Dan – A LaRouche nutcase has, perhaps through dumb luck, said something which is valid and which left-liberals desperately want to prevent being said: that Obama’s policies and proposals are like the German National Socialists. Will you be disavowing any other valid small-government points that left-liberals don’t want said, because there happens to be an instance of a LaRouche nutcase agreeing?

I’m just enjoying the fact that you are defending a LaRouche wingnut

Not at all. I actually called the person a “nutcase”. But Al, I shouldn’t be surprised at your lack of reading comprehension, now should I?

I was laboring under the delusion that it was Saddam’s regime that was the target, rather than al-Zarqawi.

Ah. You admit Zarqawi exists and was in Iraq. I suppose that’s progress.

Someday, if you try hard Al, perhaps you will make enough progress to understand that the terrorist’s willing host is on the same level as the terrorist, and both can be legitimate targets. At the same time, even.

I’m just enjoying the fact that you are defending a LaRouche wingnut who likened Obama to Hitler by maintaining that one country is justified in bombing the crap out of another country because the 2nd country harbored a terrorist. In your world, the Brits would have bombed New York long ago.

DNFTT, indeed.

So you should ask Congress, Al, if Bush had duly certified to them that the Iraq war would involve “actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations.. who planned, authorized, committed, or aided… September 11.” My guess would be that he did, and truthfully so. Because, again: Saddam starting harboring al Qaeda refugees no later than October 2001. And al Qaeda is one big part of who we’ve been fighting in Iraq all this time. Get over it.

And of this: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf (2002 authorization for the use of force against Saddam, discussing his involvement with international terrorism among other things)

acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001

Sooo, you need to pick one, did Iraq :

plan
authorize
committ
aid

the 9/11 attacks. Anything that happened after 9/11 is not relevant.
Or are you going to run and hide behind the “including doesn’t mean only” argument, which doesn’t make much sense given the context.

You don’t get to invent Bush’s positions on these things, Al, for purposes of bolstering your own entirely false narrative that Bush somehow lied there. You get to have your own opinion – Not your own facts.

My comment to Daniel failed to post, so how can you critique it, ILC?

More game-playing. This time, a crude bait-and-switch. Obviously, the only comment of yours that anyone could be discussing in this thread is the comment that has posted, presently numbered 7.

Al, as for the rest of your rubbish: Saddam Hussein did have connections with terrorists. He was a major sponsor of terrorism. No lie there. Yet, George W. Bush never connected Saddam to operational involvement with 9-11. NEVER. If you think Bush did, you are sorely mistaken. Hmm – Could it be a lie, on your part? Or just knee-jerk regurgitation of trash you’ve let yourself be programmed with? But my point is, no lie there either.

I asked you for examples of Bush telling intentional falsehoods about Iraq, Al, and you’ve got nothing. Proving my point, that you’re spewing knee-jerk rubbish, at this point.

Daniel,
I did a bit more research, and you are right – GWB doesn’t have the personality cult I thought he did. Only 94 people in his Yahoo fan club. I guess I was just rationalizing his 2004 victory. As for the lieing, how can one distinguish things he knew were false from things that he clearly should have known were false : the 9/11 – Hussein connection, for example.
The point I was trying to make to ILoveCapitalism was the Godwin’s Law one, with which I think you agree: let’s leave the inflammatory rhetoric (‘Death panels’, ‘Heil Hitler’) at the door. So I probably should not have entered the “Who’s more like Hitler?” arena, but the crassness of his support for crazylady was irresistable.

Onwards to the lieing CinC bit.

The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
GWB letter to congress 3/21/03

First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said – at least I know I didn’t say – that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.
GWB on Fox News 3/20/06

Which could be considered a lie, in and of itself, but a minor one. However,

Dr. Robert S. Leiken of the Nixon Center stated “the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising probably the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history—chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people — has turned up no evidence of Iraq’s involvement; nor has the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and US troops combing through Saddam’s computers.”

“We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.”
Former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet 60 Minutes 4/29/07

Now, I fully expect some weaseling of the form ‘provided succour to al-Qaeda at some point in time’ = ‘aided 9/11’, closely followed by ‘he didn’t know it was wrong at the time’. But argument 1 leads to some interesting conclusions about countries that would be justified in nuking the USA, and argument 2 leads to the rebuttal ‘he had no reason to believe it was right, either’
That’s a big lie, which leads me to re-enter the “Who’s Hitler now?” contest with, let’s face it, the Austrian’s most significant characteristic :

Wages War of Aggression

‘Nuf said.

In truth, of course I have my own positions, e.g., disagreeing with Dan on some things – but to the extent I have am sometimes one of his flying monkeys, it’s been an honor.

I did submit a comment – directed to Daniel

You know the saying, you mess with one bean, you fight the whole burrito.

I did submit a comment – directed to Daniel

You answered my points specifically, Al. Come on now, cut the bullcrap tactics.

Wow, talk about knee-jerk

Indeed, Al. You seriously think Bush told intentional falsehoods, on Iraq? Nothing could be more knee-jerk. Or stupid.