PDA

View Full Version : A letter to the murderers G W Bush and Dick Cheney


Bacchus
03-21-2013, 03:33 AM
An Iraq War veteran who joined the U.S. Army two days after 9/11 has written a powerful open letter to former President George W. Bush and ex-Vice President Dick Cheney accusing them of war crimes, "plunder" and "the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole."

Tomas Young, who was shot and paralyzed during an insurgent attack in Sadr City in 2004, five days into his first deployment, penned the letter from his Kansas City, Mo., home, where he's under hospice care.

I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.



Full article Here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/iraq-war-vet-letter-bush-cheney-tomas-young-154541674.html

gunns
03-21-2013, 08:01 AM
I was just going to post this. Not surprising that those on the front lines were able to figure out Bush and Cheney so much quicker than some who post on this board and those that reveal their idiocy over the radio waves and media. It wasn't hard to figure out.

So sorry dude, thanks for your service.

DenverBrit
03-21-2013, 08:27 AM
So powerful, and so right.

Bush should have been impeached years ago. But his crime wasn't lying about a BJ, so this GOP doesn't give a rat's.

IHaveALight
03-21-2013, 09:41 AM
Our country is still run the same way without Bush and Chaney.

DenverBrit
03-21-2013, 10:01 AM
Our country is still run the same way without Bush and Chaney.

We still have too many mistakes of the last administration intact or expanded. But as history teaches, it's easier to start a war than stop one.

And while the gun lobby is screaming about the 2nd amendment, it's very purpose has been undermined by government intrusions into our lives.

The GOP want even more interference.

nyuk nyuk
03-21-2013, 10:37 AM
Troll thread. Pass to the blunt to the homie on your left while another of Obama's drones accidentally blows up an Afghan wedding.

You gotta love the selective moral outrage of the drum beating left.

Actually, you can't. It's a big part of why I left the left. It doesn't take a genius to spot false moral outrage and ulterior motives.

TonyR
03-21-2013, 11:23 AM
CIA analyst Nada Bokos:

On Sunday, March 16, 2003, I watched Cheney on “Meet The Press” contradict our assessment publicly. “We know that he [Saddam] has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups,” Cheney said, “including the al-Qaeda organization.” I was basically watching Cheney field-test arguments that we would have to anticipate — and rebut — at CIA. Except instead of asking us questions behind closed doors, Cheney was asserting to the public as fact something that we found to be anything but. I found myself yelling at the TV like I was contesting a ref’s blown call in a football game. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/iraq-intelligence/

TonyR
03-21-2013, 11:24 AM
Still not over for Iraqis:

Tuesday marks the ten-year anniversary of the Iraq War, and while that war officially ended for the United States in December of 2011, life for Iraqi civilians — while better than it was at the bloody height of the insurgency — is still something short of peace. 4,573 Iraqi citizens were killed in 2012, up from 4,147 in 2011. http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/for-iraq-the-war-isnt-over

TonyR
03-21-2013, 11:30 AM
The Iraq war was unnecessary, costly and damaging on every level. It was based on faulty intelligence manipulated for ideological reasons. The terrible human and economic costs over the past 10 years show why that must never happen again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/opinion/ten-years-after-the-iraq-war-began.html?hp&_r=0

TonyR
03-21-2013, 11:53 AM
...Richard Perle on NPR:

Montagne: Ten years later, nearly 5000 American troops dead, thousands more with wounds, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead or wounded. When you think about this, was it worth it?

Perle: I’ve got to say I think that is not a reasonable question. What we did at the time was done with the belief that it was necessary to protect this nation. You can’t a decade later go back and say we shouldn’t have done that.

Neoconservatism: never look back; never question; never take responsibility; always avoid accountability. Just seek power. Then wage war. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/20/answer-of-the-day/

nyuk nyuk
03-21-2013, 12:42 PM
Democrats nuke Japan and somehow Republicans are the warmongers.

Weird, weird people...

Is it that we're doing peyote on this thread?

nyuk nyuk
03-21-2013, 12:45 PM
Democrats nuke Japan and somehow Republicans are the warmongers.

Weird, weird people...

Is it that we're doing peyote on this thread?

Rohirrim
03-21-2013, 02:15 PM
Troll thread. Pass to the blunt to the homie on your left while another of Obama's drones accidentally blows up an Afghan wedding.

You gotta love the selective moral outrage of the drum beating left.

Actually, you can't. It's a big part of why I left the left. It doesn't take a genius to spot false moral outrage and ulterior motives.

