Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on June 12, 2008, 09:38:15 AM
-
Installment Four: Mr. Bush on the Stand
Vincent Bugliosi’s Prosecution of President Bush For Murder
All analysis is based on Vincent Bugliosi’s The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder,
“If justice means anything in America, and if we’re not going to forget the thousands of young American soldiers in their graves whom Bush deceived into thinking they were fighting for America against an enemy that had attacked us, and if we want to deter any future president as monstrous as Bush from doing the same horrendous thing, I say we have no choice but to bring murder charges against the son of privilege from Crawford, Texas.”
Cross-examination Part I.
Bugliosi: On the evening of 10-7-2002, in a nationally televised speech, did you tell the nation that Iraq had "unmanned drones armed w/ WMDs for missions targeting the US?”
Bush: Yes
Bugliosi: Are you aware of a letter dated 10-7-2002 from George Tenet and signed by John McLaughlin which stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US?
Bush: I don’t recall.
Bugliosi: Are you the boss of the CIA?
Bush: Yes.
Bugliosi: Did the CIA, in its daily morning briefings of you up to that point, had given you this same position (that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US)?
Bush: I don’t recall.
Bugliosi: You don’t recall even though as a matter of fact you were briefed daily by the CIA as to Iraq. Yet you told the nation the exact opposite of the CIA’s assessment of Iraq’s threat?
Bush: Yes.
Bugliosi: Upon what intelligence agency were you relying in your speech to the nation 10-7-2002 when you suggested to everyone that Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA?
Bush: Everyone believed Iraq posed a threat to the US.
Bugliosi: In other words, Mr. Bush, you made this whole thing up yourself about Hussein and Iraq being an imminent threat to the US?
Bush: No, I didn’t make it up, I believed it.
Bugliosi: So even though no US intelligence agency told you this, and even though no document said this, you still formed the opinion it was true? (that Hussein was an imminent threat to the US)
Bush: Correct.
Bugliosi: Did you tell the American people on the evening of 10-7-2002, that it was merely your opinion that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of this country, and US intelligence agreed with you?
Bush: No
Bugliosi: Why not sir?
Bush: I’m the Decider and I decide.
Bugliosi: Since it was going to be the blood of America’s sons and daughters that was going to be shed in far-off Iraq, not your blood or the blood of your children, don’t you feel the people of this country, in deciding whether to give their support to you for this war, were entitled to know this? (that it was Bush’s opinion and not fact re Iraq’s threat)
Bush: We didn’t want the final proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Cross-examination Part II.
Bugliosi: Mr. Bush, you have said, and I quote you, that in deciding whether or not to go to war in Iraq, “I’ll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence.” Was that a true statement?
Bush: Yes.
Bugliosi: Just for purposes of clarification, when you said ‘intelligence’ you were referring to US Intelligence agencies, like the CIA, whose job it was to furnish you with the best and latest intelligence they had gathered on the issue of whether Hussein was a threat to the security of the country, is that correct?
Bush: Yes, of course.
Bugliosi: Now you have a reputation for not liking to read long reports, including intelligence reports. Is that a reputation you feel you have earned?
Bush: Well, I’ll tell you, it’s partially true. The job of president is a hard one with lots of hard work…busy work, you know, and I like to get to the heart of a problem as quickly as I can.
Bugliosi: So as I’ve read, you prefer to read summaries of these long reports, is that true?
Bush: Yes, but if the report is important enough, I’ll read the whole report.
Bugliosi: Would you agree that the war in Iraq, for good or for bad, has defined your presidency more than any other single issue?
Bush: Yes, our country’s safety is my most important duty.
Bugliosi: Did you, in fact, read the 91 page report which concluded Hussein was not an imminent threat to the US?
Bush: No, I don’t think I did. It’s hard to remember after all this time.
Bugliosi: But I take it you at least read the five-page summary of this report?
Bush: I don’t recall. I don’t think so.
Bugliosi: Mr. Bush, I show you People’s exhibit number 101, the ninety-one page report sent to your office on October 1, 2002, which represents the conclusions of sixteen US Intelligence agencies on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and the danger, if any, that Hussein posed to America. Pages 5 through 9 contain the summary of the report called ‘Key Judgments.’ Turning to page 8, I want to read to you the most important of the Key Judgments.
(Bugliosi reads the report’s judgment that Hussein would only attack the US if he feared the US was about to attack his country first, i.e., he would only attack in self-defense from us.)
Bugliosi: Mr. Bush, would you tell this jury if you read these same words when the report was sent to you, or had someone else read them to you or summarize their essence for you?
Bush: No.
Bugliosi: So even though you were the president of the United States, you never bothered to read even a summary of this extremely important report, were not informed of it by your national security advisor Condoleezza Rice or anyone else, and had absolutely no idea that the sixteen US intelligence agencies under your command all agreed that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to this country, is that correct, sir?
Bush: I believe I was told of that Key Judgment on page 8.
Bugliosi: Mr. Bush, the report explicitly says that Hussein would not attempt to attack the USA unless he feared an attack by us on his country and he thought the attack was imminent. I ask you, sir. Being in possession of this information from 16 US intelligence agencies, the very people you admit you relied upon in making your decision whether to go to war, how could you possibly tell the American people just six days later in Cincinnati the exact opposite that unless we stopped Hussein first, he was an urgent and great danger to our nation? How could you do this sir? Please tell the jury.
Bush: I did not want the final proof to be a mushroom cloud.
Bugliosi: Mr. Bush, at the time you ordered this nation’s military forces to invade Iraq on March 19, 2003, did you believe that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of this nation?
Bush: No, I never said Hussein was an ‘imminent threat.’
Bugliosi: Do you think the words you did use: ‘a threat of unique urgency,’ attack ‘on any given day,’ ‘Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes,’ etc. were the equivalent of the meaning of imminent.
Bush: I don’t think so.
Bugliosi: Mr. Bush, you have always said that you didn’t want to go to war, that war was a last resort, is that correct?
Bush: Yes it is.
Bugliosi: If this is so, when Hans Blix, the UN’s chief weapons inspector, testified before the UN on March 7, 2003, that he and his inspectors were being given complete cooperation by Hussein and they were “able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq” and thus far they couldn’t find any WMDs in Iraq but requested a few more months to confirm their tentative findings, why, sir, did you proceed to refuse this request, boot Blix and his people out of Iraq, and proceed to war in less than two weeks?
Bush: I wanted to strike Hussein before he attacked America.
Bugliosi: But if you actually believed that, sir, and had this fear of Iraq, why in the world did you propose, at your January 31, 2003 meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair in the Oval Office that America and Britain should try to provoke Hussein into a war?
Do remember Mr. Bush, we can call Blair and his three aids—including David Manning who wrote the memo quoting Bush on provoking Hussein--to the stand to verify your answer.
Bush: I really don’t recall.
-
Yawn.
Jury: Not Guilty.
