The Bush Administration - How it's Shaping Up

[Decker]

In summary, the Bush administration knew they could not lie to the entire Congress and about something as serious as war (with Iraq). So they took the following measures:

-they first limited who would see intelligence to 8 people.

-they made sure that Bush loyalists were counted among those 8.

-a special group in the DOD called the Office of Special Plans was created to "find" evidence on Iraq and these very same people also briefed members of Congress (the 8 members of Congress)

-a special group was created in the White House to lie to the American people called the White House Iraq Group.

-the torture program was created to "fix the facts" around the "policy" to go to war with Iraq and those false confessions were used to brief the gang of 8 members of Congress.

-and they lied to the same 8 people about what the torture program was and its purpose. So worried was Cheney about controlling this flow of information that he personally stepped in to brief the gang of 8, as we now know. 

As you can see, this is premeditated and a conspiracy to lie the nation into war. Torture was merely one of the mechanisms through which this was accomplished. This is the very definition of high crimes.
http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/06/control-of-the-lie-cheney-torture-and-the-iraq-war.html

This sort of conspiracy is the kind of shit that organized criminals do.

Occasionally I still run into people who believe Iraq was a threat b/c of hidden WMDs.

Let’s hope we continue down this road to flesh out the matter and see justice served.

[BM OUT]

Let me ask you this.Do you think the Bush administration went to Iraq for oil?I dont.I think Cheney wanted to force democracy down their throats so Isreal would be protected.I think Bush actually believed[and believes]that by fighting for Isreal,he could bring about the coming of Christ quicker.Thats just my take,but I think the two of them are nuts!I also think Obama is under a false impression.

There will be no getting along with Iran,Iraq etc.Not when you have nuts there who are hell bent on killing jews.

[headhuntersix]

Bush is no longer the President..ur failure and shitbag appeaser is in charge.

[Dos Equis]

What?? This reminds me of the old Japanese soldier whose submarine washed up on Gilligan’s Island and didn't realize WWII was over.    

There is no more Bush Administration.  The war's major offensives are done.  WMDs are ancient history.    

[Decker]

Let me ask you this.Do you think the Bush administration went to Iraq for oil?I dont.I think Cheney wanted to force democracy down their throats so Isreal would be protected.I think Bush actually believed[and believes]that by fighting for Isreal,he could bring about the coming of Christ quicker.Thats just my take,but I think the two of them are nuts!I also think Obama is under a false impression.

There will be no getting along with Iran,Iraq etc.Not when you have nuts there who are hell bent on killing jews.

I don't care what the motive was for the invasion.  It doesn't matter for proving criminal culpability. 

But to answer your question, there are billions and billions of reasons the invasion happened.  Oil is just a small justification that coincidentally benefits the country.

[headhuntersix]

Ur bitching about this...Barry is sinking us into debt, we bought GM...we bailed banks...on and on and on...and ur posting this crap? Bush derangement syndrome at its worst.

[Decker]

Bush is no longer the President..ur failure and shitbag appeaser is in charge.

Is it customary in this country to be soft on crime?  

Is pretending nothing wrong happened OK b/c the perpetrator shares your political affiliation?

That's not how the legal system rolls.

[Decker]

What?? This reminds me of the old Japanese soldier whose submarine washed up on Gilligan’s Island and didn't realize WWII was over.    

There is no more Bush Administration.  The war's major offensives are done.  WMDs are ancient history.    

Is it customary in this country to be soft on crime? 

Is pretending nothing wrong happened OK b/c the perpetrator shares your political affiliation?

That's not how the legal system rolls.

[Dos Equis]

Is it customary in this country to be soft on crime? 

Is pretending nothing wrong happened OK b/c the perpetrator shares your political affiliation?

That's not how the legal system rolls.

Depends on where the crime takes place and who is in charge. 

Straw man question. 

Dude you're going to get an ulcer.  You never got over the fact Bush won in 2000 and haven't gotten over the fact he's no longer president.  Not healthy. 

[Decker]

Depends on where the crime takes place and who is in charge. 

Straw man question. 

Dude you're going to get an ulcer.  You never got over the fact Bush won in 2000 and haven't gotten over the fact he's no longer president.  Not healthy. 

Not a straw man question.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man

How is the allegation of the Bush Adm. lying to Congress a straw man argument?

Bush/Cheney cause death and suffering for millions of people.

Apparently when faced with horrible facts like that, you roll over to catch some well-deserved rest.

I don't work that way.

[Dos Equis]

Not a straw man question.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man

How is the allegation of the Bush Adm. lying to Congress a straw man argument?

Bush/Cheney cause death and suffering for millions of people.