And your constant deflecting for the Right is both tiresome and dishonest. If you can't argue to the point in the OP, why bother posting on the thread at all?

nyuk nyuk
03-21-2013, 02:22 PM
And your constant deflecting for the Right is both tiresome and dishonest. If you can't argue to the point in the OP, why bother posting on the thread at all?

I did argue the point by pointing out the moral blind spot. It wasn't deflecting in defense of anyone in the least. You just take it that way.

I find such moral blind spots effing hilarious.

Seriously - if you don't like "murder," then bitch when ANYONE does it, not just when anyone with a different letter behind his name does it. When you behave that way, you come off as a seriously disingenuous asshole trying to politically cash in on corpses.

TonyR
03-21-2013, 02:28 PM
LOL "Moral blind spot". Good stuff. Basing you point on something that happened in the 1940's and comparing it to something that's practically still going on, and involves people and mindsets and politics that are still alive and relevant today. Ridic.

nyuk nyuk
03-21-2013, 02:35 PM
LOL "Moral blind spot". Good stuff. Basing you point on something that happened in the 1940's and comparing it to something that's practically still going on, and involves people and mindsets and politics that are still alive and relevant today. Ridic.

As I have already pointed out, Obama's drones are CURRENTLY wiping out civilians while you rattle on something about a previous administration, THUS you undermine your own argument with the same "past doesn't matter" argument that you just tried to use as a weapon against me.

You're a MENSA member, aren't you?

Does the past matter or not?

Why is Gitmo still open? Where are the war crimes charges that I kept hearing about were forthcoming in the summer of '08?

Bacchus
03-21-2013, 02:37 PM
I did argue the point by pointing out the moral blind spot. It wasn't deflecting in defense of anyone in the least. You just take it that way.

I find such moral blind spots effing hilarious.

Seriously - if you don't like "murder," then b**** when ANYONE does it, not just when anyone with a different letter behind his name does it. When you behave that way, you come off as a seriously disingenuous a-hole trying to politically cash in on corpses.

I don't understand, all I did was post the letter of An American hero someone who died for their country. If you have an issue of what he said you probably need to take it up with him.

Thomas Young was apart of a Documentary called "Body of War"

You can watch it here.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03212008/watch.html

TonyR
03-21-2013, 02:39 PM
^ Those aren't the topics raised in the OP that you're dismissing. If you'd like to raise those topics them I'm sure people would be willing to discuss them. All are valid topics. Iraq is no more or no less of a catastrophic mistake and debacle no matter your position on the issues you've raised.

Rohirrim
03-21-2013, 03:30 PM
I did argue the point by pointing out the moral blind spot. It wasn't deflecting in defense of anyone in the least. You just take it that way.

I find such moral blind spots effing hilarious.

Seriously - if you don't like "murder," then b**** when ANYONE does it, not just when anyone with a different letter behind his name does it. When you behave that way, you come off as a seriously disingenuous a-hole trying to politically cash in on corpses.

I really doubt you even read the soldier's letter, given that you still can't bring yourself to comment on it. All you can do is blather your dogmatic, Right Wing nonsense, over and over and over.

mhgaffney
03-21-2013, 03:44 PM
All the more reason to investigate 9/11.

cutthemdown
03-21-2013, 04:52 PM
How many letters from former and current soldiers does a President get? I would bet 1000's. How many do the liberal media latch on to and publish? The motivation for that is political.

Also Obama, the liberals, the UN, the Republicans all let many many people die in Syria because they decided to sit this one out. He's no humanitarian. Also reporters talking about a dead soldiers letter when they could be in Pakistan taking pictures of dead babies blown up by Obama is a joke.

Go out and do your jobs and report on the current war.

Rohirrim
03-21-2013, 05:37 PM
How many letters from former and current soldiers does a President get? I would bet 1000's. How many do the liberal media latch on to and publish? The motivation for that is political.

Also Obama, the liberals, the UN, the Republicans all let many many people die in Syria because they decided to sit this one out. He's no humanitarian. Also reporters talking about a dead soldiers letter when they could be in Pakistan taking pictures of dead babies blown up by Obama is a joke.

Go out and do your jobs and report on the current war.

