US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

To repeat Walter's post:

Quote:
More than four years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, many U.S. adults still believe some of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq, which have now been discredited, according to a new Harris Poll. For example:
Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein had "strong links to Al Qaeda."
Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11." Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded." Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis."

The article is self-explanatory; I just added my opinion that supports what is written.
In case you missed the important statement in the first sentence, I repeat it here for your benefit: "...which has been discredited..." Do you understand what "discredited" means?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

...
In case you missed the important statement in the first sentence, I repeat it here for your benefit: "...which has been discredited..." Do you understand what "discredited" means?

I got your point from this post (no excerpt from Walter here so don't blame him):

cicerone imposter wrote:

Walter, Too many Americans have been brain-washed with this administration's rhetoric. They have repeated it often enough, and that's the message that penetrated their brains. As for the others, they are hard-core republicans that doesn't know how to read and/or ignores reports that are shared in the media. They must support their justifications no matter how their position looks ignorant of the facts.

I didn't miss your vacuous point. Discredited by whom is the real point? Yes, many of the things a minority of Americans believe is true have been discredited by credible sources. Yes, other things they believe are true have been discredited by incredible sources. For example, a minority of Americans believe government mandated transfer of wealth or other property from some citizens to other citizens is constitutional, and they believe the USA Supreme Court can lawfully legislate the law. They believe these things because they have been credited by the discredited opinion-news media.

Do you still truly think Americans that think like you are knowledgeable of the facts, and those that don't are not?
Laughing

0 Replies

icant, I know for a simple fact that Americans do not think alike. Heck, I don't agree about politics with my own siblings.

If you haven't seen all the reports in the media about no WMDs found and no al Qaeda connections that have discredited this administration's justification for war, you haven't been reading the important stuff, because there are literally hundreds of them. All you need to do is a simple search on the internet.

0 Replies

icant, It'll help if get your head out of the sand once-in-awhile to breathe fresh air and learn about the realities of what's been happening since 9-11.

0 Replies

For one, Bush enjoyed a 80 percent approval rating right after 9-11. Most recent polls shows his approval rating at below 50 percent - a 63 percent drop. Did you also know that Bush lied about unauthorized wiretaps on American citizens? Prolly not. If you watch the news, it's very possible Bush can be impeached in 2006.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If you watch the news, it's very possible Bush can be impeached in 2006.

0 Replies

It would be a hoot, wouldn't it? I wouldn't be able to stop laughing, joyously.

In other news pertaining to Iraq now, not really sure if it is actually news but anyway,

Quote:

Pace: U.S. to Launch Phased Iraq Pullout

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates - The U.S. will carry out planned withdrawals of American troops in Iraq only from regions where Iraqi forces can maintain security against the insurgents, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said Thursday.

source

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

icant, I know for a simple fact that Americans do not think alike. Heck, I don't agree about politics with my own siblings.

If you haven't seen all the reports in the media about no WMDs found and no al Qaeda connections that have discredited this administration's justification for war, you haven't been reading the important stuff, because there are literally hundreds of them. All you need to do is a simple search on the internet.

You appear to be able to misrepresent my posts without even an inkling of personal embarrassment.

I referred to credible sources and incredible sources.

I first obtained confirmation that there were no WMD found in Iraq, from a credible source: The Doelfer Report (i.e., The Bush Administration).

I first obtained confirmation that there was no operational relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime up to and including 9/11/2001, from a credible source: The 9/11 Commission Report (i.e., The Bush Administration.)

I first obtained confirmation that Saddam's regime tolerated the set up and growth of al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, from December 2001 to March 2003 from credible sources: The 9/11 Commission Report and General Tommy Franks American Soldier (i.e., The Bush Administration.)

I first obtained confirmation that al Qaeda had declared war on Americans, from credible sources: three al Qaeda fatwahs (1996, 1998,and 2004) and speeches by President Bush (i.e., The Bush Administration.)

I first obtained confirmation that the USA Congress in October 2002 for 23 reasons (i.e., whereases) delegated to president Bush the power to order the invasion of Iraq and remove its gangster government for among other reasons to stop it from tolerating the set up and growth of al Qaeda training camps in Iraq from December 2001 to March 2003, from a credible source: The Congressional Record.

I first obtained confirmation that the Clinton administration decided that the Saddam regime was still considered after 1991 a threat to Americans from the directive President Clinton issued in 1998, from a credible source: White House Records (i.e., The Clinton Administration.)

I first obtained confirmation that the president of the USA had the constitutional power to order phone tapping in times of national emergency, from a credible source: my copy of the USA Constitution obtained from the Library of Congress, and then subsequently from speeches by President Bush (i.e., The Bush Administration.)

0 Replies

Quote, "I first obtained confirmation that Saddam's regime tolerated the set up and growth of al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, from December 2001 to March 2003 from credible sources: The 9/11 Commission Report and General Tommy Franks American Soldier (i.e., The Bush Administration.)"

