Prosecution of President Bush For Murder: Mr. Bush on the Stand.

[OzmO]

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

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?

[Benny B]

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. 

[24KT]

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.

[240 is Back]

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. 

[OzmO]

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.
 

[240 is Back]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[OzmO]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

[OzmO]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[OzmO]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[OzmO]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[OzmO]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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). 

[OzmO]

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.   

[Dos Equis]

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.   

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. 
 

[OzmO]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[OzmO]

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.
 

[Dos Equis]

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.