View Full Version : The Prosecution of GWB
Obushma
11-17-2010, 07:46 AM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/68_3rjp0Rkw?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/68_3rjp0Rkw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
I don't know if this guy can pull it off, but i'm pulling for him.
Pony Boy
11-17-2010, 08:37 AM
Good Luck Dick Head
27538
Smiling Assassin27
11-17-2010, 08:50 AM
Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.
Obushma
11-17-2010, 08:53 AM
Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.
So its crazy that the man who prosecuted Charles Manson is now going after GWB? Something tells me this isn't a guy who goes after a case that he has no chance of winning.
cutthemdown
11-17-2010, 09:02 AM
So its crazy that the man who prosecuted Charles Manson is now going after GWB? Something tells me this isn't a guy who goes after a case that he has no chance of winning.
lol
Pony Boy
11-17-2010, 09:12 AM
So its crazy that the man who prosecuted Charles Manson is now going after GWB? Something tells me this isn't a guy who goes after a case that he has no chance of winning.
For christ sake..... I could of prosecuted Charles Manson LOL
Obushma
11-17-2010, 09:21 AM
lol
Can you explain why we didn't send one person to Tora Bora?
For christ sake..... I could of prosecuted Charles Manson LOL
Well, you got to give it up for the guy, he knows his psychopaths.
cutthemdown
11-17-2010, 10:04 AM
Of course I can't explain any military operations. I am a layman. I have never sent troops to fight, fought myself, been around to watch a war, or close enough to know how crappy it is.
I do know our military kicks ass. I also know that they are way better at it then I will ever hope to be. I'm sure it's easy to second guess commanders on Tora Bora.
BroncoLifer
11-17-2010, 10:52 AM
So its crazy that the man who prosecuted Charles Manson is now going after GWB? Something tells me this isn't a guy who goes after a case that he has no chance of winning.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non+sequitur
Obushma
11-17-2010, 11:22 AM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non+sequitur
Why would the man who prosecuted Manson, try and take a case like this? I may not agree with the man politically, but the Iraq invasion wasn't justifiable.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/68_3rjp0Rkw?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/68_3rjp0Rkw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
I don't know if this guy can pull it off, but i'm pulling for him.
Thank you for this.
..and your avatar is right as far as I can see.
When Obama announced he was letting the Bush administration off the hook I knew our last hope that was the election of Obama had been false hope.
That is pretty much when I stopped posting in this forum. I knew there was no turning around the fall of the American Empire and all that was left to do was to live in nature and wait until the whole cancerous system ate itself from the inside out and died. Staying out of harm's way, ready to be a part of the rebuild became the new plan.
mhgaffney
11-17-2010, 01:24 PM
Let's hope this succeeds. I read his book.
Don't forget, legal expert Francis Boyle has also filed a brief at the Hague -- now under review. Soon GW Bush and Cheney won't be able to show their faces outside the US -- for fear of being arrested on the spot.
mhgaffney
11-17-2010, 01:26 PM
Of course I can't explain any military operations. I am a layman. I have never sent troops to fight, fought myself, been around to watch a war, or close enough to know how crappy it is.
I do know our military kicks ass. I also know that they are way better at it then I will ever hope to be. I'm sure it's easy to second guess commanders on Tora Bora.
You mean they kill a lot of people. Does that make us fit to lead the world? I say no.
Remember, the Nazis also kicked ass.
What a crackpot. Congress voted on going to war.
"We invaded Iraq without any provocation at all". Oh the humor.
Where was the call for prosecuting Kennedy or LBJ for murder? You guys really have some screws loose.
One poster sees Kennedy as his hero on this board. Please tell me the difference between Kennedy and Bush in this regard? Kennedy's war ended up killing over 3M people and still left the country enslaved when it was over.
mhgaffney
11-17-2010, 03:07 PM
JJJ still thinks Saddam did 9/11.
He also still thinks JFK was responsible for the Viet Nam War.
This level of ignorance is nothing short of stupifying.
Where does one even begin?
TailgateNut
11-17-2010, 03:23 PM
Let's hope this succeeds. I read his book.
Don't forget, legal expert Francis Boyle has also filed a brief at the Hague -- now under review. Soon GW Bush and Cheney won't be able to show their faces outside the US -- for fear of being arrested on the spot.
One can only hope. Cheney needs to be sent to the gallows and Dubya to prison.
JJJ still thinks Saddam did 9/11.
He also still thinks JFK was responsible for the Viet Nam War.
This level of ignorance is nothing short of stupifying.
Where does one even begin?
Another moronic statement from the conspiracy king.
I always forget that if a Democrat either starts a war, votes for a war, or prolongs a war he really didn't mean it.
I would love to hear your conspiracy theory that relieves Kennedy of any responsibilty for Vietnam. Should be good for more than a few laughs.
Kennedy and LBJ were both huge supports of Diem fom day one. I think it was LBJ who called him the Winston Churchill of Vietnam.
I suppose Kennedy had nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs also, another invasion of a sovereign country fully sponsored by the US.
TailgateNut
11-17-2010, 03:32 PM
Another moronic statement from the conspiracy king.
I always forget that if a Democrat either starts a war, votes for a war, or prolongs a war he really didn't mean it.
I would love to hear your conspiracy theory that relieves Kennedy of any responsibilty for Vietnam. Should be good for more than a few laughs.
Kennedy and LBJ were both huge supports of Diem fom day one. I think it was LBJ who called him the Winston Churchill of Vietnam.