Apparently when faced with horrible facts like that, you roll over to catch some well-deserved rest.

I don't work that way.

This equals straw man:

Is pretending nothing wrong happened OK b/c the perpetrator shares your political affiliation?

Nothing "wrong" happened.  So the premise is wrong.  There was no "perpetrator" either.  And I don't have a political affiliation. 

So . . . saying I am condoning a crime because someone shares my political affiliation = straw man.   

[MM2K]

This is starting to get comical. Bush did not lie to get us into war. EVERYONE thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. Bill Clinton thought he had the weapons, Madeline Albright thought he had the weapons, Putin thought he had them, Tony Blair thought he had them. Saddams own generals thought that he had them, and that is where the intelligence agencys were getting the info from. He used them before and when he was invaded he still had the infrastructure to be able to produce the weapns again within a short 5 weeks. 30 years from now this whole "no WMD" subject will be regarded as such a trivial notion.

[Dos Equis]

This is starting to get comical. Bush did not lie to get us into war. EVERYONE thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. Bill Clinton thought he had the weapons, Madeline Albright thought he had the weapons, Putin thought he had them, Tony Blair thought he had them. Saddams own generals thought that he had them, and that is where the intelligence agencys were getting the info from. He used them before and when he was invaded he still had the infrastructure to be able to produce the weapns again within a short 5 weeks. 30 years from now this whole "no WMD" subject will be regarded as such a trivial notion.

Hey are you my gimmick?     I've said this many times.  Completely agree. 

[240 is Back]

WMDs are ancient history.    

There are lots of families around the world who still suffer to this day because of that "ancient history" misunderstanding.

[headhuntersix]

Cry me a river.

[Decker]

This equals straw man:


Nothing "wrong" happened.  So the premise is wrong.  There was no "perpetrator" either.  And I don't have a political affiliation. 

So . . . saying I am condoning a crime because someone shares my political affiliation = straw man.   

I repeat, that is not a straw argument.  Why?  B/c you argue nothing.  You only deny.

Everyone has a  political affiliation except for Beach Bum.  The fascists, nihilists, socialists, etc. and the new entry into that paradigm - the Beach Bummists.

Nothing wrong happened?  Oh I don't know, there seems to be a bit of contention about Iraq, torture, domestic spying, lying to congress, war profiteering, etc.

NOthing to see here according to Beach Bum.

Cheney admits to the crime of waterboarding in a national interview.

Beach Bum sees no problem. 

A federal crime and a war crime is admitted and Beach Bum says, "nothing to see here".

5,000 dead soldiers, 100,000 dead Iraqis, 3 million displaced people, a ruined country, and 700 billion dollars gone b/c Bush ordered the attack based on...nothing.

Even though that occupation is still current, Beach Bum seems to think it's ancient history b/c Bush has been out of office for over 5 months.

In fact, it reminds him of the old Japanese soldier whose submarine washed up on Gilligan’s Island and didn't realize WWII was over.

That's a good episode.  That's just like people accusing the Bush administration of war crimes.

And you have the stones to say I'm throwing out Straw Men arguments?

[Decker]

This is starting to get comical. Bush did not lie to get us into war. EVERYONE thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. Bill Clinton thought he had the weapons, Madeline Albright thought he had the weapons, Putin thought he had them, Tony Blair thought he had them. Saddams own generals thought that he had them, and that is where the intelligence agencys were getting the info from. He used them before and when he was invaded he still had the infrastructure to be able to produce the weapns again within a short 5 weeks. 30 years from now this whole "no WMD" subject will be regarded as such a trivial notion.

The WMD inspectors on the ground my have 'thought he had them" as well.

But, with their inspections, they found nothing to justify an attack.

On one hand we have your thoughts and estimates of WMDs in Iraq.  In the other hand, we have WMD inspectors's cold hard facts that there are no wmds.

Are you trying to tell me that basing a war on uncorroborated estimates somehow justifies the invasion?

I hope that's not what you're saying.

[headhuntersix]

The majority of Americans are for waterboarding and or keeping Gitmo open....nobody cares Decker. But should we go after Bush, lets go after Obama for stealing all our tax dollars. Lets make sure we nail his ass for all the unconstitutional...spend ing programs he has either passed or wants to pass. Nobody cares.....

[Decker]

The majority of Americans are for waterboarding and or keeping Gitmo open....nobody cares Decker. But should we go after Bush, lets go after Obama for stealing all our tax dollars. Lets make sure we nail his ass for all the unconstitutional...spend ing programs he has either passed or wants to pass. Nobody cares.....

Waterboarding is illegal.

The nation wants waterboarding?  I don't think so.

