Obama the Bald Faced Liar - Page 2

Naw they were just very careful about it. Like mentioning Iraq and 911 in the same paragraph. Hint they had nothing to do with each other but if you say them fast enough people will think that they do. It's kind of like saying " Coolwhip! The natural tasting nondairy creamer " All people hear is " Whip, natural, dairy and cream ".

What's become tiresome is the denial of how badly the american public got hoodwinked by them.

Well, to start with, I think wars are supposed to be officially declared by the U.S. Congress. Using other words to describe them (e.g., "police action as in Korea) or delegating the ability to start just about any military action he wants (e.g., the war powers act) doesn't really change that.

Now I suppose that the war resolution might be considered an official declaration of war but, looking back, I suspect this was more of a weasely worded way of declaring but not actually declaring.

But, beyond constitutionality, I think a reasonable argument can be made for the immorality of it.

Congressional funding eliminates the question of illegitimacy.

How so?

The law says that armed action over 90 days - any kind of action, whether it's a war or a police action - must be legitimate by approval of Congress. It's defined in The War Powers Resolution of 1973.

So, by approving funding for continued action Congress makes it legitimate even if they hadn't voted for it specifically. You can't have a war without paying for it.

I think you mean after the War Powers Act. The WPA was Congress effectively abdicating its constitutional responsibility to the president.



Sure. Why not? Just because it's happened a lot doesn't make it right. In fact it's interesting to note that we haven't engaged in a truly defensive war since the department of ware was renamed to the department of defense.



You think it was morally okay to invade a sovereign nation for no reason at all and under false pretenses?



Thus saith the Lord.

Actually, there wasn't a pretense made. Sadaam was told to come out or he was going to be pulled out, simple as that. The public was told many things, about his refusal to allow sufficient inspection, the terrorism being supported by Iraq, etc.

Bush made too much of the WMD thing, but the fact of the matter is that Sadaam would have been pulled off his throne anyway. Bush was just told the WMD thing was a "slam dunk" by CIA Director George Tenet 2 weeks before the invasion and he played it up big 'cause it was great 15 second headline material.

To anyone but a Bush supporter it's obvious. There was clearly no reason to mention 911 when talking about Iraq. They just kind of slipped it in there like the time Toad in " American Graffiti " ordered liquor from the Drug store. It all goes together right?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12723

And yet a lot of people didn't think there was enough to start a war. Even the UN didn't think military action was required. And guess what? They were right. You can't change that SDW. He should have waited and gathered more intel.

I love it when wingers revert to type - this reminds me of that time Bush was mocking the woman asking for clemency from the electric chair... wasn't it "Please don't kill me President Bush..please" while cackling maniacally in a mock sobbing voice as he denied the pardon...it was almost sexual.

Actually there is a long history of this with wingers....a British judge Lord Goddard used to have a similar issue:


I guess it just updates the more abuses occur: "poor little iranny-wanny...suffering from our little nukey-wukey bomby womby...".

Kind of sick really....makes you wonder if the extremists don't have a point...

How many presidents have said with glee, "I'm a war president"?

Given that they never found WMDs and assuming they were actually seeking the truth rather than a reason for war, then the logical answer to your question is possibly.

The Iraq war (and others) were planned by the neocons prior to their installment in the 2001 Bush Cabinet. They started discussing war against Iraq in the first days after Bush's inauguration in January 2001. They spent long hours discussing how to sell the preplanned war to the public.. the WMD "justification" was reached because not only was it was the easiest sell to an already traumatized US public, but all the other "justifications" would have been too open to discussion . In other words, the Iraq war was started, not because of WMDs (they knew Iraq had none since 1992 anyway), but other reasons. When Powell addressed the UN of Feb 5, 2003, he was lying.. and he knew it... only hours previously he had been given a draft of the contents of his speech by his neocon masters, he threw a fit and slammed his fist on the table saying "this is BULLSHIT"! So they toned down the lies and gave him a diluted version. When Bush addressed the country on the eve of the war, he used the phrase "to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction". He was also lying and he knew it.

SDW, just because the parties to which *you* happen to be loyal, ie conservative Republicans. were involved in lying to the country and the world to start wars of choice... it doesn't mean you have to remain in denial.

It is all about sex with you isn't it...

The problem you have here is that we have the benefit of hindsight to hypothesize from. The question was whether waiting to gather more intel would have been beneficial. If we are constructing a hypothetical from that point, it might have been, if they were actually looking for the truth and not simply setting up a pretext for war. The next logical question is what would have been the worse thing to happen if we had waited. Would we have discovered Iraq's WMD before they were able to use them and take action quickly then? My guess is actually yes. It was highly doubtful (even then when they were claiming Iraq did have WMDs) it would have been a very sophisticated or elaborate program and, thus, one which would have likely been handled with more "surgical" bombings and aerial attacks which the U.S. is always in position to do.

Personally, I have come to believe they actually knew there were no WMDs but didn't really give a shit. It sounded good. An easy little soundbite for the American public to swallow.

No, the U.S. was going into Iraq come hell or high water. The reasons were not about WMDs or even terrorism. They were much more grand, much more selfish and much more personal at the time. Grand: Try to divide the middle east and establish a permanent U.S. military presences smack dab in the middle of the region. Selfish: To secure oil throughout the region. Personal: To get Saddam for his threats to Bush the senior.

Now, fast forward to the present time. All of the people "in the know" (intel agencies, UN, etc.) are saying Iran does NOT have a weapons program, but the administration is, like Bush before, setting up a pretext for war with Iran. The U.S. has established an ugly habit, that is becoming increasingly obvious, of playing a diplomacy strategy of "head I win, tails you lose" game with people and nations it feels the need to go to war with. It's getting a bit tiresome.

Excellent post! ^^^