I love how you Right Wingers dodge and weave to avoid the truth. Here it is: Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and Cheney planned to attack Iraq before Dubya even got elected. They USED the terrorist attacks of 911 as a catalyst to spur this country into war under false pretenses. They started planning the war two days after 911 when there was no mention whatsoever of WMDs. American soldiers died for their lies. They committed numerous criminal acts and some of them (Cheney) personally benefited from the war. The oil companies profited. And Iraq is in a shambles. So, not only did they lie us into a war, but then they bungled the war itself.

Obama's drone policy is indefensible. The Syrian policy is an entirely different issue and Obama's hands are tied on Syria. Why? Because Bush ****ed up Iraq so bad that if Obama tried to go into Syria to help the GOP would impeach his ass. But anybody who equates either of those issues with lying the country into war is either an idiot or so blinded by partisanship that it's turned them into a fool.

houghtam
03-21-2013, 06:40 PM
I love how you Right Wingers dodge and weave to avoid the truth. Here it is: Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and Cheney planned to attack Iraq before Dubya even got elected. They USED the terrorist attacks of 911 as a catalyst to spur this country into war under false pretenses. They started planning the war two days after 911 when there was no mention whatsoever of WMDs. American soldiers died for their lies. They committed numerous criminal acts and some of them (Cheney) personally benefited from the war. The oil companies profited. And Iraq is in a shambles. So, not only did they lie us into a war, but then they bungled the war itself.

Obama's drone policy is indefensible. The Syrian policy is an entirely different issue and Obama's hands are tied on Syria. Why? Because Bush ****ed up Iraq so bad that if Obama tried to go into Syria to help the GOP would impeach his ass. But anybody who equates either of those issues with lying the country into war is either an idiot or so blinded by partisanship that it's turned them into a fool.

This all common knowledge or should be by now. Msnbc was nice enough to wrap it up in a nice little documentary that they will be re-airing Friday night (check local listings). Now I know you're scared to receive news from the "other side", cut, but I challenge you to watch it and refute anything hey bring to light. It will be interesting to see what you (or anyone else) can come up with.

El Minion
03-21-2013, 07:16 PM
This all common knowledge or should be by now. Msnbc was nice enough to wrap it up in a nice little documentary that they will be re-airing Friday night (check local listings). Now I know you're scared to receive news from the "other side", cut, but I challenge you to watch it and refute anything hey bring to light. It will be interesting to see what you (or anyone else) can come up with.

Hubris: Selling the Iraq War (http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/16/how-the-bush-administration-sold-the-iraq-war/)

But documents that have been declassified in recent years show that Bush administration officials weren’t interested in changing Saddam’s policies: they wanted him gone and were determined to launch a war to achieve that. The chronology also reveals that Saddam was in their crosshairs even before 9/11. The very afternoon of September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld met in the Pentagon with top aides. As his handwritten notes written by one of his aides at the meeting show, Rumsfeld asked for the “best info fast..judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] @ same time—not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].” Rumsfeld also tasked “Jim Haynes [the Pentagon's top lawyer] to talk w/ PW [Paul Wolfowitz] for additional support [for the] connection w/ UBL.” Before being presented with any evidence linking Saddam to al-Qaida, Rumsfeld was already looking for ways to use the World Trade Center attacks to justify taking out the Iraqi leader.

By late November, Rumsfeld was meeting with Gen. Tommy Franks, who succeeded Zinni as commander of the Centcom, to plot the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government, according to the now declassified talking points from the session (shown on television for the first time in the documentary). The talking points suggest Rumsfeld and his team were grappling with a tricky issue: “How [to] start?” the war. In other words, what would the pretext be? Various scenarios were outlined: “US discovers Saddam connection to Sept. 11 attack or to anthrax attacks?” reads one of them. “Dispute over WMD inspections?” reads another. “Start now thinking about inspection demands.”

These talking points make it clearer than ever that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were determined–probably from the moment they came into office–to invade Iraq. Paul Pillar–then one of the CIA’s top terrorism analysts—says in the documentary that the 9/11 attacks “made it politically possible for the first time to persuade the American people to break a tradition of not launching offensive wars.” But to achieve the goal, secret intelligence was twisted, massaged, and wildly exaggerated. “It wasn’t a matter of lying about this or lying about that,” Pillar says. “But rather—through the artistry of speechwriters and case-presenters—conveying an impression to the American people that certain things were true.” But those things were not true. It’s worth watching to see how it was done.

The Lone Bolt
03-21-2013, 09:36 PM
Honestly I'm not sure what the point if this thread is. I mean, I know many of you still are full of burning hatred for Bush and Cheney but really, are either of them going to be arrested anytime soon? Probably not.

