Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: MB_722 on July 30, 2008, 12:58:20 AM
-
why hasn't this been mentioned anywhere?
-
Because it isn't newsworthy. I made it through about 2 minutes. That old man needs to hang it up already. He must need the money. ::)
-
so fucking an intern is newsworthy?
-
If you're talking about Clinton being impeached for lying under oath, yes, that is newsworthy. But that has nothing to do with Bugliosi's absurd argument.
When we have more than a dufus who claims to have seen an alien spaceship calling for impeachment and a washed up former prosecutor accusing the president of murder, then it might be newsworthy. But for now, this is as newsworthy as the Clinton Chronicles.
-
i got this guys book, he hates Oj simpson and claims he would have outsmarted johnnie cochran if was on the prosecutions team
-
He is right about Simpson. Wrong about Bush.
-
Because it isn't newsworthy. I made it through about 2 minutes. That old man needs to hang it up already. He must need the money. ::)
"Old man"? For a moment, I thought you were confusing Bugliosi with McCain.
This "old man" makes an extremely credible argument for holding Bush et al. accountable for murder.
This is expected. I have yet to see any credible rebuttal of Bugliosi's charges against Bush.
So the next best thing for his opponents, is to dismiss him outright with acid barbs.
Bugliosi is not washed up. He's retired.
Read his book and tell me how absurd and washed up this man is.
In one respect it is easy you know. Bush lied repeatedly about Iraq's WMDs, Al Qaeda ties, and imminency of threat to the US.
Those lies were used to push this country to war (false pretenses). He lied to Congress and the American People.
He sent soldiers to their deaths b/c of his lies.
I can show you a long list of the lies if you like.
Did you ever wonder, Beach Bum, why Bush's lies about Iraq's threat to the US ALWAYS increased the perception of that alleged threat?
If Bush was relying just on the intel, why was it always one-sided in favor of war?
Never, not once, did the Bush administration ever make statements contrary to "Iraq is a grave, unique, immediate threat."
Do you see that?
-
When we have more than a dufus who claims to have seen an alien spaceship
You're just making up facts now. He saw something he couldn't identify. Could easily have been something manmade. You say "alien spaceship" and people here wonder why you have to make up stuff to discredit Kucinich. Do you have any facts about why his actions are wrong? Or are you gonna stick with the "alien spaceship" thing you made up?
-
You're just making up facts now. He saw something he couldn't identify. Could easily have been something manmade. You say "alien spaceship" and people here wonder why you have to make up stuff to discredit Kucinich. Do you have any facts about why his actions are wrong? Or are you gonna stick with the "alien spaceship" thing you made up?
That's a standard diversion.
Do not address the point at hand. Insult the speaker, dismiss the work/argument outright and move on.
I particularly like the "he needs the money" fantasy. The book is the best way to disseminate information on a large scale. God forbid the man gets paid for his work. He should've used a bullhorn instead.
-
Waste of more time & money. Congress needs to deal with the painful issues that plague the country. Get a comprehensive energy package passed, lift the ban on oil drilling, increase auto fuel standards, agree to invest more in nuclear, incentives for alternative energy. Compromise & move forward. Oh, and they never properly addressed boarder security yet either. Get something done already! These are issues they need to concentrate on right now. Bush made some major errors but won't be impeached. Stop wasting time and our tax $! There are so many issues that congress seems to drag its feet on, its pathetic at times.
-
Waste of more time & money. Congress needs to deal with the painful issues that plague the country. Get a comprehensive energy package passed, lift the ban on oil drilling, increase auto fuel standards, agree to invest more in nuclear, incentives for alternative energy. Compromise & move forward. Oh, and they never properly addressed boarder security yet either. Get something done already! These are issues they need to concentrate on right now. Bush made some major errors but won't be impeached. Stop wasting time and our tax $! There are so many issues that congress seems to drag its feet on, its pathetic at times.
Ours is a wasteful throwaway society.
I don't mind wasting a little time on justice.
-
I don't mind wasting a little time on justice.
You mean revenge, right?
-
You mean revenge, right?
Sometimes Justice may appear like revenge. I would think that holding Bush accountable for his willing causation of the deaths of 4,000+ US soldiers under false pretenses might just lend itself to justice.
-
If you're talking about Clinton being impeached for lying under oath, yes, that is newsworthy. But that has nothing to do with Bugliosi's absurd argument.
When we have more than a dufus who claims to have seen an alien spaceship calling for impeachment and a washed up former prosecutor accusing the president of murder, then it might be newsworthy. But for now, this is as newsworthy as the Clinton Chronicles.
well I guess you have that figured out nicely because you'll never get Bush and company to ever accept being placed under oath to answer for anything ::)
-
Because it is an utter waste of time. Liberals know Clinton was impeached, get over it!
-
Because it is an utter waste of time. Liberals know Clinton was impeached, get over it!
You know Clinton was impeached as well.
Clinton's lie did not reach the level of perjury. It was an inconsequential statement germane to a courtcase already dismissed.
Bush's lies and illegal attack of Iraq are misuses of presidential powers.
There's a big difference.
-
You know Clinton was impeached as well.
Clinton's lie did not reach the level of perjury. It was an inconsequential statement germane to a courtcase already dismissed.
Bush's lies and illegal attack of Iraq are misuses of presidential powers.
There's a big difference.
Why can't liberals impeach Bush then? The problem liberals have is facing facts and presenting them as needed for impeachement.
Clinton was impeached, get over it!
-
Why can't liberals impeach Bush then? The problem liberals have is facing facts and presenting them as needed for impeachement.
Clinton was impeached, get over it!
Yes, the republicans did the country a service and saved the constitutional integrity of our government with the impeachment of Clinton. How sad it is that people can believe that.
The votes aren't there to impeach Bush. Sycophants outnumber civilized senators enough to kill any vote on impeachment.
That's why Bugliosi recommends charging the president (and his accomplices) with murder after he leaves office.
The pseudo-judicial proceeding of impeachment won't work b/c of die-hard republicans that couldn't recognize the evil of the Bush administration if it bit them in the ass.
-
Yes, the republicans did the country a service and saved the constitutional integrity of our government with the impeachment of Clinton. How sad it is that people can believe that.
The votes aren't there to impeach Bush. Sycophants outnumber civilized senators enough to kill any vote on impeachment.
That's why Bugliosi recommends charging the president (and his accomplices) with murder after he leaves office.
The pseudo-judicial proceeding of impeachment won't work b/c of die-hard republicans that couldn't recognize the evil of the Bush administration if it bit them in the ass.
How many innocent people died when Clinton Bombed Kosovo and Belgrade and puposefully bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade?
Clinton bombed civilian targets in Belgrade and purposefully & bombed a passenger train in Serbia killing many innocent civilians.
Clinton killed how many innocent people in Sudan hitting an aspirin making plant? How about in Haiti? Somolia?
How guilty is Clinton for allowing terrorists to blow up 2 embassies in Africa, the World Trade Center, the Kobar Towers in Saudi? How many Americans and innocent lives is Bill CLinton responsible for killing?