-
Bush: I really don’t recall.
lol... that's exactly what he'd say, if he wasn't sunbathing in Paraguay while these trials went on.
-
Yawn.
Jury: Not Guilty.
With people like you sitting on the jury, it's no wonder the legal system is broken in this country.
-
Yawn.
Jury: Not Guilty.
lol. Concur! :)
-
lol. Concur! :)
That's really a well reasoned argument.
I expect no more really.
I mean what can you Bush fanatics say anyways?
There's no argument you can make that absolves Bush of first degree murder.
So you throw in the figurative towel by making weak jokes.
Boy, I learned my lesson.
-
That's really a well reasoned argument.
I expect no more really.
I mean what can you Bush fanatics say anyways?
There's no argument you can make that absolves Bush of first degree murder.
So you throw in the figurative towel by making weak jokes.
Boy, I learned my lesson.
Decker what will you do when Bush leaves office and your punching bag is gone? Besides read hypothetical, unrealistic books by former prosecutors.
-
Decker what will you do when Bush leaves office and your punching bag is gone? Besides read hypothetical, unrealistic books by former prosecutors.
You should pick it up and read it. I'd like to hear your actual serious take on the points he makes.
-
Decker what will you do when Bush leaves office and your punching bag is gone? Besides read hypothetical, unrealistic books by former prosecutors.
I got an idea start stealing gas and giving it to the poor, modern day Robin Hood.
-
I got an idea start stealing gas and giving it to the poor, modern day Robin Hood.
Why steal it when you can get it for FREE... legally?
-
Decker what will you do when Bush leaves office and your punching bag is gone? Besides read hypothetical, unrealistic books by former prosecutors.
I will continue to point out the morally indefensible and illegal acts of criminal politicians which somehow garner sycophantic support of people just b/c it's a republican pulling the trigger.
I suppose murder and suffering and loss mean little to a person who cannot empathize or sympathize with those actually living through the horror created by the president.
So let's just joke about it.
I swear, liberals are just humorless about murder, torture and treason.
If you or anyone else has a point to make about the case at hand, go ahead...I'm all ears.
-
More American citizens have been killed by illegal aliens, than soldiers killed in the Iraq war.
Bush and many other Politicians have done nothing to stop the illegal invasion,, as they are more concerned with making their Big Business supporters (cheap labor) happy, than they are with the safety the American Citizens.
So if you want to impeach Bush for something, it should be this !
-
More American citizens have been killed by illegal aliens, than soldiers killed in the Iraq war.
And how is that relevant to this thread?
Bush and many other Politicians have done nothing to stop the illegal invasion,, as they are more concerned with making their Big Business supporters (cheap labor) happy, than they are with the safety the American Citizens.
And how is that relevant to this thread?
So if you want to impeach Bush for something, it should be this !
Ahhh now I see.
This thread is not about impeachment. It's about trying the ex-president of the US for murder.
-
I bet you were silent when your hero Bill Clinton bombed the aspiron factory............for making aspirin :o
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html
"The Clinton administration will not challenge a lawsuit filed by a Saudi businessman who said the bombing last year of his pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was a "mistake" based on faulty intelligence data" ::)
-
Bill Clinton (Decker's Hero) telling the World, multiple times, that Saddam Hussien has weapons of mass destruction and has to be stopped. :o
-
Why steal it when you can get it for FREE... legally?
I'll sign up for your MLM if you post a pic.
-
I bet you were silent when your hero Bill Clinton bombed the aspiron factory............for making aspirin :o
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html
"The Clinton administration will not challenge a lawsuit filed by a Saudi businessman who said the bombing last year of his pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was a "mistake" based on faulty intelligence data" ::)
I'll bet you are wrong again. Clinton my hero? How foolish of you to say such thing.
So what if Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory? Seems he was going after Al Qaeda while the republican fools in the Congress were playing impeachment games.
Is Clinton's order the same thing as Bush's ordering the invasion and destruction of a country based on intentional lies?
I didn't think so.
I think you know what you can do with your innuendo.
-
I'll bet you are wrong again. Clinton my hero? How foolish of you to say such thing.
So what if Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory? Seems he was going after Al Qaeda while the republican fools in the Congress were playing impeachment games.
Is Clinton's order the same thing as Bush's ordering the invasion and destruction of a country based on intentional lies?
I didn't think so.
I think you know what you can do with your innuendo.
Bill Clinton's actions killed people,
Bill Clinton's actions were based on faulty (wrong) intelligence
Only a liberal like Decker would see no wrong in this, while at the same time wanting to charge Bush with Murder :o
Lets not forget that John Edwards (who Decker supported) voted for the War in Iraq, and had access to the same intelligence.
-
Bill Clinton's actions killed people,
Bill Clinton's actions were based on faulty (wrong) intelligence
Only a liberal like Decker would see no wrong in this, while at the same time wanting to charge Bush with Murder :o
Lets not forget that John Edwards (who Decker supported) voted for the War in Iraq, and had access to the same intelligence.
The bombing ordered by Clinton was either an accident or based on faulty intelligence.
How does that square with Bush's intentional lies re WMDs?
It doesn't so stop pretending that it does. Please, just stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.
Am I talking with Eldon or are you channeling your alter ego Ozark with the Edwards claim?
Who cares if Edwards had "access to the same intelligence?"
Bush lied repeatedly about that intelligence.
How does Edwards mistake in not reading the intelligence make right Bush's outright lies about that intelligence? It doesn't.
He lied to Congress and the American people. Who expects the president to lie about such an important and grave matter? Now we know the answer.
Nice try though.
-
The bombing ordered by Clinton was either an accident or based on faulty intelligence.
How does that square with Bush's intentional lies re WMDs?
It doesn't so stop pretending that it does. Please, just stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.
Am I talking with Eldon or are you channeling your alter ego Ozark with the Edwards claim?
Who cares if Edwards had "access to the same intelligence?"
Bush lied repeatedly about that intelligence.
How does Edwards mistake in not reading the intelligence make right Bush's outright lies about that intelligence? It doesn't.
He lied to Congress and the American people. Who expects the president to lie about such an important and grave matter? Now we know the answer.
Nice try though.
Bill Clinton said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Hillary said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
John Kerry said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
John Edwards ( Deckers Man) said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Joe Bidon said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Al Gore said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Most of the libs said this prior to Bush even being elected.
France intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
England Intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Russia Intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
The truth is Innocent people died because Bill Clinton bombed an Aspirin factory, plain and simple.
So In your weak theory of Bush Being guilty of murder, then so is Clinton.
Decker, you are the one being embarrassed here. :o so please continue :)
-
How does Edwards mistake in not reading the intelligence make right Bush's outright lies about that intelligence?
So John Edwards was too lazy to read the Intelligence, but then voted to send men and woman to War......and this is the guy you said you supported !
