Vincent Bugliosi: Impeach Bush Hearing (7-25-08) CSPAN

[Decker]

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.

[Decker]

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

[24KT]

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.

[MB_722]

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

[24KT]

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?

[MB_722]

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 

[Dos Equis]

"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. 

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[24KT]

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 

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]

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.

[Quickerblade]

I don't believe this is bullshit. The baseball "scandal" LOL  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..

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[MB_722]

...

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  went off. LOL what a cheesy line.

Yes I love youtube 

[Brixtonbulldog]

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

[Decker]

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.

[24KT]

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  went off. LOL what a cheesy line.

Yes I love youtube 

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

[Decker]

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.

[Brixtonbulldog]

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.

[24KT]

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?  

Gotta run, ...time to make some money.

cya

[Quickerblade]

Gotta run, ...time to make some money.

cya

HAHA thats why i love her..not many females hustle like jag.

[Brixtonbulldog]

HAHA thats why i love her..not many females hustle like jag.

She must be hookin..

.. those gas caps are a total gag.

[Quickerblade]

She must be hookin..

.. those gas caps are a total gag.

Nah, that reminds me, i got to buy some..

[24KT]

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.