Clinton's trial should be first according Left Wing Nuts jobs who share your opinion.
-
I'm no Bush fan and I did not vote for him, but wasn't it congress who approved the war? Isn't congress the only one that can declare war? Isn't it congress that funded and continues to fund the war? And now they are saying "Bush made me do it", "Bush lied to me", "I just took Bush's word for it."?
Americans don't elect the President, right? The Electoral College does. Americans elect members of congress, correct?
If these members of congress are serious and honest about charging Bush with murder, shouldn't all the members of congress who voted to approve the war, to declare war, to fund and to continue to fund the war also turn themselves in, or at least resign?
-
How many innocent people died when Clinton Bombed Kosovo and Belgrade and puposefully bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade?
Clinton bombed civilian targets in Belgrade and purposefully & bombed a passenger train in Serbia killing many innocent civilians.
Clinton killed how many innocent people in Sudan hitting an aspirin making plant? How about in Haiti? Somolia?
How guilty is Clinton for allowing terrorists to blow up 2 embassies in Africa, the World Trade Center, the Kobar Towers in Saudi? How many Americans and innocent lives is Bill CLinton responsible for killing?
Clinton's trial should be first according Left Wing Nuts jobs who share your opinion.
Even if half of your allegations re Clinton are true and not rightwing spin, those incidents pale in comparison to the death, suffering and destruction Bush wrought with the illegal Iraq invasion.
100,000- 650,000 dead. 3-5 million displaced. hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. Untold amounts of property damage...
All b/c Bush attacked a country that was no threat to the USA.
Numbers like that get you a niche in the war crime tribunal....crimes against humanity, against the peace...and murder in our federal jurisdiction.
-
I'm no Bush fan and I did not vote for him, but wasn't it congress who approved the war? Isn't congress the only one that can declare war? Isn't congress that funded and continues to fund the war? And now they are saying "Bush made me do it", "Bush lied to me", "I just took Bush's word for it."?
Americans don't elect the President, right? The Electoral College does. Americans elect members of congress, correct?
If these members of congress are serious and honest about charging Bush with murder, shouldn't all the members of congress who voted to approve the war, to declare war, to fund and to continue to fund the war also turn themselves in, or at least resign?
You are pretty much on the money.
But the facts differ.
Congress never declared war on Iraq.
Bush's false pretenses to Congress and the American people on something as grave as war is criminal. Should congress have done a better job of oversight? Yes. But that's entirely irrelevant to Bush's lying and ordering the illegal invasion of Iraq b/c it doesn't change the fact that Bush engaged in active fraud to get his war.
As for the Congress's continued funding of the war, that's a sad affair but it is irrelevant to Bush's active fraud to start the war in the first place.
Since Bush is the commander in chief of the military, only he could have ordered the invasion of Iraq.
He did so without reasonable cause or justification.
The Congress cannot authorize the president to break the law or to attack any country he wishes. Even if we look at the Congressional approval of use of force against Iraq as license to invade Iraq, Bush cannot and did not show justification in ordering the attack.
Was the US attacked by Iraq? No.
Was an Ally of the US attacked by Iraq? No.
Was Iraq about to attack an Ally or the US? No.
Was Iraq even preparing to attack the US or an Ally? No.
So why did Bush order the attack of Iraq?
-
Decker, thats BS.
The majority of congress agreed with the president to use force against Iraq at that time. You and I may disagree with them but based on the intelligence gathered, the president & the congress made a decision. I believe there was deception as well but that happens to some degree in any administration and in any war and crisis. At least part of the decision was made based on documented intelligence our gov gathered. So, then we should impeach the president, 2/3rds of congress, the CIA and intelligence committees (....may not be a bad idea actually)I stand strongly behind my assertion that this is a waste of time and waste of taxpayer $ which takes the emphasis off real issues they need to work on. Bullshit like this and the baseball scandal with congressional input shows how inefficient and off base our gov can get...both parties!
-
You are pretty much on the money.
But the facts differ.
Congress never declared war on Iraq.
Bush's false pretenses to Congress and the American people on something as grave as war is criminal. Should congress have done a better job of oversight? Yes. But that's entirely irrelevant to Bush's lying and ordering the illegal invasion of Iraq b/c it doesn't change the fact that Bush engaged in active fraud to get his war.
As for the Congress's continued funding of the war, that's a sad affair but it is irrelevant to Bush's active fraud to start the war in the first place.
Since Bush is the commander in chief of the military, only he could have ordered the invasion of Iraq.
He did so without reasonable cause or justification.
The Congress cannot authorize the president to break the law or to attack any country he wishes. Even if we look at the Congressional approval of use of force against Iraq as license to invade Iraq, Bush cannot and did not show justification in ordering the attack.
Was the US attacked by Iraq? No.
Was an Ally of the US attacked by Iraq? No.
Was Iraq about to attack an Ally or the US? No.
Was Iraq even preparing to attack the US or an Ally? No.
So why did Bush order the attack of Iraq?
Thanks for the reply, Decker! I'm not saying Bush is innocent. I'm just saying congress is not innocent either and all this impeachment stuff just looks political to me to help secure a Democratic victory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but historically, every time a US President has been impeached, his party lost the following elections.
So if the President of the United States cannot declare war, how in the world was Bush able to declare war on Iraq?
-
Bullshit like this and the baseball scandal with congressional input shows how inefficient and off base our gov can get...both parties!
I don't believe this is bullshit. The baseball "scandal" LOL ;D was bullshit and it received far more attention than this. Even the nba gambling thing had more attention. Stuff like this should be on peoples minds than stupid sports. Otherwise people don't care what their government does and brush it off as bullshit, like we've seen here. Then the next president and the next president can do whatever they want knowing they'll get away with it. That's not good.
-
Decker, thats BS.
The majority of congress agreed with the president to use force against Iraq at that time.
The majority was republican at the time. The white paper summaries (of NIES) that the Bush administration handed out were changed by the Bushies to make the Iraq threat seem palpable--modifiers were removed, excerpts eliminated and some shit was just made up. That's big time fraud.
You and I may disagree with them but based on the intelligence gathered, the president & the congress made a decision. I believe there was deception as well but that happens to some degree in any administration and in any war and crisis. At least part of the decision was made based on documented intelligence our gov gathered.
That is called cherry-picking evidence and it is criminal fraud. Why is it that Bush (& company) always forgot to include the countervailing evidence of Iraq's supposed threat?
B/c Bush and company was engaging in active fraud.
So, then we should impeach the president, 2/3rds of congress, the CIA and intelligence committees (....may not be a bad idea actually)I stand strongly behind my assertion that this is a waste of time and waste of taxpayer $ which takes the emphasis off real issues they need to work on. Bullshit like this and the baseball scandal with congressional input shows how inefficient and off base our gov can get...both parties!
Since only the president has the constitutional authority to order the US military to attack another country, I would say Bush is responsible for making the wrong call.
What made him invade Iraq? He cannot answer that simple question.