I suppose Kennedy had nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs also, another invasion of a sovereign country fully sponsored by the US.
You didn't respond to his statement re: Saddam and 9/11
Do you still believe that he was involved and had WMD's? Just two of the reasons your hero used to justify and twist support for his revenge tour in Iraq.
You didn't respond to his statement re: Saddam and 9/11
Do you still believe that he was involved and had WMD's? Just two of the reasons your hero used to justify and twist support for his revenge tour in Iraq.
No and no. This is why I said his statement was moronic. Not able to patch that together huh?
Bush never claimed Saddam was directly involved in 9-11. He said he was a potential harborer of terrorism, quite a true statement.
The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.
The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".[1] Additional reasons have been suggested: "to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it."[2] For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
mhgaffney
11-17-2010, 05:34 PM
For that matter, the US is a harbor of terrorism.
And when it comes to WMD -- no nation comes close to the US record. We are the only nation, after all, to use nukes against someone. You don't know this?
Ever heard the words Hiroshima? Nagasaki?
Maybe the whole world should invade the US in order to stop our out of control US war machine -- dismantle our nukes, our chemical and bio weapons...etc etc
And transform our swords into plowshares...
They'd be doing us a big favor. Let it happen!
TailgateNut
11-17-2010, 07:02 PM
No and no. This is why I said his statement was moronic. Not able to patch that together huh?
Bush never claimed Saddam was directly involved in 9-11. He said he was a potential harborer of terrorism, quite a true statement.
The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.
The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".[1] Additional reasons have been suggested: "to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it."[2] For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
how can you type while supporting Bushs' nutsack with both hands?
No and no. This is why I said his statement was moronic. Not able to patch that together huh?
Bush never claimed Saddam was directly involved in 9-11. He said he was a potential harborer of terrorism, quite a true statement.
The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.
The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".[1] Additional reasons have been suggested: "to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it."[2] For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
Did you watch this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68_3rjp0Rkw&feature=player_embedded
Missouribronc
11-17-2010, 07:51 PM
You fellas are definitely right.
This world is a worse place because Saddam Hussein is dead.
I wish he were still alive. What a difference he made. He was a true leader of mankind. Someone to look up to, definitely.
You fellas are definitely right.
This world is a worse place because Saddam Hussein is dead.
I wish he were still alive. What a difference he made. He was a true leader of mankind. Someone to look up to, definitely.
Yep we got Saddam the bad man good and dead, below is what it cost in US lives.
US lives lost in the Iraq war;
One in six were too young to buy a beer. About two dozen were old enough for an AARP card. Eleven died on Thanksgiving Day, 11 on Christmas, and at least five on their birthdays. One percent were named Smith.
As the nation approaches its 4,000th Iraq war fatality — on Thursday the toll stood at 3,983 servicemembers plus eight Defense Department civilians — a USA TODAY analysis shows who gave their lives, where they came from and how they fell:
Worth it?
You fellas are definitely right.
This world is a worse place because Saddam Hussein is dead.
I wish he were still alive. What a difference he made. He was a true leader of mankind. Someone to look up to, definitely.
Direct costs
A Marine Corps M1 Abrams tank patrols a Baghdad street after its fall in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.[2]
ndirect and delayed costs
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]
Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[11] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[11]
The extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring.[12][13]
Long-term health care costs
A recent study indicated that the long term health care costs for wounded Iraq war veterans could range from $350 billion to $700 billion.[14]
Those figures are significantly more than typical estimates published just prior to the start of the Iraq War, many of which were based on a shorter term of involvement. For example, in a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement."[3].
Worth it to kill the bad man?
You fellas are definitely right.
This world is a worse place because Saddam Hussein is dead.
I wish he were still alive. What a difference he made. He was a true leader of mankind. Someone to look up to, definitely.
Iraqis killed in 5 years of war with the US.
War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.
Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.
"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq."The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations.The report's release came as nearly four dozen Baghdad civilians became casualties in another day of bombs and gunfire.
Bad Saddam is dead, worth it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missouribronc
You fellas are definitely right.
This world is a worse place because Saddam Hussein is dead.
I wish he were still alive. What a difference he made. He was a true leader of mankind. Someone to look up to, definitely.
Did I mention this was a war the George Bush lied the usa into?
cutthemdown
11-17-2010, 10:33 PM
Hell the govt couldn't even convict the terrorist they just tried.
Iraqis killed in 5 years of war with the US.
War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.
Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.
"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq."The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations.The report's release came as nearly four dozen Baghdad civilians became casualties in another day of bombs and gunfire.
Bad Saddam is dead, worth it?
Complete rubbish of a number and you know it. Lancet has had this completely wrong from the beginning. The estimate is high by a factor of 5. The figure 500 a day every day of the war up to June 2006 is just a laughably ludicrous figure. But we have been over this a million times in this forum.
Worth it? For Iraqis probably yes. Saddam was killing them in droves before the war. Only thing worth fighting for is freedom. They have it now and it is theirs to blow or embrace.
For America that is much harder question. Most would probably say no.
But it definitely without doubt is not a war crime of any sort.
TailgateNut
11-17-2010, 11:20 PM
Hell the govt couldn't even convict the terrorist they just tried.
Tells ya something doesn't it, musicman?
TailgateNut
11-17-2010, 11:23 PM
Complete rubbish of a number and you know it. Lancet has had this completely wrong from the beginning. The estimate is high by a factor of 5. The figure 500 a day every day of the war up to June 2006 is just a laughably ludicrous figure. But we have been over this a million times in this forum.