I personally learned a few lessons from this episode however the war is over and I'm through debating it.

So why continue with this? What do you hope to accomplish?

Rohirrim
03-21-2013, 10:30 PM
Honestly I'm not sure what the point if this thread is. I mean, I know many of you still are full of burning hatred for Bush and Cheney but really, are either of them going to be arrested anytime soon? Probably not.

I personally learned a few lessons from this episode however the war is over and I'm through debating it.

So why continue with this? What do you hope to accomplish?

So, now you are willing to admit that they lied us into that war?

baja
03-21-2013, 11:11 PM
As I have already pointed out, Obama's drones are CURRENTLY wiping out civilians while you rattle on something about a previous administration, THUS you undermine your own argument with the same "past doesn't matter" argument that you just tried to use as a weapon against me.

You're a MENSA member, aren't you?

Does the past matter or not?

Why is Gitmo still open? Where are the war crimes charges that I kept hearing about were forthcoming in the summer of '08?

Bush bad

Obama bad

therefore they cancel out


Is that your argument?

The Lone Bolt
03-21-2013, 11:12 PM
So, now you are willing to admit that they lied us into that war?

Sure, when you can provide indisputable evidence that:

A) Bush knew/believed for certain beyond all reasonable doubt that there were no WMD in Iraq, and

b) He deliberately misled the public on this isssue.

But you can't prove that of course. Which brings me back to my original post. If you can't prove your claims in a court of law, if you don't have irrefutable evidence that meets legal requirements, if you don't have completely conclusive evidence to back up your accusations, then why are you continuing with this tirade? Seems pointless to me.

And if you do then where is it? When are you and the rest of the "Bush Lied" crowd going to pool your resources, hire an army of lawyers, and prove your case in a court of law?

houghtam
03-22-2013, 07:12 AM
Sure, when you can provide indisputable evidence that:

A) Bush knew/believed for certain beyond all reasonable doubt that there were no WMD in Iraq, and

b) He deliberately misled the public on this isssue.

But you can't prove that of course. Which brings me back to my original post. If you can't prove your claims in a court of law, if you don't have irrefutable evidence that meets legal requirements, if you don't have completely conclusive evidence to back up your accusations, then why are you continuing with this tirade? Seems pointless to me.

And if you do then where is it? When are you and the rest of the "Bush Lied" crowd going to pool your resources, hire an army of lawyers, and prove your case in a court of law?

Since when should it have to be proven that Bush and Cheney knew there weren't any WMDs? Isn't it bad enough to lead a nation to war on the notion that there maybe, somewhere, MIGHT be WMDs, even though there is a lot of conflicting information? Maybe for some of us, we don't believe war should be the result of patchwork information and half-hearted sanctions. Maybe some of us are asking why, when 9/11 happened, there was a directive to find a connection between SH and OBL, even though intelligence had already suggested there weren't any.

Rohirrim
03-22-2013, 07:33 AM
Sure, when you can provide indisputable evidence that:

A) Bush knew/believed for certain beyond all reasonable doubt that there were no WMD in Iraq, and

b) He deliberately misled the public on this isssue.

But you can't prove that of course. Which brings me back to my original post. If you can't prove your claims in a court of law, if you don't have irrefutable evidence that meets legal requirements, if you don't have completely conclusive evidence to back up your accusations, then why are you continuing with this tirade? Seems pointless to me.

And if you do then where is it? When are you and the rest of the "Bush Lied" crowd going to pool your resources, hire an army of lawyers, and prove your case in a court of law?

You failed to read my previous post. The evidence shows that the intent to go to war in Iraq predates the discussion of WMDs. Prima facie: WMDs were not the reason for the war. Ergo, the whole WMD ruse had an entirely different purpose. A reasonable person would assume that purpose was to stir up fear in order to drive the country to war. The Plame Affair is proof enough that the administration was willing to engage in illegal and treasonous action to prop up the lie. Why haven't they been prosecuted? Because the other side of the aisle is either complicit or gutless, as the case may be.

The purpose of the soldier's letter is not to prosecute anyway. It's to warn. It's to accuse. Of course, when there are enough apologists around to rewrite events after the fact, the warning is doomed to failure, and the accusation won't gain any ground in our current state of political cowardice. History, however, is a different courtroom, with different rules.

nyuk nyuk
03-22-2013, 08:02 AM
Honestly I'm not sure what the point if this thread is. I mean, I know many of you still are full of burning hatred for Bush and Cheney but really, are either of them going to be arrested anytime soon? Probably not.

