Do you still support America's genocide in the Middle East?
- Thread starter Rune
- Start date
And again an opinion piece that states what you want it to state yet has no quote directly stating that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
Do you have even one link of Bush or Cheney saying Saddam caused 9/11?
*sigh*
You aren't getting it. Do you have a link with Bush saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 or don't you? So far you have presented many links with other people saying that he linked the two but you have not even one quote of any of them saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
Basically, what I asked for was even one link with leadership (doesn't even have to be the Administration) of "the right" directly saying Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and what you have given me is a bunch of links to "These people here say that Bush linked them."
And another link with a claim of a link with no quote of such.
Basically, you've bought the story and continue to try to sell it, but the evidence isn't there.
Bush linked Saddam with terrorism, and with "some members" of al Qaeda. Bush never said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 in any speech anywhere.
It is my opinion that he always wanted to attack Iraq, and used links to terrorism and our newly found strong stance against terrorism in order to get it done. However, I actually listen to what people say, not what others tell me they said.
Bush spoke about his links to terrorism. True.
Bush exploited the feeling of the US against terrorism brought on by the attack. True.
Bush, however, did not say Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
Bush linked Saddam with terrorism, and with "some members" of al Qaeda. Bush never said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 in any speech anywhere.
It is my opinion that he always wanted to attack Iraq, and used links to terrorism and our newly found strong stance against terrorism in order to get it done. However, I actually listen to what people say, not what others tell me they said.
Bush spoke about his links to terrorism. True.
Bush exploited the feeling of the US against terrorism brought on by the attack. True.
Bush, however, did not say Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
I NEVER said Bush said it. I said it was all over the news on Sept. 11, 2001.
I can't find a screen shot from that day.
And I said, if such were the case you wouldn't have any trouble finding a link with that.
The reality is even the Administration, who IMHO exploited a link to terrorism to start a war and were willing to do so without a declaration, simply didn't make that statement.
The argument in this thread has been how it was "the reason we went into Iraq"... It wasn't. The reason given and the one that got Congress to give tacit approval for invasion was WMD and the threat that they might give them to terrorists, as they were a known and direct contributor to terrorists.
Now, it has always been my position that we should never enter war that Congress is not willing to declare. If we don't have enough evidence to get Congress to declare war, there really isn't enough to commit the lives of our troops and our treasure nor is there enough will to drive towards total victory. It causes all the problems we saw in Iraq, the constant politicizing of the war, the "I was for it before I was against it" crap.
I don't think we should have gone into Iraq because of those reasons, not because of some fabricated "the right said" BS.
I honestly don't care about that. What I care about is declaration. Without declaration of war we shouldn't have started any war.
It is my opinion that declarations are a protection against throwing down for war unreasonably and we simply should reflect that there is a reason that the founders gave such declaration powers to the Congress.
Had there been a declaration there never would have been the caviling that followed. I gave an example, the "I voted for it thinking he wouldn't actually invade!" and other nonsense to that effect. Their vote couldn't have been interpreted any other way. If the President doesn't have enough to get Congress to vote for a declaration, then we have no business entering such a conflict. Each conflict we have entered without such declarations have unerringly been obstacles rather than beneficial to our progress.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.
This article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms "authorized by Congress", "funded by Congress" or "undeclared war" to describe other such conflicts.
The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.[2] James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3] Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President's authority in this regard.
After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971 and President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Pub.L. 93-148) over the veto of Nixon in an attempt to rein in some of the president's claimed powers. Today, Congress recognizes no claimed power of the president to wage war outside of the War Powers Resolution.
Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Franklin_Roosevelt_signing_declaration_of_war_against_Japan.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Franklin_Roosevelt_signing_declaration_of_war_against_Japan.jpg/200px-Franklin_Roosevelt_signing_declaration_of_war_against_Japan.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/2/23/Franklin_Roosevelt_signing_declaration_of_war_against_Japan.jpg/200px-Franklin_Roosevelt_signing_declaration_of_war_against_Japan.jpg
The last war formally declared with a Declaration of War, was WWII, it was one of 5 in all, and 4 of the 5 came after hostilities had begun.
Yes, but under no circumstance would anybody believe the mess we had was a formal declaration of a state of war. It isn't my argument that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional, it is simply that they are yet another example of the mess we create when we go to war without that formal declaration.
Since WWII we have entered every engagement without one, and in every case we have had politicized messes that create an even larger divide and do not promote our nation's values effectively.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
We have a politicized mess because politicos have politicized the wars, and implemented a massive disinformation campaign against them. Seems to me, this would happen with or without some "formal" declaration. People are gullible and stupid, they spend too much time watching American Idol and buying lotto tickets! They don't have time to do their homework, or be informed on what is going on in Congress. They listen to Keith Olbermann tell them Iraq is an "unjust war" and they assume, since he is a star on TV, he must be right!
Like you, I would love to see our Congress get back to formal declarations of war, but as I pointed out, the courts have determined they don't need these to be within the bounds of constitutionality, so we're probably both 'wishfully thinking' here... ain't gonna happen. In any event, the October "Authorization to use Military Force" voted on by Congress, serves as the official declaration of war in Iraq. Just as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was the same for Vietnam.
Again, if there were a formal declaration vote, even John Kerry couldn't say something stupid like, "I didn't think he would invade." after he voted on it.
Politicizing goes to a minimum when Congress has voted for such a declaration, especially when they do so with supermajority vote.
What I speak of is how to end the politicizing and to realize that such declarations protect us against exactly that. IMO, it would be a good thing to create an exact description of how to declare. However, it would take a new constitutional convention as Congress is happy with being able to politicize every moment of a war, to use them to brow-beat and degrade the Presidency at every turn.
I believe that Congress would have declared war against Afghanistan, not against Iraq. And that people like John Kerry used this Act to attempt to be all things to all people. Congresspersons simply chose to vote to allow what they thought was necessary, but knew they could always stand "shocked" if it turned out badly. If they were forced to put their stamp directly on the war, I think they would have avoided such a declaration against Iraq. It would have been nearly impossible to avoid against Afghanistan though.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Maybe you are right, I just think it's a mighty great expectation to have, that ANY measure could prevent John Kerry from saying something stupid.... but that's just me.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Jackson really was a bad boy!