Worth it? For Iraqis probably yes. Saddam was killing them in droves before the war. Only thing worth fighting for is freedom. They have it now and it is theirs to blow or embrace.
For America that is much harder question. Most would probably say no.
But it definitely without doubt is not a war crime of any sort.
Had anyone else started this war, they wouldalready face a war tribunal. Bush and Co need to swing from the gallows.
mhgaffney
11-18-2010, 01:30 AM
Complete rubbish of a number and you know it. Lancet has had this completely wrong from the beginning. The estimate is high by a factor of 5. The figure 500 a day every day of the war up to June 2006 is just a laughably ludicrous figure. But we have been over this a million times in this forum.
Worth it? For Iraqis probably yes. Saddam was killing them in droves before the war. Only thing worth fighting for is freedom. They have it now and it is theirs to blow or embrace.
For America that is much harder question. Most would probably say no.
But it definitely without doubt is not a war crime of any sort.
You are clueless. We destroyed the nation of Iraq. Saddam was a bad man -- but even so -- the people of Iraq were much better off before the US invasion than they are now. This is a no brainer.
The average Iraqi had a much better life under Saddam. There was socialized medicine available to everyone, subsidized food and gas, access to high education. Iraq had the Arab world's largest university system -- and a a large intellectual class. Iraq was a secular state in which women had rights -- and could advance in many fields.
The nation was rapidly developing economically and industrially. All now destroyed. After 2003 -- the wealthy and intellectual classes fled the country. Several million Iraqi refugees live scattered around the region.
The infrastructure is gone -- destroyed. Even today there are electrical shortages. How can this be? Because the US was never interested in rebuilding the nation. The whole point of the war was to render Iraq prostrate. In large part the US did the bidding of the Zionists, who wanted the country destroyed so it could never challenge Israel again.
We did that. We also sowed the land and air with toxic depleted uranium -- which has resulted in epidemic levels of cancer and birth defects. This is forever -- given DU's half life of 4.5 billion years.
As for the body count -- no one knows. But the US embargo alone -- between 1991 - 2002 - was responsible for the unnecessary deaths of a half million Iraqi children. This number is not controversial and keep in mind, this was BEFORE the 2003 war -- and does not include the fatalities in the war and since. Best estimates are over a million dead -- and this qualifies as genocide.
So no, we did not help Iraq -- just the opposite. By any reasonable standard -- we are talking about war crimes.
Get a clue. Given everything that;s happened -- your willful ignorance is disgraceful.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 03:20 AM
Good Luck Dick Head
27538
Spoken like the quintessential moral retard.
Bush may be a crook, but he's your crook, eh? :oyvey:
mhgaffney
11-18-2010, 03:29 AM
UN urges full US torture investigation
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/151336.html
The United Nations has called on the United States to conduct a full investigation into torture under the administration of former US President George W. Bush.
The UN special rapporteur on torture, Juan Ernesto Mendez, urged Washington on Tuesday to prosecute offenders as well as senior officials who ordered the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
"The United States has a duty to investigate every act of torture. Unfortunately, we haven't seen much in the way of accountability," Mendez told Reuters.
The Argentinean diplomat also said he plans to visit Iraq to investigate what he called a "very widespread practice of torture" of detainees by US-led forces, following the 2003 occupation of the war-torn country.
The new UN expert who, himself, is a victim of prison torture during Argentina's dictatorship in the 1970s, also plans to visit Guantanamo prison.
Mendez says he wants to conduct his own probe there on condition that US officials allow him to interview prisoners still being held at Guantanamo by the Obama administration.
He also condemned Bush's comments in his recently published memoir, "Decision Points."
In his book, Bush confirms that he personally approved a request by CIA agents to use waterboarding and other forms of torture in the interrogation of so-called "terror suspects." He claims that his decision helped save lives.
Bush's autobiography, which has been much publicized in the mainstream media, is considered as an attempt to politically resurrect the ex-president's badly-tainted reputation during his tenure.
This is while many human rights activists believe that Bush is a war criminal who should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
Among his crimes are unleashing two wars on Afghanistan and Iraq following the September, 11, 2001 event. The ongoing conflicts have killed over a million Afghan and Iraqi civilians and left nearly 6,000 US soldiers dead.
The unpopular former US leader is also blamed for the torture of hundreds of Iraqis, Afghans and other Muslims in US detention facilities such as Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Bagram in Afghanistan and Guantanamo in Cuba.
Last week, Amnesty International, stated that the United States must prosecute Bush for torture after a criminal probe into his admissions.
During recent month, the United States' human rights records have come under scrutiny.
In an unprecedented move two weeks ago, the United Nations Human Rights Council launched an investigation into the country's rights violations for the first time.
Although the assessment leads to no action, it undermines Washington's immunity from punishment over torture, continued military trials, detentions and targeted drone killings in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 03:30 AM
You fellas are definitely right.
This world is a worse place because Saddam Hussein is dead.
I wish he were still alive. What a difference he made. He was a true leader of mankind. Someone to look up to, definitely.
::)
You can ID a Bush blower instantly by his use of the above "logic," i.e., that everything Bush did in Iraq can be justified or excused by the fact that Saddam is gone.
http://www.bartcop.com/kanye-bush-makeup.jpg
You are clueless. We destroyed the nation of Iraq. Saddam was a bad man -- but even so -- the people of Iraq were much better off before the US invasion than they are now. This is a no brainer.