The use of force (invasion ordered by Bush) was not justified.
-
Thanks for the reply, Decker! I'm not saying Bush is innocent. I'm just saying congress is not innocent either and all this impeachment stuff just looks political to me to help secure a Democratic victory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but historically, every time a US President has been impeached, his party lost the following elections.
So if the President of the United States cannot declare war, how in the world was Bush able to declare war on Iraq?
Congress was negligent but as a matter of law, it could not be complicit b/c only Bush could order the invasion.
You sound like a democrat with that last bit about impeachment and election losses. I swear the democratic party shakes at its own shadow.
Bush used the war powers resolution as a basis to invade Iraq. He violated the procedures of that resolution as well. That is not the same as a formal declaration of war by Congress.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/ch33.html
-
Thanks for the reply, Decker! I'm not saying Bush is innocent. I'm just saying congress is not innocent either and all this impeachment stuff just looks political to me to help secure a Democratic victory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but historically, every time a US President has been impeached, his party lost the following elections.
So if the President of the United States cannot declare war, how in the world was Bush able to declare war on Iraq?
Uh... it might have a bit more to do with popular sentiment than with impeachment procedures.
If enough of the public is behind impeachment proceeding for the Senate to actually have the ovaries to do it, ...chances are the animosity for that candidates party is so high, the candidate isn't getting elected. But it's not like there's really been a long history of impeachment that anyone can turn to election results in the immediate aftermath and point to them as any definitive authority on the issue. ...sides, look at bush. He may not get impeached, ...but still there's no way the Republicans are going to be voted into office again. Too much damage has been done to the party. They need time to regroup, and clean house.
In answer to your 2nd question, he was able to do it because Congress abdicated it's responsibility and voted to give bush that authority, ...which constitutionally he doesn't have, and constitutionally is outside of their jurisdiction to do. The mess goes back to the Reagan years when in a supposed attempt to address the bs of the iran/contra scandals, very unconstitutional laws were put on the books and remain so to this day. These laws gave Bush 41 those unprecendented powers, ...but Clinton put the kibosh on his ability to use them by trouncing him in the 92 elections.
Don't have time to get into the details now, Cooper's "Behold a Pale Horse" lays out the framework and foundation of this abortion with greater clarity.
-
Don't have time to get into the details now, Cooper's "Behold a Pale Horse" lays out the framework and foundation of this abortion with greater clarity.
wow you actually read this? how did you hear about Cooper? I haven't gotten around to reading it. I've watched a few of his videos. Also heard he was paranoid. So I don't know if I want to read it, it might just plant seeds that don't need to be there. Someday we'll see
-
wow you actually read this? how did you hear about Cooper? I haven't gotten around to reading it. I've watched a few of his videos. Also heard he was paranoid. So I don't know if I want to read it, it might just plant seeds that don't need to be there. Someday we'll see
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you. ;)
What kind of seeds are you referring to? Seeds of truth? Clarification for seemingly unanswerable puzzles?
Since when is there no place for truth or clarity on a matter? ...especially in a world filled with lies, manipulations, and endless distractions designed to confuse you, distract you, and pull the wool over your eyes?
-
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you. ;)
What kind of seeds are you referring to? Seeds of truth? Clarification for seemingly unanswerable puzzles?
Since when is there no place for truth or clarity on a matter? ...especially in a world filled with lies, manipulations, and endless distractions designed to confuse you, distract you, and pull the wool over your eyes?
it's underlined
he could very well be a pawn to spew out disinformation unknowingly. Who knows what his security clearance was. I'm open to information/disinformation, just skeptical that's all.
Its too nice out to read something like this at the moment. I need winter to get into conspiracy stuff like this ;D
-
"Old man"? For a moment, I thought you were confusing Bugliosi with McCain.
This "old man" makes an extremely credible argument for holding Bush et al. accountable for murder.
This is expected. I have yet to see any credible rebuttal of Bugliosi's charges against Bush.
So the next best thing for his opponents, is to dismiss him outright with acid barbs.
Bugliosi is not washed up. He's retired.
Read his book and tell me how absurd and washed up this man is.
In one respect it is easy you know. Bush lied repeatedly about Iraq's WMDs, Al Qaeda ties, and imminency of threat to the US.
Those lies were used to push this country to war (false pretenses). He lied to Congress and the American People.
He sent soldiers to their deaths b/c of his lies.
I can show you a long list of the lies if you like.
Did you ever wonder, Beach Bum, why Bush's lies about Iraq's threat to the US ALWAYS increased the perception of that alleged threat?
If Bush was relying just on the intel, why was it always one-sided in favor of war?
Never, not once, did the Bush administration ever make statements contrary to "Iraq is a grave, unique, immediate threat."
Do you see that?
Decker you should review our extensive exchanges on this old man's book. My opinion about his book has not changed.
-
Decker, thats BS.
The majority of congress agreed with the president to use force against Iraq at that time. You and I may disagree with them but based on the intelligence gathered, the president & the congress made a decision. I believe there was deception as well but that happens to some degree in any administration and in any war and crisis. At least part of the decision was made based on documented intelligence our gov gathered. So, then we should impeach the president, 2/3rds of congress, the CIA and intelligence committees (....may not be a bad idea actually)I stand strongly behind my assertion that this is a waste of time and waste of taxpayer $ which takes the emphasis off real issues they need to work on. Bullshit like this and the baseball scandal with congressional input shows how inefficient and off base our gov can get...both parties!
Yeah. That sums it up.
-
You're just making up facts now. He saw something he couldn't identify. Could easily have been something manmade. You say "alien spaceship" and people here wonder why you have to make up stuff to discredit Kucinich. Do you have any facts about why his actions are wrong? Or are you gonna stick with the "alien spaceship" thing you made up?
Go look up his comments yourself and add your own interpretation. I've already done it more than once.
-
Thanks for the reply, Decker! I'm not saying Bush is innocent. I'm just saying congress is not innocent either and all this impeachment stuff just looks political to me to help secure a Democratic victory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but historically, every time a US President has been impeached, his party lost the following elections.
So if the President of the United States cannot declare war, how in the world was Bush able to declare war on Iraq?
There was never a declaration of war, which can only be done by Congress. The president is the Commander in Chief of all armed forces and based on that authority he can order troops into combat. That happened in the Korean War, Vietnam, Grenada, Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and twice in Iraq.
Regarding the current war, Bush ordered the invasion after Congress passed a resolution giving him the authority to use force in his discretion. That resolution wasn't required to start the war, but it's part of the analysis.
-
it's underlined
he could very well be a pawn to spew out disinformation unknowingly.
That's for YOU to decide, however, you have to admit that any decision or conclusion drawn about his case, prior to even reading him or hearing the case he makes is a somewhat invalid argument. He does go into that as well. He often stated "If this is true..." and often questions his own role as a possible unwitting pawn in the grand scheme of things.
Who knows what his security clearance was. I'm open to information/disinformation, just skeptical that's all.