AS for Gitmo, the fact that most of the Congress did not want to close it b/c we'd have relocated some of the detainees in US prisons shows me how rock bottom stupid our leaders are.

We have biggest most expensive and secure prisons on the planet....but we don't want those bad guys here...they might get out and attack us with box cutters.

Nobone is stealing your tax dollars.  Obama has done nothing unconstitutional.

I wish I could say the same of the Bush adiministration.  But that's impossible in light of Iraq, torture, domestic spying, etc.

Plenty of people care about the Bush administration's crimes.  Don't confuse your apathy with the intentions of others.  This will not go away any time soon.

[garebear]

Bush is no longer the President..ur failure and shitbag appeaser is in charge.

Perhaps a review of the chain of command is in order.

[MRDUMPLING]

It doesn't matter that Bush is no longer in charge.  He and his administration still committed high crimes, I don't just believe it, I know it just like many other people here.  So just because he is no longer in power we shouldn't prosecute?  Decker is right 100% on this issue. 

This is actually one issue that truly PISSES ME OFF about Obama.  His whole "let the past be the past" bullshit.  He should be investigating the crimes that our own administration committed over the last eight years.  We can't let things just go away.

[OzmO]

eheheheh  Decker tearing it up again!

[MCWAY]

It doesn't matter that Bush is no longer in charge.  He and his administration still committed high crimes, I don't just believe it, I know it just like many other people here.  So just because he is no longer in power we shouldn't prosecute?  Decker is right 100% on this issue. 

This is actually one issue that truly PISSES ME OFF about Obama.  His whole "let the past be the past" bullshit.  He should be investigating the crimes that our own administration committed over the last eight years.  We can't let things just go away.

No crime has been committed. What part of that don't you understand?

Furthermore, the reason Obama has backed off is because, if nothing else, he knows he can't go after Bush and Cheney without having his girl, Nancy Pelosi (along with a whole lot of other DEMOCRATS) do the perp-walk right behind them.

[Dos Equis]

I repeat, that is not a straw argument.  Why?  B/c you argue nothing.  You only deny.

Everyone has a  political affiliation except for Beach Bum.  The fascists, nihilists, socialists, etc. and the new entry into that paradigm - the Beach Bummists.

Nothing wrong happened?  Oh I don't know, there seems to be a bit of contention about Iraq, torture, domestic spying, lying to congress, war profiteering, etc.

NOthing to see here according to Beach Bum.

Cheney admits to the crime of waterboarding in a national interview.

Beach Bum sees no problem. 

A federal crime and a war crime is admitted and Beach Bum says, "nothing to see here".

5,000 dead soldiers, 100,000 dead Iraqis, 3 million displaced people, a ruined country, and 700 billion dollars gone b/c Bush ordered the attack based on...nothing.

Even though that occupation is still current, Beach Bum seems to think it's ancient history b/c Bush has been out of office for over 5 months.

In fact, it reminds him of the old Japanese soldier whose submarine washed up on Gilligan’s Island and didn't realize WWII was over.

That's a good episode.  That's just like people accusing the Bush administration of war crimes.

And you have the stones to say I'm throwing out Straw Men arguments?

I deny some of the nonsense (when I feel like it); ignore most.  I only deny and engage when it's entertaining. 

Everyone has a political affiliation?  O Rly?  Are you joking?  (Hard to tell on the internet.)

Yes, nothing but straw men arguments.

You're a tad late on the whole war thing.  It's done.  Bush is gone.  Maybe you should get some Bush toilet paper or something.  Might help you deal with the Bush hatred. 

There will be no prosecution for war crimes, save some fools in some foreign country who attempt some circus proceedings.  He's off on the lecture circuit, making his millions like every former president.     

[MRDUMPLING]

No crime has been committed. What part of that don't you understand?

Furthermore, the reason Obama has backed off is because, if nothing else, he knows he can't go after Bush and Cheney without having his girl, Nancy Pelosi (along with a whole lot of other DEMOCRATS) do the perp-walk right behind them.

Yeah, sure thing buddy, an administration LYING to Congress and the American people for the reason for war.  The outright ignoring of the warnings of 9/11 should fall under extreme negligence of responsibility.  Patriot Act, the list goes on and on. 

Do a little reading...can someone post up that quote that Bush said about Osama Bin Laden and how he didn't care where he was?

HH6...isn't that our mission?  You're former Commander in Chief said he didn't care.

I don't care who does the "perp walk".  The point is NOBODY is above the law and Bush and Cheney clearly thought they were.  If Pelosi or other Dems have committed crimes then prosecute them too.  I don't like Pelosi as much as the next person, but I haven't read or heard of any allegations of any illegal activity that she has been a part of.