The average Iraqi had a much better life under Saddam. There was socialized medicine available to everyone, subsidized food and gas, access to high education. Iraq had the Arab world's largest university system -- and a a large intellectual class. Iraq was a secular state in which women had rights -- and could advance in many fields.
The nation was rapidly developing economically and industrially. All now destroyed. After 2003 -- the wealthy and intellectual classes fled the country. Several million Iraqi refugees live scattered around the region.
The infrastructure is gone -- destroyed. Even today there are electrical shortages. How can this be? Because the US was never interested in rebuilding the nation. The whole point of the war was to render Iraq prostrate. In large part the US did the bidding of the Zionists, who wanted the country destroyed so it could never challenge Israel again.
We did that. We also sowed the land and air with toxic depleted uranium -- which has resulted in epidemic levels of cancer and birth defects. This is forever -- given DU's half life of 4.5 billion years.
As for the body count -- no one knows. But the US embargo alone -- between 1991 - 2002 - was responsible for the unnecessary deaths of a half million Iraqi children. This number is not controversial and keep in mind, this was BEFORE the 2003 war -- and does not include the fatalities in the war and since. Best estimates are over a million dead -- and this qualifies as genocide.
So no, we did not help Iraq -- just the opposite. By any reasonable standard -- we are talking about war crimes.
Get a clue. Given everything that;s happened -- your willful ignorance is disgraceful.
Amazing how wrong someone can be so many times in a row.
Please answer the question on why Kennedy and LBJ are not war criminals.
TonyR
11-18-2010, 12:38 PM
Hell the govt couldn't even convict the terrorist they just tried.
Do you know why?
The only thing to say about the remarkable acquittals on almost all counts for a tortured prisoner of war is that torture renders convictions all but impossible. By throwing aside all norms for prisoner treatment and setting up an apparatus of systemic torture, Bush and Cheney destroyed critical evidence that could have been used by the prosecution to convict. Greenwald notes ( http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/18/trials ) that military commissions would have been constrained in exactly the same way.
Hence Bush's and Cheney's legacy.
They made it close to impossible to convict most of the terror suspects they seized and tortured in any trial whatsoever; and prudence demands that such radicalized terror suspects not simply be let go to strike again. So we get the worst of both worlds. We could, it seems to me, have made a case for indefinite detention as prisoners of war until the conflict ends - as long as prisoners of war were treated humanely. But we really can't make such a case when those prisoners have been abused and tortured. So the US indefinitely will be forced to detain torture victims for the rest of their lives.
This is not Obama's fault. It is Bush's and Cheney's - because of their incoherent, short-sighted and barbaric choices in the first years of the war.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/the-ghailani-verdict-and-the-price-of-torture.html
Bronco_Beerslug
11-18-2010, 12:42 PM
What a crackpot. Congress voted on going to war.
"We invaded Iraq without any provocation at all". No, Congress was lied to by the Bush cartel, which is obvious now. Are you trying to defend them (the Bush cartel)?
No, Congress was lied to by the Bush cartel, which is obvious now. Are you trying to defend them (the Bush cartel)?
There is no evidence of lying to Congress.
Are Kennedy and LBJ war criminals? Yes or no?
Rohirrim
11-18-2010, 01:51 PM
There is no evidence of lying to Congress.
Are Kennedy and LBJ war criminals? Yes or no?
I can understand the argument for LBJ - the whole Gulf of Tonkin charade. But why JFK?
Frankly, I'm so tired of the argument used to protect Bush from manning up for his criminality. It's basically the same argument the tobacco industry used - if you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. Children don't even buy that ****. Of course, Bush's entire life story is just one long chain of ****-ups covered up by Daddy and his pals.
Spider
11-18-2010, 02:15 PM
Amazing how wrong someone can be so many times in a row. I think you are shooting for some kind of omane record ...... good luck
Please answer the question on why Kennedy and LBJ are not war criminals.
LBJ , probably , I am probably going to regret asking this .... but why JFK ?
orinjkrush
11-18-2010, 02:19 PM
doesn't a crime require "criminal intent"? so, what did he know and when did he know it? I'm talking about how FDR egged us into WWII because he was Winston Churchill's bitch. and then, how he and Navy intelligence knew that the Japs were going to hit us at Pearl (since we had the codes broken already).
Or maybe how TR knew that the Maine wasn't blown up by terrorists, but rather exploded because of ****ty battleship design, but he decided that the USA needed to carry a big stick worldwide with the great white fleet?
jeez people. us common folk will NEVER know what they knew and when they knew it.
There is no evidence of lying to Congress.
<b>Are Kennedy and LBJ war criminals? Yes or no?
I never understood this logic.
Did you rape that girl?
Yes but there were 2 or 3 other guys raping her too.
How does that excuse you?
I can understand the argument for LBJ - the whole Gulf of Tonkin charade. But why JFK?
Frankly, I'm so tired of the argument used to protect Bush from manning up for his criminality. It's basically the same argument the tobacco industry used - if you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. Children don't even buy that ****. Of course, Bush's entire life story is just one long chain of ****-ups covered up by Daddy and his pals.
Is this a serious question?
Kennedy is the father of the Vietnam war.
His actions launched a war that killed 4m people.
He twice tripled troop levels in 1961 and 1962 and in total increased the number of military personnel in country from 900 to 16,000.
His administration basically approved the coup and murder of Diem and his ambassador to South Vietnam invited the coup leaders to the embassy to congratulate them.
Johnson simply continued on the policies of Kennedy.