Both you and Edwards are a joke :o :o :o
-
Bill Clinton said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Hillary said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
John Kerry said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
John Edwards ( Deckers Man) said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Joe Bidon said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Al Gore said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Most of the libs said this prior to Bush even being elected.
France intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
England Intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Russia Intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Innocent people died because Bil Clinton bombed an Aspirin factory, plain and simple.
In your weak theory of Bush Being guilty of murder, then so is Clinton
Decker, you are the one being embarrassed here. :o so please continue :)
You are attempting to make a correlation of Clinton attempting to kill Bin Laden and Bush starting the war in Iraq on false pretenses? You are an idiot.
I believed Saddam probably had wmd too, but Stevie Wonder could see that he was no threat to the U.S. An attack on the U.S. would be suicidal and Saddam had a nice situation for himself in Iraq.
-
You are attempting to make a correlation of Clinton attempting to kill Bin Laden and Bush starting the war in Iraq on false pretenses? You are an idiot.
I believed Saddam probably had wmd too, but Stevie Wonder could see that he was no threat to the U.S. An attack on the U.S. would be suicidal and Saddam had a nice situation for himself in Iraq.
Bill Clinton is on video saying Saddam is a threat to the US
Hillary Clinton is on video saying " even knowing now that no WMD's were found, she would have still voted for the War, as Saddam was a threat !
Al Gore is on video saying Saddam was a huge threat, and should be dealt with, in fact he even talked shit on the first Bush for not going into Iraq,
Gore speaks of Saddam's Terrorist Ties!
Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism
Bill Clinton telling the World, multiple times, that Saddam Hussien is a threat, and has to be stopped.
[/youtube]
John Edwards 2002 Vote for the Iraq War
Hillary Clinton on Iraq
Hillary Clinton's say's even after finding no WMD"s......... she is still glad she voted for War !
-
That's all good Eldon.
However, BUSH is the one who pulled the trigger and actually went to war committing the worse US foreign policy decision in the history of the USA when evidence is coming forth that he knew there was other intel that contradicted the intel everyone else whose made those statements.
You can keep showing clip after clip of dems saying stuff, doesn't change the fact it was a bad decision and Iraq was never a real threat to the USA. Only a threat to idiots that can be manipulated by other idiots.
-
That's all good Eldon.
However, BUSH is the one who pulled the trigger and actually went to war committing the worse US foreign policy decision in the history of the USA when evidence is coming forth that he knew there was other intel that contradicted the intel everyone else whose made those statements.
You can keep showing clip after clip of dems saying stuff, doesn't change the fact it was a bad decision and Iraq was never a real threat to the USA. Only a threat to idiots that can be manipulated by other idiots.
Ozmo,
Look, I supported Ron Paul, He and Pay Buchanan are the ones I agree with the most.
I was never for sending troops into Iraq, I don't think it would be worth the risk.I I was for bombing the shit out Afghanistan.
But come on Ozmo, for Decker to come on here saying Bush should be tried for Murder, when all the democrats had access to the intelligence, and the CIA director is on record saying he never got one phone call from any senator or congressman, and yet 99 out of 100 Democrats voted for the war as well.
That is what is wrong with Washington,
-
Ozmo,
Look, I supported Ron Paul, He and Pay Buchanan are the ones I agree with the most.
I was never for sending troops into Iraq, I don't think it would be worth the risk.I I was for bombing the shit out Afghanistan.
But come on Ozmo, for Decker to come on here saying Bush should be tried for Murder, when all the democrats had access to the intelligence, and the CIA director is on record saying he never got one phone call from any senator or congressman, and yet 99 out of 100 Democrats voted for the war as well.
That is what is wrong with Washington,
There's lots wrong with Washington isn't there?
I don't think they had the same access. Do they get daily security briefings? do they see all the intel? Where being briefed about this stuff as often as the President was? Every member of congress?
they might have access to it, but that doesn't mean they were given the amount and frequency of reports
I appreciate the audacity this accusation must carry in your eyes.
But Decker isn't the one who researched and wrote a book on it.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=218188.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=218188.0)
the question is, did BUSH knowingly send us to war based on faulty intel.
And the follow up question is, does that make him guilty of murder to some degree?
-
the question is, did BUSH knowingly send us to war based on faulty intel.
And the follow up question is, does that make him guilty of murder to some degree?
Yes and yes. :)
-
Ozmo,
Look, I supported Ron Paul, He and Pay Buchanan are the ones I agree with the most.
I was never for sending troops into Iraq, I don't think it would be worth the risk.I I was for bombing the shit out Afghanistan.
But come on Ozmo, for Decker to come on here saying Bush should be tried for Murder, when all the democrats had access to the intelligence, and the CIA director is on record saying he never got one phone call from any senator or congressman, and yet 99 out of 100 Democrats voted for the war as well.
That is what is wrong with Washington,
The Democrats didn't have the same intelligence Bush had. Bush's team cherry picked the intelligence reports they got, and created new ones that they disseminated in order to sell the war to Congress and the American public.
-
The Democrats didn't have the same intelligence Bush had. Bush's team cherry picked the intelligence reports they got, and created new ones that they disseminated in order to sell the war to Congress and the American public.
correct - butttttttttttttt -
a lot of the dems voted for the war because public opinion was behind it, and they didn't want to look unpatriotic or sot on terror. Obama's position at the time was an unpopular one.
-
correct - butttttttttttttt -
a lot of the dems voted for the war because public opinion was behind it, and they didn't want to look unpatriotic or sot on terror. Obama's position at the time was an unpopular one.
The whole thing is getting pretty lame as the NIPPLE WHORES best retort seems to be citing statements by democrats.
Talk about desperate, idiotic and in denial.
-
correct. much of what they cite is BEFORE the nov 2002 report from UN that there were NO WMD.
Very hard for them to find good dem quotes about WMD after that.
of course, they'll rehash 1998 quotes where the dems want un inspections.
-
You should pick it up and read it. I'd like to hear your actual serious take on the points he makes.
Ozmo you might as well ask me to pick up a book on the impeachment of Clinton, which argues why he should have been removed from office. Or a book talking about why O.J. is innocent or Patsy Ramsey wasn't involved in JonBenet's death (okay I've read those).
I have no plan to buy and read that work of fiction. The entire proposition is just absurd. I almost rank up there with those nutty conspiracy theories.
-
Ozmo you might as well ask me to pick up a book on the impeachment of Clinton, which argues why he should have been removed from office. Or a book talking about why O.J. is innocent or Patsy Ramsey wasn't involved in JonBenet's death (okay I've read those).
I have no plan to buy and read that work of fiction. The entire proposition is just absurd. I almost rank up there with those nutty conspiracy theories.
Do you se their conclusions as absurd or the facts they present?
Are the facts fictional?
We are not talking about presidential infidelity. We are talking about a successful deliberate effort to lead the country to war on incomplete or false intel.
