See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Published: Oct 3, 2002
Author: Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Post Date: 2007-04-03 20:34:01 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 2668
Comments: 267
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002 The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan. Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990. The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution. Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution. Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed! A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice. However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions. In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people! A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities. The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown. It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment. An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war. Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. 
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-101) not displayed.
.
.
.
#102. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones (#99)
Feith and Ledeens gay campers?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Let me remind everyone that Chooser used his fake link tactic on another thread about an hour ago. He made grandiose claims, got called on it and then posted a dead link to "prove" his point. I suggest everyone check his links prior to accepting any of his shit at face value. This makes the third time that I know of where he has been busted for this. Seems to be part of his bag of tricks along with insults, changing the subject and ignoring questions.
.
I suggest everyone check his links prior to accepting any of his shit at face value. This makes the third time that I know of where he has been busted for this. Seems to be part of his bag of tricks along with insults, changing the subject and ignoring questions. ...and spamming threads with repetitious long posts containing lies that have already been refuted numerous times on other threads.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49616&Disp=37#C37 I suggest folks visit the following LP thread to see ... BAC having his ass handed to him. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All LP THREAD: April Glaspie Transcript http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All#C473 nolu chan posted on 2006-12-08 01:25:45 ET [EXCERPT FROM nolu_chan #473 to BAC] Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf [the report excerpted below] The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiinc.pdf 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence In September 2006, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released two reports constituting Phase II of its study of pre-war intelligence claims regarding Iraq's pursuit of WMD and alleged links to al-Qaeda. These bipartisan reports included "Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments"[95] and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress".[96] The reports concluded that, according to David Stout of the New York Times, "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."[97] The "Postwar Findings" volume of the study concluded that there was no evidence of any Iraqi support of al-Qaeda, al-Zarqawi, or Ansar al-Islam. The "Iraqi National Congress" volume concluded that "false information" from INC-affiliated sources was used to justify key claims in the prewar intelligence debate and that this information was "widely distributed in intelligence products" prior to the war. It also concluded that the INC "attempted to influence US policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists." The Senate report noted that in October 2002, "the DIA cautioned that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services and would use the relationship to promote its own agenda." Senator John Rockefeller, the Committee's ranking Democrat, noted that "Today's reports show that the administration's repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks."[98] But the head Republican on the Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, charged, "The additional views of the Committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years." The "Postwar Findings" report had the following conclusions about Saddam's alleged links to al-Qaeda: Conclusion 1: The CIA's assessment that Iraq and al-Qaeda were "two independent actors trying to exploit each other" was accurate only about al-Qaeda. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support." Conclusion 2: Postwar findings have indicated that there was only one meeting between representatives of Saddam Hussein and representatives of al-Qaeda. These findings also identified two occasions "not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa'ida and Iraq." Conclusion 3: "Prewar Intelligence Community assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida. Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000.... No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war." Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations." Conclusion 5: Postwar findings support the assessment that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and associates were present in Baghdad from May-November 2002. "Prewar assessments expressed uncertainty about Iraq's complicity in their presence, but overestimated the Iraqi regime's capabilities to locate them. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group." Conclusion 7: "Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike..... Postwar findings support CIA's January 2003 assessment, which judged that 'the most reliable reporting casts doubt' on one of the leads, an alleged meeting between Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, and confirm that no such meeting occurred. Prewar intelligence reporting cast doubt on the other lead as well." Conclusion 8: "No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom." Conclusion 9: "additional reviews of documents recovered in Iraq are unlikely to provide information that would contradict the Committee's findings or conclusions. The Committee believes that the results of detainee debriefs largely comport with documentary evidence, but the Committee cannot definitively judge the accuracy of statements made by individuals in custody and cannot, in every case, confirm that the detainee statements are truthful and accurate."