Its too nice out to read something like this at the moment. I need winter to get into conspiracy stuff like this ;D
It's definately NOT for the faint hearted. There are certain things he goes into and puts forth as proof of underhandedness on the part of the government, ...but even taken at face value, I simply see them as necessary, and prudent preparedness planning on the part of a responsible government. Skepticism is fine, as long as one maintains their critical thinking skills and abilities (provided they even had them to begin with). I don't think that any sane, intelligent person will come away from reading his book wanting to make him/herself a tin-foil hat, ...but it may clarify much. And when most are stumbling around in the dark, it doesn't always have to be the 1000 watt halogen lamp, or the bat signal lighting up Gotham, ...sometimes just a tiny little bic lighter or even a match can help to shed enough light to prevent you from stubbing your toe, or walking off the edge of a cliff.
Besides... I don't know about you, but when a man who Bill Clinton has been alledged to have referred to as "The Most Dangerous Man in America." writes a book, ...I wanna know what all the fuss is about. ;)
Behold a Pale Horse is a 1991 book by William Milton Cooper.
Written after Cooper had been a member of the US Naval Intelligence Briefing Team of the Commander in Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, the book details many of Cooper's claims about the alleged influence of UFOs on US government agencies, the New World Order, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the alleged Apollo hoaxes and other topics.
Another claim made in the book pertains to his own death. William Cooper, seemingly paranoid, claimed that he would be shot to death on his own property. True to his "fate," he was gunned down in precisely this manner years after publishing the book and settling down in Arizona.
The title of the book alludes to a passage in the Bible, Revelation 6:8: "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him."
Behold a Pale Horse is definitely not a book to curl up on the couch with on a Sunday afternoon. The topics William Cooper discusses will very likely keep you reading late into the night. There are two types of people in the world: those who want to know who exactly is controlling whom, and those who are more comfortable taking things at face value. What really disturbed me was the theory of the true intent of the government. Cooper's account of what the government is capable of in times of heightened alert is extremely relevant now. It is important to keep in mind that this book was published before the attack on the World Trade Center because the US is finding itself in exactly the position Cooper predicted. Whether or not you think you might agree with the information in this book, I recommend any book written by someone who was killed for the purpose of silencing him or her. Be an informed citizen and know what your government is capable of.
It is also available in audiobook format in an 18 part series on YouTube.
The 18 part playlist is embedded below. Dontcha just love YouTube?
Enjoy :)
Behold A Pale Horse: part 1
Behold A Pale Horse: part 2
Behold A Pale Horse: part 3
Behold A Pale Horse: part 4
Behold A Pale Horse: part 5
Behold A Pale Horse: part 6
Behold A Pale Horse: part 7
Behold A Pale Horse: part 8
Behold A Pale Horse: part 9
Behold A Pale Horse: part 10
Behold A Pale Horse: part 11
Behold A Pale Horse: part 12
Behold A Pale Horse: part 13
Behold A Pale Horse: part 14
Behold A Pale Horse: part 15
Behold A Pale Horse: part 16
Behold A Pale Horse: part 17
Behold A Pale Horse: part 18
-
Decker you should review our extensive exchanges on this old man's book. My opinion about his book has not changed.
I have looked at the Bugliosi threads.
A certain bright-eyed critic said this:
"There is absolutely no way the president can be prosecuted for murder by virtue of starting a war that Congress authorized, before and after the war started. Based on that reason alone, the entire proposition is absurd."
That's a conclusion you ran with. Technically we are not at war with Iraq. Congress authorized a use of force against Iraq under the War Powers Resolution which permits a use of force under these instances:
Section 2(c) states the policy that the powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce U.S. armed forces into situations of hostilities or imminent hostilities "are exercised only pursuant to --
(1) a declaration of war, (was not declared)
(2) specific statutory authorization, (UN Res 1441--Bush violated that) or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." (Bush lied about Iraq's threat)
Granted, charging a president with murder for taking this country to war under false pretenses is a case of first impression, I have yet to see you or anyone else dismantle Bugliosi's legal theory.
I just see statements of how 'preposterous' Bugliosi's argument is supposed to be.
Maybe you can explain to me how Bush did not lie about Iraq's threat to the US, its ties to Al Qaeda and Bush's justifiable use of force in attacking Iraq.
-
I don't believe this is bullshit. The baseball "scandal" LOL ;D was bullshit and it received far more attention than this. Even the nba gambling thing had more attention. Stuff like this should be on peoples minds than stupid sports. Otherwise people don't care what their government does and brush it off as bullshit, like we've seen here. Then the next president and the next president can do whatever they want knowing they'll get away with it. That's not good.
True, they want the world to be fully aware that Barry bonds took steroids and needs to be punished, but Bush gets a free pass with his lies..
-
I have looked at the Bugliosi threads.
A certain bright-eyed critic said this:
"There is absolutely no way the president can be prosecuted for murder by virtue of starting a war that Congress authorized, before and after the war started. Based on that reason alone, the entire proposition is absurd."
That's a conclusion you ran with. Technically we are not at war with Iraq. Congress authorized a use of force against Iraq under the War Powers Resolution which permits a use of force under these instances:
Section 2(c) states the policy that the powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce U.S. armed forces into situations of hostilities or imminent hostilities "are exercised only pursuant to --
(1) a declaration of war, (was not declared)
(2) specific statutory authorization, (UN Res 1441--Bush violated that) or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." (Bush lied about Iraq's threat)
Granted, charging a president with murder for taking this country to war under false pretenses is a case of first impression, I have yet to see you or anyone else dismantle Bugliosi's legal theory.
I just see statements of how 'preposterous' Bugliosi's argument is supposed to be.
Maybe you can explain to me how Bush did not lie about Iraq's threat to the US, its ties to Al Qaeda and Bush's justifiable use of force in attacking Iraq.
Oh it's all on those threads. We already went round and round about the language of the murder statute and why it does or does not apply.
-
...
Dontcha just love YouTube?
maybe. go to abovetopsecret and search for his name. Hes been discredited and debunked by alot of people. Maybe thats the whole point I don't know. I look into stuff like that aswell. ATM it seems like a waste of time. At first I was on the William Cooper bandwagon and my bullshit meter :D went off. LOL what a cheesy line.
Yes I love youtube ;D
-
Everyone believed Iraq had WMD's, even France, even Germany, even prominent Democrats and many more.
The information was wrong because everyone believed Saddam including intel agencies, not because Bush "fooled" everyone like liberals always try to get away with saying just because their own hatred makes them try to blame EVERYTHING on Bush. That's ridiculous and not at all factual, much like blaming Bush for high gas prices simply because he is in office even though the most drastic increases have been since Dems have taken congress.
Had he actually possessed the stockpiles we thought Bush's actions would be considered entirely appropriate. And that's not to say we didn't have many other good reasons to dispose of Saddam.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=451_1194996953
http://www.conservativecat.com/mt/archives/2007/03/cnn_reporter_ac.html
http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2004/07/13/un_admits_saddam_had_wmd.php
-
Oh it's all on those threads. We already went round and round about the language of the murder statute and why it does or does not apply.