Look at the statements made by these guys leading up to the war. The WMD's was the main selling point. And we went in there and we couldn't find jack crap. Nothing. And that doesn't warrant an in depth look as to how we could have virtually hinged the decison to go to invade a country unprovoked on intel that proved to be that faulty? Faulty to near 100% degree. You mean we had pictures of WMD facilities, storage or manufacturing and there was no way to verify them? And they ALL turned out to be false?
Is our intelligence capabilities that poor? Especially in a country we have been at odds with for a period of years? Countless fly overs and surveillance, The Iraqi infrastructure filled with viable potentially won over informants? And we got it that wrong? We are that inept?
It's not like we have some nut job who lives in his moms basement saying he filmed an alien Peeping tom. It's not like we have prison planet leading the charge here.
You have Scott McClellan Speaking out, former press secretary, committing his entire life and reputation on it.
You have this Vincent Beligosi speaking out. A person who wrote a 1500 page book debunking the entire JFK conspiracy theory and a respected and credible prosecuting attorney.
You have articles written by credible journalists pointing out why it looked suspicious.
And you dismiss it? I'm not saying you should agree or believe it.
Suite yourself. I'm saying it warrants investigation.
Because until you know the facts and the arguments, you are just mostly debating with your bias and not the facts save those that get posted here.
-
Do you se their conclusions as absurd or the facts they present?
Are the facts fictional?
We are not talking about presidential infidelity. We are talking about a successful deliberate effort to lead the country to war on incomplete or false intel.
Look at the statements made by these guys leading up to the war. The WMD's was the main selling point. And we went in there and we couldn't find jack crap. Nothing. And that doesn't warrant an in depth look as to how we could have virtually hinged the decison to go to invade a country unprovoked on intel that proved to be that faulty? Faulty to near 100% degree. You mean we had pictures of WMD facilities, storage or manufacturing and there was no way to verify them? And they ALL turned out to be false?
Is our intelligence capabilities that poor? Especially in a country we have been at odds with for a period of years? Countless fly overs and surveillance, The Iraqi infrastructure filled with viable potentially won over informants? And we got it that wrong? We are that inept?
It's not like we have some nut job who lives in his moms basement saying he filmed an alien Peeping tom. It's not like we have prison planet leading the charge here.
You have Scott McClellan Speaking out, former press secretary, committing his entire life and reputation on it.
You have this Vincent Beligosi speaking out. A person who wrote a 1500 page book debunking the entire JFK conspiracy theory and a respected and credible prosecuting attorney.
You have articles written by credible journalists pointing out why it looked suspicious.
And you dismiss it? I'm not saying you should agree or believe it.
Suite yourself. I'm saying it warrants investigation.
Because until you know the facts and the arguments, you are just mostly debating with your bias and not the facts save those that get posted here.
My view isn't about bias at all. It's not about defending Bush. I'm using my own common sense. And my common sense tells me this is as ridiculous as trying to impeach and remove Clinton from office.
For the most part, we were on the outside looking in. There were UN inspectors on the ground, periodically, but they did not have unfettered access to the entire country for years. We didn’t know what they had. But we did have people around the world, including most of Congress, believing the guy was a threat and needed to be removed.
The whole thing is absurd. Most of Congress, the UN, and more than 20 countries believed Saddam was a threat. To say that Bush manipulated intelligence that was consistent before and after he took office and then tricked all of those members of Congress, the UN, and the nearly 30 countries who participated in the war is beyond absurd.
What I've heard is McClellan make a broad brush allegation. Nothing specific. Ari said the guy wasn't even involved in meetings leading up to the war.
And Bugliosi wrote a fictional account of a mock trial. Big deal. I will not waste my time.
But I will discuss it on this message board. :)
-
My view isn't about bias at all. It's not about defending Bush. I'm using my own common sense. And my common sense tells me this is as ridiculous as trying to impeach and remove Clinton from office.
Ridiculous that it will never happen or ridiculous that it's not even close to true?
For the most part, we were on the outside looking in. There were UN inspectors on the ground, periodically, but they did not have unfettered access to the entire country for years. We didn’t know what they had. But we did have people around the world, including most of Congress, believing the guy was a threat and needed to be removed.
You point seems to be that a congressmen's intelligence assessment is on the same level as the intelligence agency.
That could be why the WMD wrongful accusation was one of the biggest mistakes in intelligence history.
And you are OK with this, as it doesn't warrant further investigation?
The whole thing is absurd. Most of Congress, the UN, and more than 20 countries believed Saddam was a threat. To say that Bush manipulated intelligence that was consistent before and after he took office and then tricked all of those members of Congress, the UN, and the nearly 30 countries who participated in the war is beyond absurd.
Not if there is evidence to the contrary. And again, what everyone else believed, based on political statements mean little. It's we did know, and did we make that much of monumental blunder? Again, are we that inept? Is intelligence THAT faulty? So faulty that it would lead to the loss of so many lives and money?
If that's the case, we have the worse intelligence in the history of mankind.
And further more, we if we didn't have the capability to know the truth about their WMD's as you suggest, What did we then base this all on......suspicion? that's what's absurd here. not the idea that BUSH or someone, knew there was contradicting intel and chose not to reveal, or use it.
What I've heard is McClellan make a broad brush allegation. Nothing specific. Ari said the guy wasn't even involved in meetings leading up to the war.
If Ari says he was involved, then Ari is accountable to Scott conclusions also.
On the fact that wasn't WMD alone, negates the need for Vincent or Scott's books to warrant a closer look and ask serious questions as to why BUSH sold the idea to the American public based on faulty intel that we needed to start a war.
-
Ridiculous that it will never happen or ridiculous that it's not even close to true?
You point seems to be that a congressmen's intelligence assessment is on the same level as the intelligence agency.
That could be why the WMD wrongful accusation was one of the biggest mistakes in intelligence history.
And you are OK with this, as it doesn't warrant further investigation?
Not if there is evidence to the contrary. And again, what everyone else believed, based on political statements mean little. It's we did know, and did we make that much of monumental blunder? Again, are we that inept? Is intelligence THAT faulty? So faulty that it would lead to the loss of so many lives and money?
If that's the case, we have the worse intelligence in the history of mankind.
And further more, we if we didn't have the capability to know the truth about their WMD's as you suggest, What did we then base this all on......suspicion? that's what's absurd here. not the idea that BUSH or someone, knew there was contradicting intel and chose not to reveal, or use it.
If Ari says he was involved, then Ari is accountable to Scott conclusions also.
On the fact that wasn't WMD alone, negates the need for Vincent or Scott's books to warrant a closer look and ask serious questions as to why BUSH sold the idea to the American public based on faulty intel that we needed to start a war.
But we're not talking about a closer investigation. We're talking about prosecuting the president of the United States for first degree murder based on his decision to order the invasion of Iraq, with Congressional approval, before and after the invasion, with the assistance of countries all around the world.
I don't have a problem with determining where we made mistakes; we should always do this.