Being old doesn't mean the munitions aren't still deadly and of great interest to would be terrorists. That binary sarin shell was still viable. That's according to the ISG. It contained as much sarin as used in the Tokyo attack, an attack that experts said afterwords could have killed thousands had the cult properly dispersed the agent rather than simply poke holes in bags of it (and *pray*). The many mustard gas shells are also still highly deadly. The UN inspectors confirmed this. The fact that these munitions were part of pre-1991 stocks doesn't make them less potent or deadly. Furthermore, you are simply ignoring the part of the ISG report where they said they have a credible source who told them WMD related materials were moved to Syria before the war. And you are ignoring the question of why Iraq would go to so much trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities related to WMD if they had no WMD, no WMD programs and no plan to fully reconstitute their WMD arsenal once sanctions were removed.
Bookmark the instance above. If Chooser tries the same thing next week, and he will, he will simply lie if you call him on it. He will ask you for the link to the last instance or otherwise imply that you are simply making the story up and have no proof. Hit him in the face with the link above.
.
That is completely false. The ISG said the binary sarin shell had 4 to 5 liters of 40 percent Sarin. That's the same quantity and potency as the sarin used in the Tokyo sarin attack which killed about a dozen and injured thousands. And experts after the fact said Japan was lucky. Had the cultists properly dispersed that sarin rather than just poke holes in baggies full of it, they might have killed THOUSANDS. Even as many as died on 9/11.
Doesn't it pretty much destroy your case that Saddam was actively developing WMDs? Don't bother to answer, you moronic truthiopath.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
And you can prove it as long as nobody clicks your bullshit dead link. Huh?
.
So what's the deal with you posting the bullshit dead links and then pretending that it simply didn't happen? Do you think we won't notice what a dishonest and manipulative sack of shit you are?
.
Do you realize that nothing you posted pertains to BINARY sarin? You do know what that is, don't you? Or perhaps you don't. You see, binary sarin has an INDEFINITE shelf life.
Chooser, you dishonest sack of shit. You DELIBERATELY posted a bullshit dead link with the specific intent of fooling people on this forum. You are now acting like it didn't happen. What gives?
.
Actually, I came to this thread when I'd gotten to the point on the other thread where mine was the last post. Check the time of the posts if you don't believe me. And sometime I'll get around to returning to the other thread to blow you out of the water again. But I'm curious. Did you ever get your browser to work? ROTFLOL!
Chooser, you proven - PROVEN - dishonest sack of shit. You are insane if you think I am going to let this go. You are insane if you think I am going to let you change the subject. You are insane if you think I am going to fall for your silly personal insutls. You are a proven liar. You deliberately posted a dead link with the specific intent of fooling people on this forum. You did this because the facts failed you and you could not admit that you were wrong.
.
You are insane if you think I am going to fall for your silly personal insults on this. You DELIBERATELY posted a dead link to fool this forum when you got called on your bullshit. What do you have to say for yourself? You appear to be a very shameless and very cowardly liar. The facts to prove this up are on the thread above.
.
You didn't do it once chooser, you did it twice in the course of about an hour. Both time you did it when you were repeatedly asked for facts you apparently couldn't provide. In deperation, you TWICE posted a dead link with a silly quote that miraculously supported your argument. It wasn't an accident. Not twice.
.
We DO have a BozoFilter here now on our setup options. Join the many, the proud, the bac-free.
Chooser, you silence tells me that you are guilty as fucking sin. I expected three things from your sorry lying ass here: 1. Change the subject. 2. Ignore the question. 3. Go personal. You've now tried one and two. Try three now. I will respond by telling you to go to hell and then get back on subject ... shit ball.
.
BAC, you worthless piece of shit! I illustrated to you at ElPee that the US forces admitted that this one piece was a unique an freak find, representing nothing more than an overlooked round!
Can I help it if the CIA changed their URL to this document? Fine. If you weren't so lazy you could use the link Nola provided to Annex F: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw-anx-f.htm "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist." Or you could use your browser and find out where the CIA moved the report: https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist." But you are too lazy to do either and besides ... what it says is still the same.
I had no trouble obtaining the document at the link I provided on that thread. Face it ... you just don't know how to use your browser or are too lazy to try.