The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. In 1961, the USA had 50,000 troops based in Korea, and Kennedy faced a three-part crisis—the failure of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the construction of the Berlin Wall, and a negotiated settlement between the pro-Western government of Laos and the Pathet Lao communist movement[94] These made Kennedy believe that another failure on the part of the United States to gain control and stop communist expansion would fatally damage U.S. credibility with its allies and his own reputation. Kennedy determined to "draw a line in the sand" and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam, saying, "Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place", to James Reston of The New York Times immediately after meeting Khrushchev in Vienna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
He also attacked Cuba sending 5000 Cubans and a handful of Americans to their death at the Bay of Pigs.
Remember Kennedy's famous motto: "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty."
If Bush is a war criminal so is Kennedy by the criteria being bantied around here. You have a war criminal on your avatar. Cool.
I never understood this logic.
Did you rape that girl?
Yes but there were 2 or 3 other guys raping her too.
How does that excuse you?
So you agree that Kennedy and LBJ are war criminals, yes?
TailgateNut
11-18-2010, 02:52 PM
There is no evidence of lying to Congress.
Are Kennedy and LBJ war criminals? Yes or no?
Your ignorance surpasses that of McSkillet. Congratulations, you are the new village idiot!
Your ignorance surpasses that of McSkillet. Congratulations, you are the new village idiot!
Please answer the question.
TailgateNut
11-18-2010, 03:09 PM
Please answer the question.
Should put the dead on trial? I don't think so.
Should we put Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the crime syndicate on the stand? YES! Immediately.
So you agree that Kennedy and LBJ are war criminals, yes?
No I'm saying your "but mom all the other kids do it" argument is a stupid one.
No I'm saying your "but mom all the other kids do it" argument is a stupid one.
Should history treat Kennedy and LBJ as war criminals, yes or no? It is a simple question.
TailgateNut
11-18-2010, 03:16 PM
Should history treat Kennedy and LBJ as war criminals, yes or no? It is a simple question.
This works well when you go to court to face charges. Just tell the judge: "wasn't there someone decades ago who should have been tried?"
Putting the dead on trial!Hilarious! Only the Neocons come up with **** like that!
Should history treat Kennedy and LBJ as war criminals, yes or no? It is a simple question.
I don't have an opinion because I am not that well informed on their situations
Bush is a war criminal and for the sake of future presidencies and global relations he should be tried as such.
You argument remains pointless.
TailgateNut
11-18-2010, 03:20 PM
May I rent this to respond to Mr Deflection?
"I don't have an opinion because I am not that well informed on their situations
Bush is a war criminal and for the sake of future presidencies and global relations he should be tried as such.
You argument remains pointless."
This works well when you go to court to face charges. Just tell the judge: "wasn't there someone decades ago who should have been tried?"
Putting the dead on trial!Hilarious! Only the Neocons come up with **** like that!
Putting the dead on trial are your words, not mine. I said if you judge Bush to be a war criminal then you must also judge Kennedy and LBJ as war criminals.
I think lurking is more up your alley. This posting stuff is just too challenging for you.
I don't have an opinion because I am not that well informed on their situations
Bush is a war criminal and for the sake of future presidencies and global relations he should be tried as such.
You argument remains pointless.
Two presidents launched and escalated a war that resulted in 4m deaths and you have no opinion on it and are not informed of the Vietnam war.
When the arguments run in your favor you seem to be a real history buff. But when it comes to your guys, suddenly amnesia.
Pathetic response really.
Two presidents launched and escalated a war that resulted in 4m deaths and you have no opinion on it and are not informed of the Vietnam war.
When the arguments run in your favor you seem to be a real history buff. But when it comes to your guys, suddenly amnesia.
Pathetic response really.
Are you planning on trying all three together?
Are you planning on trying all three together?
In the court of public opinion, the only trial that will be held for any of them, yes.
In the court of public opinion, the only trial that will be held for any of them, yes.
Most people don't remember what they had for breakfast so good luck with that public opinion thingy.
Obushma
11-18-2010, 04:25 PM
Johnson is guilty of committing a false flag in the Gulf of Tonkin that started the Vietnam War. So yes, as far as i'm concerned you can label Johnson with Bush as a traitor to the American people.
As far as JFK is concerned, you think JFK in his three months as president planned out the Bay of Pigs invasion? No, that **** was a CIA operation, many aspects of which were already planned out before JFK became president. 4,000-5,000 people killed is not the genocide we witnessed under GWB.
mhgaffney
11-18-2010, 04:57 PM
Some of you need to get up to speed about JFK. Here is the definite book -- complete with 100 pages of notes. I believe the first edition appeared in 2007 or 2008.
You need to understand how JFK was bushwacked by the CIA -- pressured by the Pentagon - and ultimately betrayed by hard liners -- including hawks in his own administration.
Here's a thumbnail: JFk started as a hawk himself but underwent a sea change after the Cuban missile crisis. During the last year of his life JFK was preparing to exit Viet Nam, end the Cold War, dismember the CIA, bring an end to the nuclear arms race, and prepare the American people to live in peace.
This is why he was murdered. It's also why the silly posts about JFK being a war criminal are hogwash. JFK was the last US president to stand up to Wall Street -- and Israel. Had he lived JFK might even have blocked Israel's nuclear weapons program.