-
But we're not talking about a closer investigation. We're talking about prosecuting the president of the United States for first degree murder based on his decision to order the invasion of Iraq, with Congressional approval, before and after the invasion, with the assistance of countries all around the world.
I don't have a problem with determining where we made mistakes; we should always do this.
Do you really think that the possibility even exists that the BUSH would stand trail? Of course not.
That's not the point of the book.....and i should hope that is more than obvious to you.
What we did was not just an ordinary mistake. It was a blunder of gargantuan proportions that smells of deliberate foul play and the crap so to speak is just floating to the top for everyone's view.
-
Do you really think that the possibility even exists that the BUSH would stand trail? Of course not.
That's not the point of the book.....and i should hope that is more than obvious to you.
What we did was not just an ordinary mistake. It was a blunder of gargantuan proportions that smells of deliberate foul play and the crap so to speak is just floating to the top for everyone's view.
Oh please. The obvious purpose of the book is to make money, not start some thoughtful dialog, etc.
It was only a mistake if you believe the invasion wasn't justified. I do (and no I will not mention the many reasons why I do . . . again). I think the primary mistake was in how the war has been managed, not the decision to invade.
But if you think Bugliosi's purpose wasn't to try and make money then you are dreaming.
As I said, I have no trouble with taking a look at where we made mistakes, so those are not repeated, but the murder talk ranks up there with the CT garbage.
-
Oh please. The obvious purpose of the book is to make money, not start some thoughtful dialog, etc.
It was only a mistake if you believe the invasion wasn't justified. I do (and no I will not mention the many reasons why I do . . . again). I think the primary mistake was in how the war has been managed, not the decision to invade.
But if you think Bugliosi's purpose wasn't to try and make money then you are dreaming.
As I said, I have no trouble with taking a look at where we made mistakes, so those are not repeated, but the murder talk ranks up there with the CT garbage.
So because he wrote a book about it that is sold in stores and he makes money on it negates the facts contained with in the book?
Everything Book in Borders must be a lie then.
-
So because he wrote a book about it that is sold in stores and he makes money on it negates the facts contained with in the book?
Everything Book in Borders must be a lie then.
No. The entire premise (the president should be prosecuted for first degree murder) is ridiculous. I could care less if he has some "facts" in his book. The foundation of the book is absurd. Haven’t people written books accusing the Clintons of murder? I’m sure there some “facts” in those books too.
I buy most of my books from a used bookstore, but there is a lot of fact and a lot of fiction in every bookstore. This particular book contains a great deal of fiction, complete with the mock question and answer. I know this guy is a famous prosecutor and all, but coming up with a mock Q and A when a defendant doesn't even have to testify, sounds a little dumb. Heck, R. Kelly just got off without taking the stand.
-
No. The entire premise (the president should be prosecuted for first degree murder) is ridiculous.
I agree, if that was the real premise of the book. But again, it's more than obvious to me and should be to you that's it's not.
I buy most of my books from a used bookstore, but there is a lot of fact and a lot of fiction in every bookstore. This particular book contains a great deal of fiction, complete with the mock question and answer. I know this guy is a famous prosecutor and all, but coming up with a mock Q and A when a defendant doesn't even have to testify, sounds a little dumb. Heck, R. Kelly just got off without taking the stand.
Bold statements from someone who hasn't read the book save for a few quips.
-
I agree, if that was the real premise of the book. But again, it's more than obvious to me and should be to you that's it's not.
Bold statements from someone who hasn't read the book save for a few quips.
Here is another bold statement: the books accusing the Clintons of murder are absurd and I haven't read those either.
-
Here is another bold statement: the books accusing the Clintons of murder are absurd and I haven't read those either.
Really? Is this thread about Clinton?
I must have misread the title. sorry.
-
Really? Is this thread about Clinton?
I must have misread the title. sorry.
This thread is about a book that advocates an absurd proposition. You criticized me for condemning a book I haven't read. I just pointed out there are lots of books I haven't read that I'll jump all over. If someone publishes a book tomorrow claiming O.J. didn't do it I wouldn't read that piece of crap either (though I did several years ago).
I agree you generally need to read something to have an informed opinion. I often read both sides of a particular issue. For example, I read several books about JonBenet Ramsey advocating both the intruder and family member theories, even though I have always believed Patsy Ramsey (or someone inside the house) was involved.
On the other hand, there are many other instances where something is so silly it can be rejected out of hand. Like this book. I put this book in the same category as "The Clinton Chronicles" (which I never watched).
-
This thread is about a book that advocates an absurd proposition.
Nope that's not what this thread is about. there is a difference between what a person says and what a person is saying between the lines. but I'd just be repeating myself to explain that further.
You criticized me for condemning a book I haven't read.
Nope, i pointed out that your basis for debating this book is based on your bias not the facts in the book. So maybe i did, critisize you. But not in a bad way. Just making a point. :)
I just pointed out there are lots of books I haven't read that I'll jump all over. If someone publishes a book tomorrow claiming O.J. didn't do it I wouldn't read that piece of crap either (though I did several years ago).
Sorry to hear that.
I agree you generally need to read something to have an informed opinion. I often read both sides of a particular issue. For example, I read several books about JonBenet Ramsey advocating both the intruder and family member theories, even though I have always believed Patsy Ramsey (or someone inside the house) was involved.
Yes, i was interested in your informed opinion not your debate bias. :)
On the other hand, there are many other instances where something is so silly it can be rejected out of hand. Like this book.
Well as the old saying goes.......you can't judge a book by it's cover. ;D
-
Nope that's not what this thread is about. there is a difference between what a person says and what a person is saying between the lines. but I'd just be repeating myself to explain that further.
Nope, i pointed out that your basis for debating this book is based on your bias not the facts in the book. So maybe i did, critisize you. But not in a bad way. Just making a point. :)
Sorry to hear that.
Yes, i was interested in your informed opinion not your debate bias. :)
Well as the old saying goes.......you can't judge a book by it's cover. ;D
I'm not biased at all. My criticism of this book is based on my own common sense and a review of what we all know about the war.
I understand your point. You believe Bugliosi wrote this book to start some dialog and/or investigation into the events leading up to the war. I simply disagree. I think he wrote a book to make some money. Maybe his royalties have dried up. :)
Now, I should clarify that if his book turns up in my bookstore on the "expensive" shelf (where books are sold for $1 as opposed to 25 to 50 cents), then I might buy it and read it at some point. But at this point I have no plan to put money in that man's pocket.
-
I'm not biased at all. My criticism of this book is based on my own common sense and a review of what we all know about the war.
I understand your point. You believe Bugliosi wrote this book to start some dialog and/or investigation into the events leading up to the war. I simply disagree. I think he wrote a book to make some money. Maybe his royalties have dried up. :)
Now, I should clarify that if his book turns up in my bookstore on the "expensive" shelf (where books are sold for $1 as opposed to 25 to 50 cents), then I might buy it and read it at some point. But at this point I have no plan to put money in that man's pocket.