I didn't go round and round.
Murder One is pretty straightforward. The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Premeditation of the murder is required. The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The wrongful mind must be concurrent with the wrongful act.
"Under the law, he (Bush) cannot immunize himself from his criminal responsibility by causing a third party to do the killing. He's still responsible." Bush knew the Iraqis would defend themselves from the attack he ordered. The Iraqis acted in justifiable self-defense thus they are not murderers. Bush is.
-
maybe. go to abovetopsecret and search for his name. Hes been discredited and debunked by alot of people. Maybe thats the whole point I don't know. I look into stuff like that aswell. ATM it seems like a waste of time. At first I was on the William Cooper bandwagon and my bullshit meter :D went off. LOL what a cheesy line.
Yes I love youtube ;D
Whether he is discreditted by some, revered by others is completely irrelevant to our purposes.
The point is to get people to THINK, ...to awaken their minds.
"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open." --Thomas Dewar
“We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us.” --Friedrich Nietzsche
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." -- John Maynard Keynes
-
Everyone believed Iraq had WMD's, even France, even Germany, even prominent Democrats and many more.
Not true. The WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq did not hold that belief.
The information was wrong because everyone believed Saddam including intel agencies, not because Bush "fooled" everyone like liberals always try to get away with saying just because their own hatred makes them try to blame EVERYTHING on Bush. That's ridiculous and not at all factual, much like blaming Bush for high gas prices simply because he is in office even though the most drastic increases have been since Dems have taken congress.
This is a false statement. Bush used only the intelligence that supported his drive for war. There was countervailing intelligence which Bush ignored. That kind of cherrypicking of information is active fraud.
Did you ever wonder why the Bush Administration never ever made a statement that presented the intelligence that did not portray Iraq as a threat? That's b/c Bush was lying about the intel.
Had he actually possessed the stockpiles we thought Bush's actions would be considered entirely appropriate. And that's not to say we didn't have many other good reasons to dispose of Saddam.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=451_1194996953
http://www.conservativecat.com/mt/archives/2007/03/cnn_reporter_ac.html
http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2004/07/13/un_admits_saddam_had_wmd.php
We attacked Hussein's Iraq for the purposes of disarming the country and threat. The WMD inspectors were finding nothing to justify an attack based on disarmament and Bush ordered the attack anyways.
He ordered an unjustified attack.
-
Not true. The WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq did not hold that belief.
You might be right about the inspectors however my statement is still accurate.
This is a false statement. Bush used only the intelligence that supported his drive for war. There was countervailing intelligence which Bush ignored. That kind of cherrypicking of information is active fraud.
AFTER it was believed in the intel communities abroad and many others and once it came time to action Bush would have had to "sell" the war to the American public. Then it becomes necessary to present the information to support it. It's not fraud. Since when is the populace privy to every scrap of sensitive intel so as to decide what decision a commander in chief should make?
Once an overwhelming majority believed Saddam had WMDs Bush's actions were still appropriate. As Obama has said "Hindsight is 20/20."
Did you ever wonder why the Bush Administration never ever made a statement that presented the intelligence that did not portray Iraq as a threat? That's b/c Bush was lying about the intel.
We attacked Hussein's Iraq for the purposes of disarming the country and threat. The WMD inspectors were finding nothing to justify an attack based on disarmament and Bush ordered the attack anyways.
Many other countries and entities believed the threat based on their own intel regardless of what the inspectors said. Bet every other country can deny and disavow after the fact and Bush cannot. A large part of the threat was accurate when it comes to Saddams weapons potential, even though no huge stockpiles were found. It was just one aspect of the threat that was Saddams Iraq. Weapons factories, agents in development, active diversion, mobile weapons manufacturing, and even small amounts of WMDs themselves were all credible.
He ordered an unjustified attack.
I don't believe the US has to justify an attack to the rest of the world when our allies were on the same page, at least at the time. China and Russia, for example, who sell weapons and secrets to Iran and other enemy hostile regimes are certainly not necessary to consult before the USA makes a strategic decision.
-
I didn't go round and round.
Murder One is pretty straightforward. The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Premeditation of the murder is required. The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The wrongful mind must be concurrent with the wrongful act.
"Under the law, he (Bush) cannot immunize himself from his criminal responsibility by causing a third party to do the killing. He's still responsible." Bush knew the Iraqis would defend themselves from the attack he ordered. The Iraqis acted in justifiable self-defense thus they are not murderers. Bush is.
Whoooa... slow your roll there big boy! What do you mean the Iraqi's acted in justifiable self-defense? We know by the fine example set by those in positions of high power as well as the lowly on the totem poles of power who post here on Getbig, that the proper label reserved for those who fight back is 'terrorist'. Surely you're not defending terrorists are you, or calling their actions acts of justifiable self-defense?
According to John Bellinger, a US State Department lawyer -- "while they may have thought they were defending themselves - they had no legal right under the laws of war to be engaging in combat. Any combat that they were engaged in was illegal." he stated in a briefing last year.
So ...is Bellinger stating that it is illegal for people to defend themselves, ...or, is he stating that since no war was declared by congress, claiming themselves to be engaged in combat on the basis of war is irrelevant since the war is illegal. I don't think I ever got a clarification on that question when I posed it before. Decker, whatever do you think Bellinger could have been referring to? ??? :P
Gotta run, ...time to make some money.
cya
-
Gotta run, ...time to make some money.
cya
HAHA thats why i love her..not many females hustle like jag.
-
HAHA thats why i love her..not many females hustle like jag.
She must be hookin..
.. those gas caps are a total gag.
-
She must be hookin..
.. those gas caps are a total gag.
Nah, that reminds me, i got to buy some..
-
She must be hookin..
.. those gas caps are a total gag.
And the joke is on you, and anyone else who chooses not to use them, ...cause the guys that do are saving a fortune in fuel costs, and those of us helping them to save money are making a fortune helping them to do it!
There's a private conference call tonight at 8pm eastern, that's in 2 hrs & 35 mins for those who have an interest in hearing some valid truths about it, ...and for those who know both where and how they can access it. ;)
-
And the joke is on you, and anyone else who chooses not to use them, ...cause the guys that do are saving a fortune in fuel costs, and those of us helping them to save money are making a fortune helping them to do it!
There's a private conference call tonight at 8pm eastern, that's in 2 hrs & 35 mins for those who have an interest in hearing some valid truths about it, ...and for those who know both where and how they can access it. ;)
Same shit.. dif day.
-
Even if half of your allegations re Clinton are true and not rightwing spin, those incidents pale in comparison to the death, suffering and destruction Bush wrought with the illegal Iraq invasion.
100,000- 650,000 dead. 3-5 million displaced. hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. Untold amounts of property damage...
All b/c Bush attacked a country that was no threat to the USA.
Numbers like that get you a niche in the war crime tribunal....crimes against humanity, against the peace...and murder in our federal jurisdiction.
Exactly what I thought...justifying murder by pointing to other murders. Your boat is sunk.