MHG
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters [Paperback]
James W. Douglass
Here's a review of the book posted at Amazon:
In James W. Douglass' outstanding new book, "JFK and the Unspeakable," the author explains the title in his introduction. Coined by spiritual writer Thomas Merton, The Unspeakable refers to "an evil whose depth and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe." Regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Unspeakable succeeded due to deniability by the nation's citizens of the horrifying truth of the event and to plausible deniability by the government agencies responsible for the murder. (Vincent Bugliosi's recent fictional paperweight is a perfect example of the plausible deniability that allows the Unspeakable to thrive.)
Many excellent books have proven that the assassination of JFK was the result of a conspiracy. Douglass verifies the certainty of the conspiracy and, as the subtitle of the book states, explains "Why He Died and Why It Matters." He scrutinizes the historical facts surrounding the assassination, from the creation of the CIA to the gradual obliteration of the freedoms upon which this nation was founded.
This book is primarily the story of John F. Kennedy who changes from a Cold Warrior to an altruistic leader willing to risk his life to ensure that the world's children will not become victims of a nuclear catastrophe. Equal time is spent on JFK's presidency as on the assassination but one of the many rewards of this book is the author's capacity to show the relationship between his policies and his death. And the book is a tragedy because it gradually becomes obvious that each step he makes toward peace steadily increases the hatred of his enemies who will eventually betray him.
It is also the story of the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Moved around the country like a pawn by government agencies (as was the second "Oswald"), he was being set up as the scapegoat. Enter some despicable characters, including David Atlee Philips, James Hosty and, of course, Michael and Ruth Paine. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union was being set up as the evil empire behind the assassination, along with its satellite Cuba.
Douglass credibly illustrates the origin of the Crime of the Century. During President Truman's administration, the CIA was empowered to be a paramilitary organization with unlimited powers. Truman's successor, President Eisenhower, fell out of favor with the CIA when he planned a summit meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. This was cancelled after a U.S. spy plane crashed in Russia. Eisenhower had reportedly ordered such flights cancelled and had his suspicions about who had ruined his peace plan. He subsequently issued his warning about the "military industrial complex" in his farewell address. But he didn't defy "this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry." He left that task to his successor, JFK.
The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was planned by the CIA to regain control of the island and to re-open the casinos for organized crime. President Kennedy refused to provide air support for the Cuban brigade because he knew that he had been lied to by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by the CIA; the invasion had been designed to fail without U.S. support but they hadn't told this to JFK who refused to fall into their trap. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK once again enraged the CIA and the Joint Chiefs by resisting their tremendous pressure on him to take military action which would have led to nuclear war.
Following that crisis, JFK became intent on ending the Cold War by establishing a peaceful relationship with the Soviet Union. However, many CIA and Pentagon personnel believed that it was better to be "dead than red" and that it was preferable to destroy civilization rather than let the Communists rule. They also knew that war generated billions of dollars into the arms industry. As a result, they would repeatedly subvert the President's policies and isolate him within his own government. Enter some more despicable characters: Richard Bissell, Charles Cabell, Henry Cabot Lodge, Lyman Lemnitzer, Curtis LeMay and perhaps the most contemptible of all, Allen Dulles. Ironically, JFK learned to trust Khrushchev more than people within his own government.
At American University on June 10, 1963, JFK spoke about his desire for world peace. He communicated his resolve to form a new relationship with Khrushchev. He spoke about the necessity of a pursuit toward disarmament. He related his intentions to establish a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He acknowledged his country's past faults and recognized the Russian people as wanting peace as much as the American people. "And we are all mortal," he stated. Though this extremely important speech was ignored in the United States, it was disseminated throughout the Soviet Union, per order of Khrushchev, who was prepared to respond favorably to JFK's peace initiative. The speech also certified JFK's death warrant. With so many powerful enemies opposing his policies and hating him, JFK didn't have a chance as he was being maneuvered into the crossfire in Dallas.
President Kennedy was aware of the power of his enemies and he knew the dangers facing him. But he persevered and mandated that all U.S. personnel would be withdrawn from Vietnam; he was determined to never send in combat troops even if this meant defeat. He also refused to intervene militarily in Laos. He exchanged private letters with Khrushchev, which infuriated the CIA, and secretly initiated plans to attain rapproachement with Cuba, which further incensed the Agency. Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA hated as intensely as it hated Kennedy, was equally eager to begin an American-Cuba dialogue. In fact, Castro was meeting with a JFK representative when the President was murdered. JFK died a martyr and the forces of evil that killed him also killed his vision of peace.
Lyndon Johnson, the CIA's ally, assumed the presidency. He cancelled talks with Khrushchev and refused Castro's pleas to continue the dialogue. He reversed JFK's withdrawal plan from Vietnam as well as his plan to neutralize Laos. The military industrial complex took control of the country. The policy of plausible deniability led the way to assassinations of foreign leaders, the overthrowing of foreign governments and horrors committed all over the globe. If JFK had not been murdered, we would not have had the prolongation of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the purported War on Terror and the steady moral deterioration of America. Interestingly, one month after JFK's assassination, President Truman wrote an article for The Washington Post cautioning about the threat of the CIA taking over America.
The author meticulously examines the evidence and draws conclusions which ring with unassailable truth: (1) The CIA coordinated and implemented he assassination of President Kennedy, an act of treason which destroyed democracy in the U.S. (2) The Warren Commission was created to propagate lies to conceal the truth from the American people. (3)There has been a continued cover-up by successive administrations and their stooges in the mass media. (4)The murder of JFK is directly related to the current domination of the American people by powerful oppressors within a shadow government that will continue to insist that only sustained war can keep the country safe from its enemies, never admitting that they themselves are the supreme evil.