Sure you are, you are singling out that book, when virtually ALL books also make money. and you are assuming that the title is solely for that purpose, when all books in some way or another attempt to induce the prospective customer to purchase it by inducing interest somehow.
-
Sure you are, you are singling out that book, when virtually ALL books also make money. and you are assuming that the title is solely for that purpose, when all books in some way or another attempt to induce the prospective customer to purchase it by inducing interest somehow.
I'm not singling out that book. I would have never mentioned the book at all if Decker hadn't mentioned it. When I mentioned other books you said I was changing the subject. Make up your mind dude. :)
-
I'm not singling out that book. I would have never mentioned the book at all if Decker hadn't mentioned it. When I mentioned other books you said I was changing the subject. Make up your mind dude. :)
heheheheheheheheeh.
No i didn't i simply said the issues of this topic weren't about Clinton.
You suggested that the book's conclusions or underlying premise is false because the title was intended to sell the books. Which makes nearly all books guilty and everything in them false.
It's a sad world we live in that everything is motivated by money and they can't be trusted. Vincent shouldn't get paid for his work. the publishers shouldn't make money, the paper-mill, editors etc. they should all work for free. Because if they did, what they wrote would be true.
;)
-
heheheheheheheheeh.
No i didn't i simply said the issues of this topic weren't about Clinton.
You suggested that the book's conclusions or underlying premise is false because the title was intended to sell the books. Which makes nearly all books guilty and everything in them false.
It's a sad world we live in that everything is motivated by money and they can't be trusted. Vincent shouldn't get paid for his work. the publishers shouldn't make money, the paper-mill, editors etc. they should all work for free. Because if they did, what they wrote would be true.
;)
Nah, I didn't say the title was designed to make money, I said the book itself was motivated by profit, not some desire to spur dialog.
I have no problem at all with anyone who wants to legally make a buck.
-
Nah, I didn't say the title was designed to make money, I said the book itself was motivated by profit, not some desire to spur dialog.
I have no problem at all with anyone who wants to legally make a buck.
You mean people write books and are not partially motivated by profit? wow! ;D
there should be quite a few free books out there then, or the non-profit ones are true then.
-
You mean people write books and not partially motivated by profit? wow! ;D
there should be quite a few free books out there then, or the non-profit ones are true then.
lol. No, they're not all motivated by profit. Didn't Hillary donate all of the profits from her It Takes a Village book to charity? Lots of people have done this.
If Bugliosi donated all of the profits from his book to pay for a Congressional investigation I might have a little more respect for him.
-
lol. No, they're not all motivated by profit. Didn't Hillary donate all of the profits from her It Takes a Village book to charity? Lots of people have done this.
If Bugliosi donated all of the profits from his book to pay for a Congressional investigation I might have a little more respect for him.
She gained something from it. Just because some one doesn't do something for money doesn't mean there isn't a some sort of pay off they are embellishing or sensationalizing something for. And in Hillary's case how could you doubt the poltical, I'm a great 'ole gal points, she scores with the overly and morally motivated left of center?
-
correct - butttttttttttttt -
a lot of the dems voted for the war because public opinion was behind it, and they didn't want to look unpatriotic or sot on terror. Obama's position at the time was an unpopular one.
While that may be true, it does not absolve Bush for his active lying to get a war started.
-
My view isn't about bias at all. It's not about defending Bush. I'm using my own common sense. And my common sense tells me this is as ridiculous as trying to impeach and remove Clinton from office.
This is not a topic for lazy reliance on 'common sense'. This subject deserves study and consideration of the facts and law involved.
For the most part, we were on the outside looking in. There were UN inspectors on the ground, periodically, but they did not have unfettered access to the entire country for years. We didn’t know what they had. But we did have people around the world, including most of Congress, believing the guy was a threat and needed to be removed.
Maybe this is why you hold the opinion that you do. The WMD inspectors did have unfettered access prior to the war. Does that change anything?
The whole thing is absurd. Most of Congress, the UN, and more than 20 countries believed Saddam was a threat. To say that Bush manipulated intelligence that was consistent before and after he took office and then tricked all of those members of Congress, the UN, and the nearly 30 countries who participated in the war is beyond absurd.
Here's another fact that may change your mind. No one is arguing that Iraq wasn't a threat. The dispute is that Bush manufactured Iraq as an IMMINENT threat to the US.
....
And Bugliosi wrote a fictional account of a mock trial. Big deal. I will not waste my time.
You will discuss the matter at hand but not waste your time with the matter at hand?
IF you reconsider two of the factual errors underpinning your mistaken belief that there's nothing to see here, you just might change your mind.
But I will discuss it on this message board. :)
Good man.
-
Here is another bold statement: the books accusing the Clintons of murder are absurd and I haven't read those either.
elitest relatavism...all books are not the same.
You might know that if you just read the excerpts I posted.
Steve Martin was funny...'Criticize things you don't know about...'
-
From Eldon/Ozark and whoever the hell else resides in that fevered brain of his:
Bill Clinton said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Hillary said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
John Kerry said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
John Edwards ( Deckers Man) said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Joe Bidon said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Al Gore said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Most of the libs said this prior to Bush even being elected.
France intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
England Intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Russia Intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Is everyone seeing this? Does everyone now know the burden of having to discuss the illegality of the Bush Administration to people, like Eldon/Ozark, that have no idea what they are talking about?
How does any of this crap you posted concern itself with Bush's lies about the imminency of Iraq'a threat to the US and his lies about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection?
The truth is Innocent people died because Bill Clinton bombed an Aspirin factory, plain and simple.
So In your weak theory of Bush Being guilty of murder, then so is Clinton.
Decker, you are the one being embarrassed here. :o so please continue :)
It's Bugliosi's theory of murder and thank you for showing the GetBig community that you have no idea what you are talking about.
If you're the best Bush's side has to make his defense, then the president has a lot to worry about.
-
This is not a topic for lazy reliance on 'common sense'. This subject deserves study and consideration of the facts and law involved.
Maybe this is why you hold the opinion that you do. The WMD inspectors did have unfettered access prior to the war. Does that change anything?
Here's another fact that may change your mind. No one is arguing that Iraq wasn't a threat. The dispute is that Bush manufactured Iraq as an IMMINENT threat to the US.
....
You will discuss the matter at hand but not waste your time with the matter at hand?
IF you reconsider two of the factual errors underpinning your mistaken belief that there's nothing to see here, you just might change your mind.
Good man.
Lazy reliance on common sense. Now that's a new one.
There are no factual errors underpinning my opinion. These are facts:
- The Clinton Admin considered Saddam a threat.
- Most of Congress considered Saddam a threat, both before and after Bush took office.
- Congress authorized the use of force.
- Congress continues to fund the war.
- More than 20 countries participated in the war.