My take on both is... it needed to be done and I stand by both Bush and Clinton in those acts. BTW, read up on Kosovo and Belgrade, Clinton took out duel purpose bridges and B92 Radio station. The Chinese Embassy was no mistake, trust me, I know.
-
You might be right about the inspectors however my statement is still accurate.
I'm not asking for your opinion. Your statements are false b/c of this standard set by Commander in Chief President Bush:
Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”
http://premium.asia.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/16/bush.iraq/index.html
What is the latest intelligence re Iraq's disarmament and threat to the US? Is it intel from 10 years ago or Bush's gut feeling? No. The latest intel was provided by the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq and they weren't finding much, were they?
AFTER it was believed in the intel communities abroad and many others and once it came time to action Bush would have had to "sell" the war to the American public. Then it becomes necessary to present the information to support it. It's not fraud. Since when is the populace privy to every scrap of sensitive intel so as to decide what decision a commander in chief should make?
Here's when the populace has a right to countervailing intelligence: when Bush made his case to the American people to send their husbands, wives, sons and daughters into a meatgrinder in Iraq. Bush is the People's employee and not the other way around.
Bush's lies about Iraq's threat, WMDs, and Al Qaeda connection are fraud b/c he dismissed any evidence to the contrary and he recharacterized the evidence as a "slam dunk" instead of what it was--hotly contested intelligence.
That is called lying.
Bush is like a used car salesman telling you how fine the ride is but neglecting to mention that the transmission is shot.
Would you buy a car from that man?
Once an overwhelming majority believed Saddam had WMDs Bush's actions were still appropriate. As Obama has said "Hindsight is 20/20."
What do I care what Obama said. Bush (and his administration)was lying methodically, constantly and with impunity.
Many other countries and entities believed the threat based on their own intel regardless of what the inspectors said. Bet every other country can deny and disavow after the fact and Bush cannot.
This is irrelevant according to the evidentiary standard set by Bush himself to use the latest intel available to make his decision to attack Iraq.
A large part of the threat was accurate when it comes to Saddams weapons potential, even though no huge stockpiles were found. It was just one aspect of the threat that was Saddams Iraq. Weapons factories, agents in development, active diversion, mobile weapons manufacturing, and even small amounts of WMDs themselves were all credible.
Not true.
I don't believe the US has to justify an attack to the rest of the world when our allies were on the same page, at least at the time.
The US, as a charter member of the UN, has to do exactly that.
China and Russia, for example, who sell weapons and secrets to Iran and other enemy hostile regimes are certainly not necessary to consult before the USA makes a strategic decision.
Reagan tried that with the Iran/Contra Affair--selling weapons to our enemy Iran to fund rightwing deathsquads in El Salvador--and if not for the clemency of the Independent Investigator, Reagan would have been impeached. Same for Bush except for this:
(http://www.bartcop.com/pardonsn.jpg)
-
Exactly what I thought...justifying murder by pointing to other murders. Your boat is sunk.
My take on both is... it needed to be done and I stand by both Bush and Clinton in those acts. BTW, read up on Kosovo and Belgrade, Clinton took out duel purpose bridges and B92 Radio station. The Chinese Embassy was no mistake, trust me, I know.
Justifying murder? This thread is about Bush. If you wish to delve into the Clinton administration, I suggest you start another thread. Why? B/c I am not going to accept your facts at face value. And I'm not going to fill up this thread with talk of Clinton.
Let's look at Kososvo (in another thread). How many Americans died in that 'humanitarian' effort?
-
I'm not asking for your opinion. Your statements are false b/c of this standard set by Commander in Chief President Bush:
It' not an opinion that those countries believed as we did at the time. It's a fact.
Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”
http://premium.asia.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/16/bush.iraq/index.html
What is the latest intelligence re Iraq's disarmament and threat to the US? Is it intel from 10 years ago or Bush's gut feeling? No. The latest intel was provided by the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq and they weren't finding much, were they?
Intelligence is NEVER derived from what a hostile country "allows" some weapons inspector to see. It is derived from deception, coercion, and discovering those things that country DOESN'T want you to see.. Spying. Saddam proved countless times that he would selectively deny and allow access to the UN whenever he saw fit. It should be no wonder why very little water was put into what the UN said. Maybe our quality of intelligence gathering would have been better if Clinton had not gutted the intel community.
Here's when the populace has a right to countervailing intelligence: when Bush made his case to the American people to send their husbands, wives, sons and daughters into a meatgrinder in Iraq. Bush is the People's employee and not the other way around.
5000 casualties is hardly a meatgrinder. In fact it's a far lower number than expected considering the length of time the war has gone on and compared to the the kill numbers against, first Saddams regime, and then the insurgency. Just because the people elect a president that doesn't mean there will ever be a time where top secret matter is disclosed to the public for the purpose of making a military decision. You must be out of your mind.
Bush's lies about Iraq's threat, WMDs, and Al Qaeda connection are fraud b/c he dismissed any evidence to the contrary and he recharacterized the evidence as a "slam dunk" instead of what it was--hotly contested intelligence.
That is called lying.
Bush is like a used car salesman telling you how fine the ride is but neglecting to mention that the transmission is shot.
Would you buy a car from that man?
I find it hard to believe it was hotly contested when so much of the world came to the same conclusions we did through their own intel. But I know as long as you keep this line up that it was "hotly contested" it allows this myth that Bush is horribly guilty to continue.
What do I care what Obama said. Bush (and his administration)was lying methodically, constantly and with impunity.
No matter. Liberals lie constantly to get the reactions they want from the American public and no one bats an eye. "Drilling here won't provide oil for at least ten years." What a horse load.
This is irrelevant according to the evidentiary standard set by Bush himself to use the latest intel available to make his decision to attack Iraq.
Yep, I don't think we needed those countries permission either. ;D
Not true.
Yes it is, but lefty news always buries this information.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
The US, as a charter member of the UN, has to do exactly that.
Eh, no we don't. And we didn't.
Reagan tried that with the Iran/Contra Affair--selling weapons to our enemy Iran to fund rightwing deathsquads in El Salvador--and if not for the clemency of the Independent Investigator, Reagan would have been impeached. Same for Bush except for this:
(http://www.bartcop.com/pardonsn.jpg)
I'm a little young to know the details of this but considering the types like you who wish Bush would be impeached I'm sure that wasn't nearly the case for Reagan either.
-
It' not an opinion that those countries believed as we did at the time. It's a fact.
10 year old opinions on Iraqis WMDs are opinions/estimates. Not facts.
Intelligence is NEVER derived from what a hostile country "allows" some weapons inspector to see. It is derived from deception, coercion, and discovering those things that country DOESN'T want you to see.. Spying. Saddam proved countless times that he would selectively deny and allow access to the UN whenever he saw fit. It should be no wonder why very little water was put into what the UN said. Maybe our quality of intelligence gathering would have been better if Clinton had not gutted the intel community.
Maybe.
