape, it blinds the Republican's army of evil flying kangaroos.
Why do I keep hearing twilight zone music when I read your posts? That is a mystery.
Yesm we have exported terrorism. I personally beheaded a bunch of people just the other day.