I personally learned a few lessons from this episode however the war is over and I'm through debating it.

So why continue with this? What do you hope to accomplish?

Political brownie points, why else?

nyuk nyuk
03-22-2013, 08:03 AM
Bush bad

Obama bad

therefore they cancel out


Is that your argument?

Read my posts closer and you may see my argument. :peace:

nyuk nyuk
03-22-2013, 08:19 AM
Sure, when you can provide indisputable evidence that:

A) Bush knew/believed for certain beyond all reasonable doubt that there were no WMD in Iraq, and

b) He deliberately misled the public on this isssue.

But you can't prove that of course. Which brings me back to my original post. If you can't prove your claims in a court of law, if you don't have irrefutable evidence that meets legal requirements, if you don't have completely conclusive evidence to back up your accusations, then why are you continuing with this tirade? Seems pointless to me.

And if you do then where is it? When are you and the rest of the "Bush Lied" crowd going to pool your resources, hire an army of lawyers, and prove your case in a court of law?

This is pure political horse ****. Frankly, this thread belongs in The Butt.

1) That Saddam had WMD was Clinton's assertion throughout his 8 years in office

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Iw_ocw2VP5I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

and no Democrats disputed this assertion.

2) Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter stated throughout the Clinton years that there were no WMDs there AND that the Clinton administration had been stonewalling inspectors. See this speech (http://workingtv.com/nocaseforwar.html).

3) Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act setting in motion US policy to remove Saddam Hussein from office and supported multiple coup attempts.

baja
03-22-2013, 08:33 AM
The United States hasn't had a president that worked on behalf of we the people since John F. Kennedy. You all should start from that point it will save a lot of party prejudice

DenverBrit
03-22-2013, 09:45 AM
The Iraq invasion was being promoted by future members of the Bush administration well before 911. It's to the Democrats shame....as well as Republicans, that they voiced little opposition to a war that clearly had nothing to do with 911.

If we can spend $40 million investigating a Presidential bj, we can certainly afford the time to look closely at a war that has crippled our economy and cost the lives of thousands of our young men and women.

And no, Gaffney, this is not evidence that Bush orchestrated 911.

Project for the New American Century (PNAC)


Calls for regime change in Iraq during Clinton years

The goal of regime change in Iraq remained the consistent position of PNAC throughout the 1997-2000 Iraq disarmament crisis.[6][7]

Richard Perle, who later became a core member of PNAC, was involved in similar activities to those pursued by PNAC after its formal organization. For instance, in 1996 Perle composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East. The report was titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm and called for removing Saddam Hussein from power, as well as other ideas to bring change to the region. The report was delivered to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[8] Two years later, in 1998, Perle and other core members of the PNAC - Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton - "were among the signatories of a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Hussein."[8] Clinton did seek regime change in Iraq, and this position was sanctioned by the United Nations. These UN sanctions were considered ineffective by the neoconservative forces driving the PNAC.

The PNAC core members followed up these early efforts with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott,[9] urging Congress to act. The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.[10]

On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[11]

On November 16, 1998, citing Iraq's demand for the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors and the removal of Richard Butler as head of the inspections regime, Kristol called again for regime change in an editorial in his online magazine, The Weekly Standard: "...any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power."[12] Kristol states that Paul Wolfowitz and others believed that the goal was to create "a 'liberated zone' in southern Iraq that would provide a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally and organize a credible alternative to the present regime ... The liberated zone would have to be protected by U.S. military might, both from the air and, if necessary, on the ground."

In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.[13]

Associations with Bush administration

After the election of George W. Bush in 2000, some of PNAC's members or signatories were appointed to key positions within the President's administration:
Name Position(s) held
Elliott Abrams Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (2001–2002), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs (2002–2005), Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005–2009) (all within the National Security Council)
Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (2001–2005)
John R. Bolton Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001–2005), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2005–2006)
Dick Cheney Vice President (2001–2009)
Eliot A. Cohen Member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board (2007–2009)[64]
Seth Cropsey Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (12/2002-12/2004)
Paula Dobriansky Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001–2007)
Aaron Friedberg Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Office of the Vice President (2003–2005)
Francis ***uyama Member of The President's Council on Bioethics (2001–2005)
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (11/2003 - 6/2005), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (6/2005 - 3/2007) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2007–2009)
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States (2001–2005)
Richard Perle Chairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (2001–2003)
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (2001–2007)
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense (2001–2006)
Randy Scheunemann Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001–2005) 10th President of the World Bank (2005-2007)
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller (2001–2004)
Robert B. Zoellick Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001–2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005–2006), 11th President of the World Bank (2007–2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

gunns
03-22-2013, 11:13 AM
I did argue the point by pointing out the moral blind spot. It wasn't deflecting in defense of anyone in the least. You just take it that way.