This is an exceptional book that will be used by future historians to determine the truth about the assassination and how it changed America. And it will also be used to honor John F. Kennedy as a courageous president who believed in doing God's work on earth. In doing so, he came into conflict with the Unspeakable and his life was extinguished.
--by Nick Anez
Missouribronc
11-18-2010, 06:33 PM
::)
You can ID a Bush blower instantly by his use of the above "logic," i.e., that everything Bush did in Iraq can be justified or excused by the fact that Saddam is gone.
I didn't like the end result of Bush's presidency, so nice broad brush paint job once again.
There are a lot of inexcusable things associated with the Iraq war, but what I think you are truly ignorant of is that if Bush I could have taken care of business or if Clinton had the stones to do what should have been done, Bush II wouldn't have had to go into Iraq.
Bronco_Beerslug
11-18-2010, 06:38 PM
or if Clinton had the stones to do what should have been done, Bush II wouldn't have had to go into Iraq.Uh huh. Exactly what was Clinton suppose to do in Iraq since it was Republicans (Reagan) who armed that country and Bush (sr.) who originally attacked it and walked away.
Missouribronc
11-18-2010, 06:46 PM
Uh huh. Exactly what was Clinton suppose to do in Iraq since it was Republicans (Reagan) who armed that country and Bush (sr.) who originally attacked it and walked away.
It was a series of errors by three Presidents regardless of party. Are you a shill, or an independent thinker?
Lobbing cruise missles about once every six months didn't do ****, btw.
Bronco_Beerslug
11-18-2010, 06:48 PM
Putting the dead on trial are your words, not mine. I said if you judge Bush to be a war criminal then you must also judge Kennedy and LBJ as war criminals.
So what, you said it, is that suppose to mean something? The Bush cartel definitely lied this country to war. The Vietnam war was started in the 50s and all the presidents during that period are dead so your point is completely nonsense, pointless and not valid.
Right Wing talking points like these are what make Republicans look like uneducated, ignorant rednecks.
Bronco_Beerslug
11-18-2010, 06:49 PM
It was a series of errors by three Presidents regardless of party. BS!! You just stated it was Clinton's fault Bush had to attack, invade and occupy Iraq.
Missouribronc
11-18-2010, 06:58 PM
BS!! You just stated it was Clinton's fault Bush had to attack, invade and occupy Iraq.
I see that I typed "could" instead of "couldn't" in regards to Bush one. I figure most independent thinkers could have figured out the unfortunate typo using sound logic in regards to the topic being discussed, i.e., obviously nothing was really holding Bush I back and he obviously did not take care of business.
I apologize for the typo, but your partisan logic is duelly noted.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 07:24 PM
Two presidents launched and escalated a war that resulted in 4m deaths and you have no opinion on it and are not informed of the Vietnam war.
The difference?
LBJ was reviled by liberals.
Conservatives, on the other hand, continue to defend Bush's war crimes tooth and nail.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 07:28 PM
I didn't like the end result of Bush's presidency, so nice broad brush paint job once again.
There are a lot of inexcusable things associated with the Iraq war, but what I think you are truly ignorant of is that if Bush I could have taken care of business or if Clinton had the stones to do what should have been done, Bush II wouldn't have had to go into Iraq.
Huh?
You're arguing that GeeDubya had to invade and occupy Iraq?
Even now when we all know Bush's reasons for invading were all bullsh*t?
Unbelievable! :oyvey:
Missouribronc
11-18-2010, 07:38 PM
Huh?
You're arguing that GeeDubya had to invade and occupy Iraq?
Even now when we all know Bush's reasons for invading were all bullsh*t?
Unbelievable! :oyvey:
The Iraq war was inevitable, if Bush made a mistake, it was using 9-11 and WMDs as an excuse to do what should have been done years before.
Why did Clinton lob cruise missiles in every six months? Because he didn't have the stones to finish what should have been finished long before.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 07:50 PM
The Iraq war was inevitable...
Are you serious?
Every argument the right has put forth in support of this canard has been blown to pieces.
Iraq was not a threat to us.
Prior to Bush's invasion, Iraq didn't even have the capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Both Colin Powell and Condi Rice are on record saying as much in 2001.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 07:54 PM
Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.
In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.
Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/colin-powell-said-iraq-was-not-a-threat
.
Missouribronc
11-18-2010, 07:56 PM
Then why did Clinton continue to lob cruise missiles into Bahgdad?
Missouribronc
11-18-2010, 07:59 PM
That blog attributes nothing.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 08:01 PM
Then why did Clinton continue to lob cruise missiles into Bahgdad?
"Continue?"
You make it sound like Clinton did this on a regular basis or something.
In any case, did you read what Powell and Rice said in 2001?
The policies that were in place before Bush came along were working.
In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.
Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 08:03 PM
That blog attributes nothing.
It's not a "blog."
John Pilger is a documentary film maker who interviewed both Powell and Rice on the dates given.
The quotes are on video.
Missouribronc
11-18-2010, 08:06 PM
It's not a "blog."
John Pilger is a documentary film maker who interviewed both Powell and Rice on the dates given.
The quotes are on video.
Where?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 08:08 PM
Where?
In Pilger's TV documentary "Breaking the Silence" (2003.)
Missouribronc
11-18-2010, 08:21 PM
In Pilger's TV documentary "Breaking the Silence" (2003.)
Nothing like cherry-picking a few quotes, which were probably out of context.