"Tolerated" does not equate to support.
Show us proof of "set up and growth."

0 Replies

Quote, "I first obtained confirmation that al Qaeda had declared war on Americans, from credible sources: three al Qaeda fatwahs (1996, 1998,and 2004) and speeches by President Bush (i.e., The Bush Administration.)"

What's the point? We all know that Osama/al Qaeda declared war on the US. If we all know this, why has the 9-11 Commission given this administration a perponderance of "Fs" concerning our security?

0 Replies

Quote, "I first obtained confirmation that the USA Congress in October 2002 for 23 reasons (i.e., whereases) delegated to president Bush the power to order the invasion of Iraq and remove its gangster government for among other reasons to stop it from tolerating the set up and growth of al Qaeda training camps in Iraq from December 2001 to March 2003, from a credible source: The Congressional Record. "

This authorization by the congress was given based on exagerated reports of Saddam's WMDs and al Qaeda connections. Senator Feinstein said early in 2003 that this administration lied to them to get this authorization.

0 Replies

Quote, "I first obtained confirmation that the Clinton administration decided that the Saddam regime was still considered after 1991 a threat to Americans from the directive President Clinton issued in 1998, from a credible source: White House Records (i.e., The Clinton Administration.)"

Maybe people like you do not realize it, but what was true twelve or even five years ago can change. That's the reason why the UN Inspectors were in Iraq to confirm what was true in earlier years, but Bush chased them out to initiate his war.

0 Replies

Quote: "I first obtained confirmation that the president of the USA had the constitutional power to order phone tapping in times of national emergency, from a credible source: my copy of the USA Constitution obtained from the Library of Congress, and then subsequently from speeches by President Bush (i.e., The Bush Administration.)"

The president is not above the laws established by congress. It's called the checks and balances of power to ensure that our Constitutional and Bill of Rights are not lost. That's the reason why congress established FISA to authorize wiretaps.

Bush said he only did wiretaps on al Qaeda members, but we have subsequently learned he lied. He should be impeached for breaking the laws of this land. He is not a king.

0 Replies

Bush also said that congress saw the same intelligence he did, but we later learned that to be another lie.

0 Replies

.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote, "I first obtained confirmation that Saddam's regime tolerated the set up and growth of al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, from December 2001 to March 2003 from credible sources: The 9/11 Commission Report and General Tommy Franks American Soldier (i.e., The Bush Administration.)"

"Tolerated" does not equate to support.
Show us proof of "set up and growth."

I agree that "Tolerated" does not equate to support. But tolerated equates to allowed, and permitted.

You posted, "Show us proof of "set up and growth." I think it amusing that you have the audacity to ask me to show proof, but you decline to show proof for what you say when I ask you to show proof. You have either ignored such requests by me or dismissed my requests with your words, "it's my opinion." Laughing

Even more amusing, you ask me to show proof of that which I have not ever alleged. Laughing

Surelyyou know that I have never alleged that Saddam's regime set up and/or grew al Qaeda in Iraq. I have alleged that Saddam's regime tolerated or allowed, or permitted al Qaeda to set itself up in Iraq and grow. I have repeatedly supported this allegation of mine with evidence posted here (simply ask and I shall post that evidence again).

The governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have attempted and are attempting to rid their countries of al Qaeda. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime in Iraq did not attempt to rid their countries of al Qaeda. The governments of Iran and Syria did not and are not attempting to rid their countries of al Qaeda. After we complete our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, I bet that if Iran and Syria continue to tolerate or allow, or permit al Qaeda to set itself up in these countries and grow, we will likewise hold them accountable.

By the way, in future WHENEVER you mischaracterize what I post and choose not to respond to what I actually post, I'll limit my responses to you to:

Quote:

AGAIN, YOU FALSIFY MY POST!

0 Replies

icant, We are talking about your "I first obtained confirmation..."

But your statement as written would suggest there was a connection. Your backing out now will not help, because you can't edit your post.

0 Replies

So you can re-read what you wrote: "I first obtained confirmation that Saddam's regime tolerated the set up and growth of al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, from December 2001 to March 2003 from credible sources: The 9/11 Commission Report and General Tommy Franks American Soldier (i.e., The Bush Administration.)"

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

...
The president is not above the laws established by congress.
...

The president of the USA is above those laws established by Congress that attempt to limit his powers delegated by the supreme law of the land, The Constitution of the USA.

Since George Bush is currently president of the USA, his powers delegated to the president by the Constitution of the USA are in fact "above the laws established by congress."

To change that, the Congress must propose an amendment to the Constitution which is subsequently adopted according to either one of the two procedures specified in Article V of the Constitution of the USA.

emphasis added by me

Quote:

Article V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

0 Replies

icant, You gotta study the Constitution and all the Amendments to understand what is currently the laws of the land.

icant wrote: "The president of the USA is above those laws established by Congress that attempt to limit his powers delegated by the supreme law of the land, The Constitution of the USA."

You understand very little about our country's laws.

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know