You are a sorry lying piece of scum arn't you. That is the official CIA page and you can't get on without an ID. And you know that. It's a nice convenient dead link form which you can attribute your quote. And remember, you didn't just do it once. You did it twice in one hour. It wasn't an accident.
.
You twice provided dead links within the course of an hour. It wasn't an accident. I can understand your desire to spin it. It really does make you look like a lying sack of shit.
.
As an aside, these articles are not on point. You are now posting other articles, on other subjects to hide the fact that you tried to flim flam the forum with a dead link. The articles we were talking about dealt with Zarqawi. The ones you are trying to fob off here do not. You are lying to us again.
.
Lies like pointing out that the WTC towers took 15 seconds, not 10, to collapse? Lies like pointing out the hole in the Pentagon was more than 90 feet across, not less than 20 feet? Lies like pointing out that Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and David Griffin are not experts ... in fact not one real expert in structures, demolition, structural materials, fire, seismology or macro-world physics believes that bombs brought down the WTC towers? Which lies would you be talking about, robin? The ones you promote? ROTFLOL!
Lies like pointing out the hole in the Pentagon was more than 90 feet across, not less than 20 feet? How about lies such as putting up a bullshit quote and then posting a bogus link to support it? How about then posting two unrelated articles and then implying to the forum that these were what you intended to post. That is some sorry scumbag shit you're into bac.
.
I know of a third instance where you posted a link to a magazine subscription site when you lacked support for a quote you made up. Do you pull this kind of shit often?
.
The purported "hole" at the pentagon was less than 20 feet. The "damage" was more broad, but didn't suggest anything on the order of an aircraft - rather, the contrary. You're a persistent lying piece of shit, BAC.
The ones you promote? Have you ever met Chalabi in person?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Whatever it the Pentagon, it was no 757. And WTC-7 was brought down by placed explosives.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, an eyewitness at the Pentagon on 9/11: ----------------------------- http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49362&Disp On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds".
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
you evil liar. you know damn well that your own government reported 10 seconds on one of the towers and the truthers said 14. you've been caught in so many lies yet you persist. who the fuck do you think you're fooling? no one but yourself. i despise you. you enemy of truth.
By all means, folks, visit that thread. It's quite entertaining. Pay particular attention to posts number 60, 89, 133, 150, 162, 164, 165, 167, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 265, 266, 267, 269, 271, 287, 288, 291, 292, 293, 294, 296, 297, 300, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 350, 351, 352, 354, 356, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 404, 405, 406, 407, 412, 413, 414, 415, 426, 427, 432, 433, 434, 440, 441, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 460, 461, 465, 466, 467, 470, 478, 479, 480, 481. I'm sure you'll see who gets his "ass handed to him". As I summarized in post 481 about Nolu_Chan's posts, "Fog fog fog ... " ROTFLOL!
Is that my case?
Do you have fake quotes supported by bullshit dead links in all of those? Recall that you did deliberately try to mislead the people on this forum by posting an apparently made up quote supported by a bullshit dead link. You did that at least twice this evening in fact.
.
Why do you think the US invaded Iraq?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Going by what has been posted tonight, your case is whatever you can fool honest posters into believing. You don't seem to be particularly concerned with facts. At least not when you can manufacture them with fake links.
.
ROTFLOL! You really are paranoid. ROTFLOL!
I'm beginning to think you have a real problem. And I'm trying to figure out who you remind me of over at LP. ROTFLOL!
ROTFLOL! You really are paranoid. ROTFLOL! No, I read the page you posted as support for the bullshit quote you made up. That's what it said and you know it. You deliberately used this page because you could tap dance about the page change if you got busted for your dishonest shit - as you did get busted. But you know that. And so does everyone else incidently.
.
Comments (142 - 267) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnd for the record, you are once again wrong. This didn't come from Newsmax. It came from the ISG report.
#103. To: All (#101)
#104. To: ... (#103)
Let me remind everyone that Chooser used his fake link tactic on another thread about an hour ago. He made grandiose claims, got called on it and then posted a dead link to "prove" his point.