I find such moral blind spots effing hilarious.

Seriously - if you don't like "murder," then b**** when ANYONE does it, not just when anyone with a different letter behind his name does it. When you behave that way, you come off as a seriously disingenuous a-hole trying to politically cash in on corpses.

So what you are saying is that the man in the opening post is a disingenuous a-hole trying to politically cash in on corpses?

The Lone Bolt
03-22-2013, 01:09 PM
You failed to read my previous post. The evidence shows that the intent to go to war in Iraq predates the discussion of WMDs. Prima facie: WMDs were not the reason for the war. Ergo, the whole WMD ruse had an entirely different purpose. A reasonable person would assume that purpose was to stir up fear in order to drive the country to war. The Plame Affair is proof enough that the administration was willing to engage in illegal and treasonous action to prop up the lie.

Well great! You have solid evidence of a conspiracy that will hold up in a court of law. Congratulations! Time to pool your resources with all the other folks in the "Bush Lied" crowd, hire lawyers, and get that conviction! :thumbs:

Why haven't they been prosecuted? Because the other side of the aisle is either complicit or gutless, as the case may be.

Oh. Of course. You can't get a conviction. Not because you don't have a case but because there's another conspiracy to hide "da twoof." ::)

You're sounding more like Gaffney every day.

baja
03-22-2013, 01:14 PM
Well great! You have solid evidence of a conspiracy that will hold up in a court of law. Congratulations! Time to pool your resources with all the other folks in the "Bush Lied" crowd, hire lawyers, and get that conviction! :thumbs:



Oh. Of course. You can't get a conviction. Not because you don't have a case but because there's another conspiracy to hide "da twoof." ::)

You're sounding more like Gaffney every day.

How does it feel Ro? Frustrating?

That's how I feel when I read responses to my take from posters in denial.

The Lone Bolt
03-22-2013, 01:17 PM
How does it feel Ro? Frustrating?

That's how I feel when I read responses to my take from posters in denial.

I'm not the one in denial here. Is it possible that Bush deliberately misled the public? Sure. Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope.

baja
03-22-2013, 01:37 PM
I'm not the one in denial here. Is it possible that Bush deliberately misled the public? Sure. Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope.


5000 Americans dead

100,000 Americans maimed

uncountable Iraqis dead or maimed

One trillion + spent

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION EVER FOUND AND NO EVIDENCE OF THEM EVEN WORKING ON THEM

Several credible sources saying Bush was told the information was not confirmed.

Just what else do you need?

The Lone Bolt
03-22-2013, 01:51 PM
5000 Americans dead

100,000 Americans maimed

uncountable Iraqis dead or maimed

One trillion + spent

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION EVER FOUND AND NO EVIDENCE OF THEM EVEN WORKING ON THEM

Several credible sources saying Bush was told the information was not confirmed.

Just what else do you need?

A conviction in a court of law. What part of "presumed innocence" do you not understand? Or do you just not believe in it?

Requiem
03-22-2013, 01:55 PM
You know why that conviction will never come. Stop being ridiculous. The whole premise behind the Invasion of Iraq was a ****ing farce. Even retards know that.

The Lone Bolt
03-22-2013, 02:04 PM
You know why that conviction will never come. Stop being ridiculous.

No I don't. Please educate me.

Requiem
03-22-2013, 02:12 PM
No I don't. Please educate me.

I suggest you start learning about how the ICC works and go from there.

houghtam
03-22-2013, 02:24 PM
It takes all kinds, I suppose. Lone Bolt has just adopted the Wolfowitz "so we made a mistake...<shrug> whaddya gonna do?" approach to things.

And again, to Lone Bolt's question of what is the point...do you really believe it pointless to investigate (and make public knowledge) the mistakes (or purposeful misleadings) of a previous administration, if for no other reason than, oh I dunno, making sure we don't. ****ing. Do it. Again?

peacepipe
03-22-2013, 02:36 PM
You know why that conviction will never come. Stop being ridiculous. The whole premise behind the Invasion of Iraq was a ****ing farce. Even retards know that.