So you are stating that you'll go with divided intelligence, old intelligence and Bush's gut feeling on the matter of Iraq's WMD/Al Qaeda connections over the findings of world class scientists actually on the ground in Iraq where Iraq was complying with unannounced inspections and being forthright with information. Was Iraq's compliance perfect? No.
But to say that justifies war, death and destruction is foolish.
5000 casualties is hardly a meatgrinder. In fact it's a far lower number than expected considering the length of time the war has gone on and compared to the the kill numbers against, first Saddams regime, and then the insurgency. Just because the people elect a president that doesn't mean there will ever be a time where top secret matter is disclosed to the public for the purpose of making a military decision. You must be out of your mind.
This sentence wreaks of arrogance.
I take it you did not have your life or your family's life ruined by news of the death of a loved one in the Iraqi disaster.
"top secret"? Are you thinking clearly? Bush published white papers that buried the countervailing evidence and added stuff that he pulled out of his ass.
It's very easy to tell that you have no part of your humanity invested in this Iraq debacle since you are so callous with your arguments.
I find it hard to believe it was hotly contested when so much of the world came to the same conclusions we did through their own intel. But I know as long as you keep this line up that it was "hotly contested" it allows this myth that Bush is horribly guilty to continue.
Now we can get to the long, long list of Bush's lies.
It’s hard to believe but some people still assert that President Bush was somehow “misled” by poor intelligence into attacking Iraq.
We’ll look at some of the 55 documented lies of Bush on the matter.
A lie occurs when a false impression is made knowingly. That includes exaggerations and omissions used to create that false impression.
Bush Lie #1
Statement: "We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).
Fact: the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.
Lie: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Bush Lie #2
Statement: "Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions."
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).
Fact: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Lie: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Bush Lie #3
Statement: "The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).
Fact: This statement is a lie because it suggested that Iraq, at the time, was providing support to al Qaeda. The U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. Bush omitted this part of the matter in his statement to push Iraq as a threat to us. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.
Lie. Omitting relevant, key countervailing information is lying.
Only 52 more to go. And that’s just Bush’s lies.
Source: http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnThe...orge+W%2E+Bush
No matter. Liberals lie constantly to get the reactions they want from the American public and no one bats an eye. "Drilling here won't provide oil for at least ten years." What a horse load.
Fantastic. The liberals are just liars.
And Bush and the Bushbots are all beacons of truth and light.
Yep, I don't think we needed those countries permission either. ;D
Actually we did need the UN Security Council's permission to attack Iraq since it was Bush that ran to the UN and asked to enforce UN disarmament resolutions against Iraq.
Yes it is, but lefty news always buries this information.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
Why do you post this?
I'm a little young to know the details of this but considering the types like you who wish Bush would be impeached I'm sure that wasn't nearly the case for Reagan either.
Yes. Everyone is out to get the poor conservative victims. You poor babies. How do you manage with all the persecution from the big bad liberals.
You sound like Johnny Sacramoni (The Sopranos) whining about the persecution the mafia faces from the law.
-
10 year old opinions on Iraqis WMDs are opinions/estimates. Not facts.
Maybe.
So you are stating that you'll go with divided intelligence, old intelligence and Bush's gut feeling on the matter of
Iraq's WMD/Al Qaeda connections over the findings of world class scientists actually on the ground in Iraq where Iraq was complying with unannounced inspections and being forthright with information. Was Iraq's compliance perfect? No. But to say that justifies war, death and destruction is foolish.
This sentence wreaks of arrogance. I take it you did not have your life or your family's life ruined by news of the death of a loved one in the Iraqi disaster.
"top secret"? Are you thinking clearly? Bush published white papers that buried the countervailing evidence and added stuff that he pulled out of his ass.
It's very easy to tell that you have no part of your humanity invested in this Iraq debacle since you are so callous with your arguments.
Now we can get to the long, long list of Bush's lies.
It’s hard to believe but some people still assert that President Bush was somehow “misled” by poor intelligence into attacking Iraq.
We’ll look at some of the 55 documented lies of Bush on the matter.
A lie occurs when a false impression is made knowingly. That includes exaggerations and omissions used to create that false impression.
Bush Lie #1
Statement: "We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).
Fact: the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.
Lie: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Bush Lie #2
Statement: "Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions."
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).
Fact: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Lie: This statement was a lie because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons in contradiction of the intelligence provided.
Bush Lie #3
Statement: "The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).
Fact: This statement is a lie because it suggested that Iraq, at the time, was providing support to al Qaeda. The U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. Bush omitted this part of the matter in his statement to push Iraq as a threat to us. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.
Lie. Omitting relevant, key countervailing information is lying.
Only 52 more to go. And that’s just Bush’s lies.
Source: http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnThe...orge+W%2E+Bush
Fantastic. The liberals are just liars.
And Bush and the Bushbots are all beacons of truth and light.
Actually we did need the UN Security Council's permission to attack Iraq since it was Bush that ran to the UN and asked to enforce UN disarmament resolutions against Iraq.
Why do you post this?
Yes. Everyone is out to get the poor conservative victims. You poor babies. How do you manage with all the persecution from the big bad liberals.
You sound like Johnny Sacramoni (The Sopranos) whining about the persecution the mafia faces from the law.
Saddam went back and forth with the UN for years. His picking and choosing when and where he complied were an obvious defiance against accurate fact finding missions and only lasted until the UN got mad. Then he would comply after having plenty of time to move/hide/destroy what he didn't what inspectors to see. It reeked of deception.
I posted the links so that I could show how it's going to take a while for Bush's name to be cleared. A lot of our initial intelligence was correct about a great number of things. Bush lies that you listed #1 and #2 are the same. I don't remember and I don't have the time or the patience to look it up but if the trailers were, at first, thought to be weapons factories than that could have been when he made the statement. That is, before closer inspection. As far as #3 I think stopping the problem before it got bigger was a smart move in this instance. And, yes, I believe Al-Queda was in Iraq long before 2003 and with time that information will be revealed as well. You forget that I had a clearance shortly after the invasion began and was privy to some of this.
On that note I did have a vested interest in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I was in I volunteered to go but some specialties in the Navy are not permitted to leave their duty station considering the time and $$$ put into specialized training. I have close friends that have been back and forth several times. One is in Afghanistan now for the second time. Another friend I've had since high school just came home without any legs and one arm because of an IED. My own 60 yr old mother came within a month of going to Baghdad as she is a DOD adjudicator and acting security manager which the Army is in dire need of.
-
Saddam went back and forth with the UN for years. His picking and choosing when and where he complied were an obvious defiance against accurate fact finding missions and only lasted until the UN got mad. Then he would comply after having plenty of time to move/hide/destroy what he didn't what inspectors to see. It reeked of deception.
So you and your sources have an inside track as to not only Hussein's WMD possession but precisely how he duped inspectors.
After 11/2002 Iraq's compliance with inspections took a turn for the better. The saber rattling worked. The inspectors had unimpeded access for unannounced inspections. I have yet to see valid evidence that Hussein not only had the WMDs but he could move them without detection by the inspectors. I find that very hard to believe.