#105. To: BeAChooser, ..., ALL (#97)
I suggest folks visit the following thread to see ... and his argument blown out of the water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda
#106. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#92)
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered,
In each case, the recovered munitions appear to have been part of the pre-1991 Gulf war stocks,
#107. To: robin, ALL (#104)
#108. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#94)
They were so old and degraded they were about as potent as camel dung or BAC manure.
#109. To: BeAChooser (#106)
The fact that these munitions were part of pre-1991 stocks doesn't make them less potent or deadly.
#110. To: BeAChooser (#108)
The ISG said the binary sarin shell had 4 to 5 liters of 40 percent Sarin.
#111. To: BeAChooser (#108)
#112. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#95)
then tell me about the magic vintage sarin.
#113. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#112)
#114. To: ..., ALL (#100)
You lose the argument on one thread and you come over here and try to restart the argument in exactly the same way.
#115. To: BeAChooser (#112)
(Edited)
#116. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#114)
Actually, I came to this thread when I'd gotten to the point on the other thread where mine was the last post. Check the time of the posts if you don't believe me. And sometime I'll get around to returning to the other thread to blow you out of the water again. But I'm curious. Did you ever get your browser to work? ROTFLOL!
#117. To: BeAChooser (#114)
#118. To: ... (#116)
#119. To: BeAChooser (#108)
#120. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#99)
The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist."
#121. To: ..., ALL (#101)
Chooser, you are a really pathetic bald faced liar.
For the second time tonight you posted a dead link when you got backed into a corner by the facts.
THE LINK YOU POSTED ABOVE IS A DEAD LINK!
THAT IS TWICE IN TWO HOURS YOU POSTED A FAKE DEAD LINK TO ALLEGEDLY BACK UP YOUR DISHONEST SHIT. IT ISN'T AN ACCIDENT CHOOSER.
#122. To: ..., ALL (#103)
Let me remind everyone that Chooser used his fake link tactic on another thread about an hour ago.
#123. To: BeAChooser (#121)
Can I help it if the CIA changed their URL to this document?
#124. To: BeAChooser (#122)
I had no trouble obtaining the document at the link I provided on that thread
#125. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#121)
#126. To: robin, ALL (#104)
...and spamming threads with repetitious long posts containing lies that have already been refuted numerous times on other threads.
#127. To: BeAChooser (#126)
(Edited)
Lies like pointing out that the WTC towers took 15 seconds, not 10, to collapse?
#128. To: BeAChooser (#126)
Which lies would you be talking about, robin?
#129. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#126)
Lies like pointing out the hole in the Pentagon was more than 90 feet across, not less than 20 feet?
#130. To: BeAChooser (#126)
Which lies would you be talking about, robin?
#131. To: SKYDRIFTER (#129)
(Edited)
The purported "hole" at the pentagon was less than 20 feet. The "damage" was more broad, but didn't suggest anything on the order of an aircraft - rather, the contrary.
#132. To: , *9-11* (#126)
...the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
#133. To: BeAChooser (#126)
Lies like pointing out that the WTC towers took 15 seconds, not 10, to collapse?
#134. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#105)
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All
#135. To: Dakmar, ALL (#109)
Doesn't it pretty much destroy your case that Saddam was actively developing WMDs?
#136. To: BeAChooser (#134)
Pay particular attention to posts number 60, 89, 133, 150, 162, 164, 165, 167, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 265, 266, 267, 269, 271, 287, 288, 291, 292, 293, 294, 296, 297, 300, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 350, 351, 352, 354, 356, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 404, 405, 406, 407, 412, 413, 414, 415, 426, 427, 432, 433, 434, 440, 441, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 460, 461, 465, 466, 467, 470, 478, 479, 480, 481.
#137. To: BeAChooser (#135)
#138. To: BeAChooser (#135)
Is that my case?
#139. To: ..., ALL (#123)
That is the official CIA page and you can't get on without an ID. And you know that.
#140. To: ..., ALL (#127)
That is some sorry scumbag shit you're into bac.
#141. To: BeAChooser (#139)
hat is the official CIA page and you can't get on without an ID. And you know that.
.
.
.