Waste of time,The bush apologists will never accept the fact that bush started a war on lies.

baja
03-22-2013, 02:38 PM
A conviction in a court of law. What part of "presumed innocence" do you not understand? Or do you just not believe in it?

This country will never prosecute an ex president and I think you know that

Lesser of two evils thingy.

The Lone Bolt
03-22-2013, 03:15 PM
This country will never prosecute an ex president and I think you know that

Lesser of two evils thingy.

Why not? They would have done it to Nixon had he not been pardoned by Ford.

And how about Cheney? He's not en ex-president right?

Honestly sounds to me like you're making excuses.

But lets just assume you're right for a moment. Does that mean we should just abandon presumed innocence?

The Lone Bolt
03-22-2013, 03:17 PM
I suggest you start learning about how the ICC works and go from there.

What specifically about how the ICC works prevents a trial in the US under US laws?

The Lone Bolt
03-22-2013, 03:21 PM
Waste of time,The bush apologists will never accept the fact that bush started a war on lies.

And you will never accept the fact that your accusation of "lies" is unproven. Bad intelligence? You bet. Incompetence? Absolutely. But deliberate deception is nothing but political spin.

The Lone Bolt
03-22-2013, 03:25 PM
It takes all kinds, I suppose. Lone Bolt has just adopted the Wolfowitz "so we made a mistake...<shrug> whaddya gonna do?" approach to things.

And again, to Lone Bolt's question of what is the point...do you really believe it pointless to investigate (and make public knowledge) the mistakes (or purposeful misleadings) of a previous administration, if for no other reason than, oh I dunno, making sure we don't. ****ing. Do it. Again?

Sure. But we've aready gone over all of this. The OP is just repeating the same tired accusations all over again and presenting nothing new. Just sceaming "BUSH LIED" over and over again does nothing to add to our knowledge or prevent future problems.

baja
03-22-2013, 03:45 PM
And you will never accept the fact that your accusation of "lies" is unproven. Bad intelligence? You bet. Incompetence? Absolutely. But deliberate deception is nothing but political spin.

At this level of harm from that level of government "Incompetence" should be a capital punishment worthy crime

It's not like he forgot to tighten the lug nuts on the family station wagon causing the car to wreck and kill grandma...

The Lone Bolt
03-22-2013, 03:49 PM
At this level of harm from that level of government "Incompetence" should be a capital punishment worthy crime

It's not like he forgot to tighten the lug nuts on the family station wagon causing the car to wreck and kill grandma...

I'm not against that. I just wonder how "incompetence" could be legally defined for such purposes.

orinjkrush
03-22-2013, 03:50 PM
What about "if the President does it, its not illegal" don't you understand?
The amount of deception and dishonesty and, frankly, treason, perpetrated by Presidents is beyond belief. FDR confiscating gold. Eisenhower planning to nuke China. Nixon, well, everything. LBJ? dont bother. Kennedy? "Happy Birthday, Mr. Prezident?" On and on and on.
ONe reason they get away with this stuff is because they are insulated and protected by their party minions. The Rs and the Ds are no better than the Nazis. And now the presstitude is no longer a counterbalancing force.
We really have to have term limits for every elected official. Get rid of the professional tapeworms who have lost all touch with main street because they HAVE to perpetually campaign with Wall St. grrrrr

So re. the OP: Bush and Cheyney should be brought up on war crimes, but they won't. And Obama should have to defend his policies before the Supreme Court, but he won't.

And we can go back to wondering if Dumervil is not just a wobegon place.

baja
03-22-2013, 03:52 PM
I'm not against that. I just wonder how "incompetence" could be legally defined for such purposes.


I bet you are that guy that when a women walks up to you and gives you a hug grinding her tits into your chest while pushing her pelvis into your crotch you wonder if she is coming on to you.

The Lone Bolt
03-22-2013, 04:05 PM
I bet you are that guy that when a women walks up to you and gives you a hug grinding her boobies into your chest while pushing her pelvis into your crotch you wonder if she is coming on to you.

And I wonder if you have an answer to my question.

houghtam
03-22-2013, 04:07 PM
I'm not against that. I just wonder how "incompetence" could be legally defined for such purposes.

Unlike baja, I agree with you, but when you get into legal definitions of war crimes and definitions of war crimes, I'm not really sure any of us are qualified to give a meaningful opinion, because there's a lot of legal jungle to wade through, and to my knowledge, none of us have a background in military justice and constitutional authority. We can say what we think all we want, but it all just ends up being an opinion on what we think the Supreme Court would say about x y and z. But there's not much precedent for it, is there?

