[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Travis

Fort Hood Murders: What Won’t Be Discussed by Russell D. Longcore

Good link, IMO.

I have issues with the first two points in the article.

1. The morality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. George Bush’s administration and Congress lied the US into an Iraq war against their own puppet dictator Saddam Hussein. It was never proven that Hussein or Iraq had ANY involvement in the 9-11 attacks. President Obama has now fully embraced war in Iraq and Afghanistan which continues unabated.

Bush et al never said Sadam had ties to 9-11 and there is no proof that they lied about WMD. There's proof they were wrong, and they have admitted this, but no proof that they lied.

2. The legality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No declaration of war has ever been enacted by the US Congress, which is required in the Constitution.

congress passed a resolution giving the president the authority to use force in Iraq. Just because it didn't say "we declare war on Iraq" doesn't mean we're violating the constitution. The point of congress having the power to declare war is to prevent the president from going off and waging war without congress' approval. The constitution was not violated here.

[Rainer.]

We haven't "declared war" since 1942, and it is definitely not required.

Seems like this guy has a rather anti-Imperialist agenda.

[JerryLove]

I'm going to try to keep this short and hopefully not sidetrack the thread too far.

Originally Posted by Bryan

Bush et al never said Sadam had ties to 9-11 and there is no proof that they lied about WMD. There's proof they were wrong, and they have admitted this, but no proof that they lied.

The administration repedely tied 9/11 and Saddm, usually by inference. There's a whole thread to this in the archive (likely more than one).

The case was being built for Iraq from 9/12 by the administration.

The "intelligence" they were citing was not being used by anyone else because it was so blatently wrong. The claims of WMDs were completely counter to the findings of the various international agencies invloved.

congress passed a resolution giving the president the authority to use force in Iraq. Just because it didn't say "we declare war on Iraq" doesn't mean we're violating the constitution. The point of congress having the power to declare war is to prevent the president from going off and waging war without congress' approval. The constitution was not violated here.

Bush gave a speech saying he needed the autorization for use as a threat and would not use it except as the last option. He clearly lied.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Bush gave a speech saying he needed the autorization for use as a threat and would not use it except as the last option. He clearly lied.

I like Gore Vidal's characterization (bilious old fart that he is) of GWB in regards to motives for the Iraq War:

(affecting a Texan accent) "Saddam Hussein tried to kill my daddy!"

Though Bush actually did say something similar I'm not quite as cynical as Vidal. Although...who knows?