- Saddam stonewalled inspectors for years and had years to move whatever he had out of the country.
The "unfettered access," when considered in conjunction with the preceding facts and Saddam suspicious behavior, isn't so "unfettered" at all.
-
Lazy reliance on common sense. Now that's a new one.
Common sense presumes common experience. Are you a lawyer? Buglisoi is. Why would you presume to think that you, with your common sense, know the law better than a seasoned attorney?
There are no factual errors underpinning my opinion. These are facts:
- The Clinton Admin considered Saddam a threat.
- Most of Congress considered Saddam a threat, both before and after Bush took office.
- Congress authorized the use of force.
- Congress continues to fund the war.
- More than 20 countries participated in the war.
- Saddam stonewalled inspectors for years and had years to move whatever he had out of the country.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You're posting irrelevant statements. What do any of those things have to do with Bush's lies re the IMMINENCY of Iraq's threat and the Iraq/Al Qaeda ties?
I'll save you time. Your facts are irrelevant to the charges.
The "unfettered access," when considered in conjunction with the preceding facts and Saddam suspicious behavior, isn't so "unfettered" at all.
Even if I accepted your facts as relevant, this statement makes no sense at all.
In other words, what are you talking about?
-
Common sense presumes common experience. Are you a lawyer? Buglisoi is. Why would you presume to think that you, with your common sense, know the law better than a seasoned attorney?
See, this is what I'm talking about. You're posting irrelevant statements. What do any of those things have to do with Bush's lies re the IMMINENCY of Iraq's threat and the Iraq/Al Qaeda ties?
I'll save you time. Your facts are irrelevant to the charges.
Even if I accepted your facts as relevant, this statement makes no sense at all.
In other words, what are you talking about?
So if a lawyer writes a book for everyone to read, only lawyers can criticize the man's book? Geeze. Decker that attitude is what we call "high maka maka."
Regarding the "unfettered access," I'm saying whatever they were finding on the ground has to be considered in connection everything that had happened up to that point. For example, if the man kept us from looking at certain parts of the country for months or years and then allows access in certain parts and we find nothing, that could mean he either never had it, disposed of, or hid it. The assumption we then make is based on history (all of the things I mentioned and more).
-
So if a lawyer writes a book for everyone to read, only lawyers can criticize the man's book? Geeze. Decker that attitude is what we call "high maka maka."
That's not what I'm saying. This murder charge requires thought and analysis and contemplation. Usually when I hear someone rely on the magic of 'common sense', I find analysis and conclusions rife with errors.
Education and professionalism do not diminish one's ability to use common sense, i.e., the ability to point out the patently obvious.
Regarding the "unfettered access," I'm saying whatever they were finding on the ground has to be considered in connection everything that had happened up to that point. For example, if the man kept us from looking at certain parts of the country for months or years and then allows access in certain parts and we find nothing, that could mean he either never had it, disposed of, or hid it. The assumption we then make is based on history (all of the things I mentioned and more).
Why? What's the relevance? While that is an interesting topic, how does that strike at the heart of Bush's lies about the imminency of Iraq's threat to the US or Iraq's relationship with Al Qaeda?
-
You will discuss the matter at hand but not waste your time with the matter at hand?
hehehe
-
That's not what I'm saying. This murder charge requires thought and analysis and contemplation. Usually when I hear someone rely on the magic of 'common sense', I find analysis and conclusions rife with errors.
Education and professionalism do not diminish one's ability to use common sense, i.e., the ability to point out the patently obvious.
Why? What's the relevance? While that is an interesting topic, how does that strike at the heart of Bush's lies about the imminency of Iraq's threat to the US or Iraq's relationship with Al Qaeda?
Often when I hear people talking about conspiracy theories and things as crazy as prosecuting the president of the United States for first degree murder, there is a lack of common sense involved.
You pretty much have to put your common sense on the shelf to ignore some of the things Eldon mentioned, like
France intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
England Intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
Russia Intelligence said Saddam had weapons of mas destruction
The entire proposition makes no sense.
-
Often when I hear people talking about conspiracy theories and things as crazy as prosecuting the president of the United States for first degree murder, there is a lack of common sense involved.
You pretty much have to put your common sense on the shelf to ignore some of the things Eldon mentioned, like
The entire proposition makes no sense.
With that post, Eldon/Ozark made a fool of him/her/itself. Can you tell me why that post is so convincing to you yet irrelevant to me?
Do you understand the difference between 'a threat' and 'an imminent threat' in a theory of self-defense?
This is important. There is tremendous legal significance to the distinction.
Oh, and you can't have it both ways Beach Bum. You dismiss the case outright based on your common sensical approach yet you offer up the tour de force of irrelevant evidence that 'everybody believed that Iraq was threat' to prove your point that the case is plain crazy.
-
With that post, Eldon/Ozark made a fool of him/her/itself. Can you tell me why that post is so convincing to you yet irrelevant to me?
Do you understand the difference between 'a threat' and 'an imminent threat' in a theory of self-defense?
This is important. There is tremendous legal significance to the distinction.
Oh, and you can't have it both ways Beach Bum. You dismiss the case outright based on your common sensical approach yet you offer up the tour de force of irrelevant evidence that 'everybody believed that Iraq was threat' to prove your point that the case is plain crazy.
I can't speak for you, so I can't explain why you consider "relevant" evidence "irrelevant."
Eldon didn't make a fool of himself. He is right. You cannot dismiss all of the various people, agencies, entities, etc. who believed Saddam was a threat . . . unless you have a certain conclusion in mind and are unwilling to let any fact stand in the way of that conclusion.
Numerous members of Congress believed Saddam needed to be immediately disarmed. They believed he was an imminent threat. That's a non-issue. But you just plug your ears when all of those comments by members of Congress are trotted out, because they conflict with your conclusion.
I didn't really dismiss that absurd first degree murder proposition outright. I actually had a number of exchanges with you about the mechanics of prosecuting the president for first degree murder. It didn't make any sense before our discussions and it doesn't make any sense now.
-
I can't speak for you, so I can't explain why you consider "relevant" evidence "irrelevant."
Eldon didn't make a fool of himself. He is right. You cannot dismiss all of the various people, agencies, entities, etc. who believed Saddam was a threat . . . unless you have a certain conclusion in mind and are unwilling to let any fact stand in the way of that conclusion.
Numerous members of Congress believed Saddam needed to be immediately disarmed. They believed he was an imminent threat. That's a non-issue. But you just plug your ears when all of those comments by members of Congress are trotted out, because they conflict with your conclusion.
I didn't really dismiss that absurd first degree murder proposition outright. I actually had a number of exchanges with you about the mechanics of prosecuting the president for first degree murder. It didn't make any sense before our discussions and it doesn't make any sense now.
We have jurisdiction, venue, a suspect, dead bodies, wrongful act, wrongful mind....am I missing something to this recipe for Bush's murder charges?