But you're right. I believe incompetence should be defined just as negligence is for criminal acts. Especially when the evidence shows that it was not only being negligent, but being so co****re about your negligence as to completely ignore evidence which doesn't support the outcome you want. At the very least, if, say, ignoring the expert who said that the tubes where not the type to be used for a centrifuge, wasn't "deliberately deceiving the public" would you not at least agree that it's incompetence or gross negligence?

baja
03-22-2013, 04:07 PM
Let go ask Bush who is down on his 100,000 hectare ranch in Paraguay.

The Lone Bolt
03-22-2013, 04:19 PM
Unlike baja, I agree with you, but when you get into legal definitions of war crimes and definitions of war crimes, I'm not really sure any of us are qualified to give a meaningful opinion, because there's a lot of legal jungle to wade through, and to my knowledge, none of us have a background in military justice and constitutional authority. We can say what we think all we want, but it all just ends up being an opinion on what we think the Supreme Court would say about x y and z. But there's not much precedent for it, is there?

But you're right. I believe incompetence should be defined just as negligence is for criminal acts. Especially when the evidence shows that it was not only being negligent, but being so co****re about your negligence as to completely ignore evidence which doesn't support the outcome you want. At the very least, if, say, ignoring the expert who said that the tubes where not the type to be used for a centrifuge, wasn't "deliberately deceiving the public" would you not at least agree that it's incompetence or gross negligence?

I've said all along that IMO incompetence better fits the facts. And Bush is an idiot.

mhgaffney
03-22-2013, 05:04 PM
Sure. But we've aready gone over all of this. The OP is just repeating the same tired accusations all over again and presenting nothing new. Just sceaming "BUSH LIED" over and over again does nothing to add to our knowledge or prevent future problems.

Dolt in usual fine form.

We need accountability and there is none.

When you don't punish criminals with long term prison sentences, guess what?

They do it again...and again..and again....

mhgaffney
03-22-2013, 05:09 PM
The best evidence that we have no true opposition party in the US -- is the fact that Speaker Pelosi and Obama refused to investigate and prosecute the Bush-Cheney administration for war crimes...

Meanwhile, Obama pushes ahead with drones, new wars and threats of new wars, continuing torture, punishing whistleblowers, on and on...

Obama is Bush on steroids -- but hey he looks so good on TV!!!

The only fair conclusion is that we have a uni-party with two wings -- both of which are controlled by the financial elite.

The republic is terminally dysfunctional.

Rohirrim
03-22-2013, 05:18 PM
I'm not against that. I just wonder how "incompetence" could be legally defined for such purposes.

I know it when I see it.

mhgaffney
03-23-2013, 12:09 PM
British citizens offer award for arrest and prosecution of Tony Blair for war crimes

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34373.htm

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 12:31 PM
The best evidence that we have no true opposition party in the US -- is the fact that Speaker Pelosi and Obama refused to investigate and prosecute the Bush-Cheney administration for war crimes...

Because it was bipartisan policy all along.

mhgaffney
03-23-2013, 04:54 PM
Because it was bipartisan policy all along.

A number of Senators and congressmen have said in private that they received dire briefings about Saddam targeting the US east coast -- and were thus persuaded to vote for war.

These were lies -- used by Bush/Cheney to instill fear and control Congress.

MHG

baja
03-23-2013, 05:30 PM
Interesting that the Patriot Act was written long before 9/11

mhgaffney
03-23-2013, 07:23 PM
From what I have heard -- the Patriot Act was supposed to be unveiled after the 1995 Okla City Bombing -- but the scale of the "terrorism" was not big enough.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 01:09 PM
A number of Senators and congressmen have said in private that they received dire briefings about Saddam targeting the US east coast -- and were thus persuaded to vote for war.

These were lies -- used by Bush/Cheney to instill fear and control Congress.

MHG

So when Clinton spent his whole presidency crying "WMD!!" and "Saddam must go!" it was a Bush/Cheney plot.

Gotcha.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 01:10 PM
From what I have heard -- the Patriot Act was supposed to be unveiled after the 1995 Okla City Bombing -- but the scale of the "terrorism" was not big enough.

From what you heard?

baja
03-24-2013, 01:36 PM
So when Clinton spent his whole presidency crying "WMD!!" and "Saddam must go!" it was a Bush/Cheney plot.

Gotcha.

Do you think Clinton and Bush answered to a different power structure?