I posted the links so that I could show how it's going to take a while for Bush's name to be cleared. A lot of our initial intelligence was correct about a great number of things. Bush lies that you listed #1 and #2 are the same. I don't remember and I don't have the time or the patience to look it up but if the trailers were, at first, thought to be weapons factories than that could have been when he made the statement. That is, before closer inspection. As far as #3 I think stopping the problem before it got bigger was a smart move in this instance. And, yes, I believe Al-Queda was in Iraq long before 2003 and with time that information will be revealed as well. You forget that I had a clearance shortly after the invasion began and was privy to some of this.
For #s 1&2, why was Bush telling everyone that the trailers were absolutely vehicles for WMDs?
The evidence didn't say that. The intelligence was divided as to what those trailers were for. For example, the evidence 'says' they might be WMD factories but they might not be(oversimplification), why is Bush telling everyone they are WMD factories.
Even if we accept as true that Al Qaeda was in Iraq in 2002 and before, Bush's own handpicked oversight board found No operational relationship btn Hussein and Al Qaeda. This is an example, again, of calling an allegation a fact and cherrypicking only that spin on the matter. That's still lying.
On that note I did have a vested interest in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I was in I volunteered to go but some specialties in the Navy are not permitted to leave their duty station considering the time and $$$ put into specialized training. I have close friends that have been back and forth several times. One is in Afghanistan now for the second time. Another friend I've had since high school just came home without any legs and one arm because of an IED. My own 60 yr old mother came within a month of going to Baghdad as she is a DOD adjudicator and acting security manager which the Army is in dire need of.
That's hard row to hoe my friend. Good luck.
-
So you and your sources have an inside track as to not only Hussein's WMD possession but precisely how he duped inspectors.
After 11/2002 Iraq's compliance with inspections took a turn for the better. The saber rattling worked. The inspectors had unimpeded access for unannounced inspections. I have yet to see valid evidence that Hussein not only had the WMDs but he could move them without detection by the inspectors. I find that very hard to believe.
While I was in I saw some things although I don't claim to be an expert. I think a lot of what happened hasn't been exposed yet. Duping inspectors sure wouldn't have been hard. Saddam did it many times by saying the equivalent of "You're not getting in here today." It's not like inspectors ever had the chance to change his mind until months later when the world finally started rattling those sabres. Maybe you're assuming the inspectors had access to the same intel that was monitoring Saddams activities not put out right in front of the UN. That just wasn't the case. Even before he began to comply (mostly) inspectors would show up at one site and not know that US imagery showed trucks burning up the desert with a 30 mile head start heading the opposite direction. I guess the good ol US intel community didn't feel like calling the inspectors to say they were an hour late. Hmm..
For #s 1&2, why was Bush telling everyone that the trailers were absolutely vehicles for WMDs?
The evidence didn't say that. The intelligence was divided as to what those trailers were for. For example, the evidence 'says' they might be WMD factories but they might not be(oversimplification), why is Bush telling everyone they are WMD factories.
Even if we accept as true that Al Qaeda was in Iraq in 2002 and before, Bush's own handpicked oversight board found No operational relationship btn Hussein and Al Qaeda. This is an example, again, of calling an allegation a fact and cherrypicking only that spin on the matter. That's still lying.
I don't know why he said that. Maybe, when he said it was before they had been further inspected, as I said. Since then everyone has admitted to the artillery balloon nature of them so it would have been impossible to deny after closer examination.
I do know that intel on the training camps was rock solid however due to how difficult it would be to intercept evidence of a relationship between AQ and Saddam it's easy to see how proof of a relationship wasn't found other than the camps themselves. The radical Islamic world presented the toughest intel challenge as far as comms intercepts are concerned, especially before Iraq was invaded. Keep in mind we're dealing with the hardest enemy to infiltrate and methods that are deceptively simple. We weren't dealing with Soviet bloc espionage anymore. It's easy to see us missing a lot including that relationship. Evidence still pointed to the likely existence of a relationship no matter if spies could actually find it.
That's hard row to hoe my friend. Good luck.
My friends appreciate that mentality. I don't need the luck.. I get to come home every night in the 'burbs.
-
While I was in I saw some things although I don't claim to be an expert. I think a lot of what happened hasn't been exposed yet. Duping inspectors sure wouldn't have been hard. Saddam did it many times by saying the equivalent of "You're not getting in here today." It's not like inspectors ever had the chance to change his mind until months later when the world finally started rattling those sabres. Maybe you're assuming the inspectors had access to the same intel that was monitoring Saddams activities not put out right in front of the UN. That just wasn't the case. Even before he began to comply (mostly) inspectors would show up at one site and not know that US imagery showed trucks burning up the desert with a 30 mile head start heading the opposite direction. I guess the good ol US intel community didn't feel like calling the inspectors to say they were an hour late. Hmm..
The UN inspections after 2002 were done on an unannounced basis. No forewarning was given.
The thing about the US imagery or satellite picture proof of Iraq's WMDs is that it is worthless.
During Powell's presentation to the UN, he showed satellite images of WMDs being moved. If that were the case, why didn't Powell just tell Blix where to look for the WMDs? Why? B/c the pictures did not show such images. Powell was lying/exaggerating.
For your theory that WMDs were moved by Hussein, several unlikely things would have to fall in line:
1. WMD inspectors don't have the capacity to detect areas "cleaned" of weapons,
2. Satellite imagery stopped working on alleged WMDs and WMD facilities,
3. A conspiracy of Iraqi scientists, armed forces and civilians was executed to perfection...comparable to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. No government is that efficient to hide the truth.
I don't know why he said that. Maybe, when he said it was before they had been further inspected, as I said. Since then everyone has admitted to the artillery balloon nature of them so it would have been impossible to deny after closer examination.
For whatever motive, the Bush administration wanted war with Iraq at all costs. The wmd trailer vehicles, the wmd drones, the reconstituted nuclear program, the tons of chemical/biological agents somewhere in Tikrit, the bellicose angle of Hussein on the US, the Al Qaeda working connection and on and on. They were all lies of fabrication or omission.
I do know that intel on the training camps was rock solid however due to how difficult it would be to intercept evidence of a relationship between AQ and Saddam it's easy to see how proof of a relationship wasn't found other than the camps themselves. The radical Islamic world presented the toughest intel challenge as far as comms intercepts are concerned, especially before Iraq was invaded. Keep in mind we're dealing with the hardest enemy to infiltrate and methods that are deceptively simple. We weren't dealing with Soviet bloc espionage anymore. It's easy to see us missing a lot including that relationship. Evidence still pointed to the likely existence of a relationship no matter if spies could actually find it.
Hussein was a monster but he wasn't crazy. He knew any overt/covert act against the US would be his death warrant. These rulers might be fanatics but when it comes to personal survival, they are as calculating and conservative as any western ruler.
My friends appreciate that mentality. I don't need the luck.. I get to come home every night in the 'burbs.
It's your Mom I'm more worried about.