As for your incessant clinging to the notion that everybody thought that Iraq had WMDs, please stop it.
I think you are a smart enough man to realize that you are just repeating irrelevant assertions.
But I'll file a directed verdict for you right now: Even accepting that your assertions that everyone in the universe knew for a fact that Iraq had WMDs, how does that affect the contention that President Bush lied about The Imminency of an Iraqi Attack On The USA?
I've asked you this 3 times or so and 3 times you have not responded to that particular point.
-
We have jurisdiction, venue, a suspect, dead bodies, wrongful act, wrongful mind....am I missing something to this recipe for Bush's murder charges?
As for your incessant clinging to the notion that everybody thought that Iraq had WMDs, please stop it.
I think you are a smart enough man to realize that you are just repeating irrelevant assertions.
But I'll file a directed verdict for you right now: Even accepting that your assertions that everyone in the universe knew for a fact that Iraq had WMDs, how does that affect the contention that President Bush lied about The Imminency of an Iraqi Attack On The USA?
I've asked you this 3 times or so and 3 times you have not responded to that particular point.
Yeah, you're missing pretty much everything you mentioned. lol. But go back and read our exchanges regarding what needs to be proved for first degree murder (based on your own posts). That horse is dead.
Sounds like we have different definitions of relevancy.
What's a "directed verdict"? I would put this in different colored font, but I don't know how. :-[ Whatever Bush said was consistent with what the world believed about Saddam and, importantly, what Congress believed when it authorized the president to start the war in his discretion.
What specific "lie" are you talking about?
-
Yeah, you're missing pretty much everything you mentioned. lol. But go back and read our exchanges regarding what needs to be proved for first degree murder (based on your own posts). That horse is dead.
No I'm not. And no it isn't. I pointed out that you were misreading the statute and you never responded. Here's a refresher for your memory:
Quote from: Beach Bum on June 10, 2008, 03:38:16 PM
We just have to agree to disagree. The way I read this and the way it is worded, "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought" is murder. "Murder" is then divided into first degree and second degree in the same passage based on the conduct listed in the passage.
There's nothing to agree to disagree about.
First degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
That's it for the Bush case. End of discussion.
All those other instantiations of criminal killing that follow the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER are NOT first degree murder. There is some element of malice aforethought missing.
The murder statute attributes that intent to the criminal to make the laundry list of killings murder in the first degree for policy reasons.
It [the statute] wouldn't list the various forms of conduct that amount to first degree murder and then say "[a]ny other murder is murder in the second degree."
The 'various forms of conduct' to which you refer are additions to the first degree murder definition. Those types of killings are included, for policy reasons, with first degree murder. Without inclusion in the statute, those 'various forms of conduct' would not be first degree murder b/c malice aforethought is not present in some manner.
Look up the Felony Murder rule and then look at "or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children;"....
The policy decision is that b/c the felonies are inherently dangerous, any killing done in the perpetration of those felonies automatically imputes malice aforethought/first degree murder to the killer. Same with 'black heart' definition where unintended people are killed by the killer.
Can we proceed on to the evidence now?
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ____________
See?
I wrote the Bush responses in this thread based on how you would have answered. Keep in mind that a judge would have directed you to answer the question posed instead parroting "everybody thought Iraq had WMDs" time and again.
Sounds like we have different definitions of relevancy.
I doubt it: Relevancy is the tendency of any fact offered as evidence in a lawsuit to prove or disprove the truth of a point in issue. How does the assertion that 'everybody believed Iraq had WMDs' prove or disprove whether Iraq was about to attack the US or not (imminency)?
What's a "directed verdict"? I would put this in different colored font, but I don't know how. :-[ Whatever Bush said was consistent with what the world believed about Saddam and, importantly, what Congress believed when it authorized the president to start the war in his discretion.
In a criminal case, a directed verdict is a judgment of acquittal for the defendant. It means Bugliosi loses b/c he failed to offer the minimum evidence sufficient to support the charge.
What specific "lie" are you talking about?
LIE #1. Was Hussein an imminent threat to the USA? No. Bush lied to Congress and the American people when he made that claim so that he could get their support for the invasion of Iraq.
Evidence:
1. Iraq was wasted by the Desert Storm, US sanctions, & Weapons Inspections. 10-15-2001 Colin Powell said, “Iraq is Iraq, a wasted society for 10 years. They’re sad. They’re contained…” Proof of Iraq’s decrepit state was shown in the fact that Iraq fell to Coalition Forces in three weeks.
2. It was Bush that first posited the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat: Iraq could “act on any given day”; that “before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger must be removed”; “Some ask how urgent this danger is to America. The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time.”; Iraq constituted “a threat of unique urgency”; “Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as forty-five minutes.” Bush said no less than six times at a press conference on March 6, 2003 that “Saddam is a threat to our Nation” and “Saddam and his weapons are a direct threat to this country.”; “The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.”
Talk about hyperbole.
3. Bush stopped pursuing Osama Bin Laden to concentrate on Hussein. The president abandoned the pursuit of OBL—the one man most responsible for the 3000 deaths on 9/11, the one he promised to bring back “dead or alive”. That is circumstantial evidence that his passion for invading Iraq was so strong that he would be much more likely to lie to the American people about Hussein being an imminent threat to the US.
4. October 7, 2002 Bush addressed the nation and said that Hussein was “a great danger to our nation”, either by using “unmanned aerial vehicles” with “chemical or biological” payloads “for missions targeting the US” or by providing these weapons to a “terrorist groups or individual terrorists to attack us.”
The day after the speech, George Tenet declassified a letter, signed by John McLaughlin, (deputy director of the CIA) which stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the security of the country and would not be unless the US attacked Iraq. That letter predated Bush’s speech by a matter of hours. Since the CIA is an agency of the Executive Branch and the director reports only to the president, it is unthinkable that Bush did not know the contents of the letter stating Iraq was no imminent threat to the US.
Also, the letter simply corroborated the same finding in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate issued by the CIA to Bush on 10-1-2002. The CIA did not consider Hussein an imminent threat.
Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”
When Bush told the nation on 10-7 that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the country, he was telling millions of Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. Bush had his minions repeat lies like these in Congressional Briefings.
On 10-4-2002, Bush issued a White Paper RESTATING the information in the 10-01-2002 NIE changing the language to make mere opinions into rock solid facts and to add words showing the US homeland was a target. That’s big-time deception.
-
....
Numerous members of Congress believed Saddam needed to be immediately disarmed. They believed he was an imminent threat. That's a non-issue. But you just plug your ears when all of those comments by members of Congress are trotted out, because they conflict with your conclusion.
Numerous members of Congress parroted the president's numerous statements about the imminency of Iraq's threat to the US. None of which was supported by evidence from any US intelligence agency.
I mean who would think that the President of the United States would create such a "fact" (i.e., lie) about another country's intent to attack us?
It is almost unthinkable. Almost. Until GW Bush became president.