I was hoping for a sit down one on one admission. That would have certainly changed my mind. What I saw...not so much.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 08:25 PM
Nothing like cherry-picking a few quotes, which were probably out of context.
You're making an accusation like this when you haven't even seen the documentary?
Thanks for confirming that facts and evidence have no place in your thinking.
In any case, how could you possibly take those quotes out of context?
They are pretty unequivocal.
The difference?
LBJ was reviled by liberals.
Conservatives, on the other hand, continue to defend Bush's war crimes tooth and nail.
Really? He was alive for 5 years after he left office and I don't recall the Democratic congress bringing him up on war crime charges or anyone in your party even calling for them.
You yourself have defended Johnson's social policies many times in these pages and defended this man who by your definition must be the biggest war criminal in US history. Instead they named the Space Center after him.
One of your heros Kennedy was even more aggressive than Bush in pursuing wars and covert operations, Gaffs silly conpriacy theories aside. The Bay of Pigs led directly to the Cuban missile crisis and led us to the brink of global annihilation.
Kennedy's position on Vietnam is clear from this quote:
In April 1963, Kennedy expressed his assessment of the situation in Vietnam at the time: "We don't have a prayer of staying in Vietnam. Those people hate us. They are going to throw our asses out of there at any point. But I can't give up that territory to the Communists and get the American people to re-elect me".
We have laid bare here in these pages the complete hypocrosy of the democrats on this issue. These calls for Bush's trial are pure political theater.
No, it is clear W will live out his years just as Johnson did, at peace on a Texas ranch.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 11:41 PM
Really? He was alive for 5 years after he left office and I don't recall the Democratic congress bringing him up on war crime charges or anyone in your party even calling for them.
How could you "recall" something that happened before you were born? Ha!
In any case, the American left was calling for LBJ's head during the Vietnam era.
By contrast, right-wing lemmings like you defended Bush's every move in Iraq (and still do.)
You yourself have defended Johnson's social policies many times in these pages and defended this man who by your definition must be the biggest war criminal in US history.
:bs:
You're a liar.
Show me one instance in which I defended Johnson on anything.
On the contrary, I have said on several occasions that, IMO, Johnson was just as evil as Nixon - if not more so.
One of your heros(sic) Kennedy was even more aggressive than Bush in pursuing wars and covert operations, Gaffs silly conpriacy theories aside. The Bay of Pigs led directly to the Cuban missile crisis and led us to the brink of global annihilation.
Good God - your ignorance re: that time in American history is absolutely staggering. :oyvey:
One of the main reasons JFK was assassinated was because he was planning to end the U.S. military presence in Vietnam.
As for the Bay of Pigs, the reason that mission failed was because JFK was sandbagged by the CIA (who deliberately withheld the knowledge that Castro had already learned about the forthcoming invasion.)
Spider
11-19-2010, 07:31 AM
The Iraq war was inevitable, why ? seriously , Saddam spent 20 years fighting Iran , and even with our help he couoldnt whip em , and in the end Saddam couldnt even get himself out of his country , the only thing Saddam attacked and defeated was Kuwait .... if Bush made a mistake, it was using 9-11 and WMDs as an excuse to do what should have been done years before. If ? you are talking out of your ass cause your mouth should know better .... Iraq didnt need to be invaded ......... good grief
Why did Clinton lob cruise missiles in every six months? Because he didn't have the stones to finish what should have been finished long before.
It was very effective on Iraq , hell did you miss the war when we invaded ? Little to no resistance ...... and now you got bands of terrorist using road side bombs , what in the hell leads you to believe Iraq was a power house ?
Rohirrim
11-19-2010, 08:09 AM
I don't remember JFK or LBJ, or any other president, outting a covert CIA agent (which is a felony, BTW) in order to prop up their campaign of lies to start a war. I have no doubt that Bush's worshippers would love to divert the thread into an endless loop of arguments over the distant past. After all, their number one strategy is always to jump to the immediate exploitation of false equivalencies.
And when Cheney sent Powell out to sell the war to the UN on a bunch of lies, why did he explain to Powell that Powell had the most political cache and could afford to take the hit. "Take one for the team," Cheney told Powell. Why would he tell him that if he believed what Powell was about to present was the truth? Of course, he wouldn't. He and Bush knew it was a lie. They knew that yellow cake was a lie. They knew that WMDs were a lie. Remember how seriously Bush took WMD's? Looking under the table... Are they under here? Nope. Over here? Nope. yuk yuk yuk
Too bad we can't bury all the corpses on Bush's ranch like we buried the dead of the Civil War in Robert E. Lee's front yard.
Bronco_Beerslug
11-19-2010, 08:24 AM
I see that I typed "could" instead of "couldn't" in regards to Bush one. I figure most independent thinkers could have figured out the unfortunate typo using sound logic in regards to the topic being discussed, i.e., obviously nothing was really holding Bush I back and he obviously did not take care of business.
I apologize for the typo, but your partisan logic is duelly noted.Oh please. Attacking, invading and occupying countries that are absolutely NO threat to us using lies of imminent nuclear threat is completely unacceptable and people who still support that kind lying and deceit are too.
One of the main reasons JFK was assassinated was because he was planning to end the U.S. military presence in Vietnam.
As for the Bay of Pigs, the reason that mission failed was because JFK was sandbagged by the CIA (who deliberately withheld the knowledge that Castro had already learned about the forthcoming invasion.)
ROFL! Is that you Gaff?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-20-2010, 01:41 AM
ROFL! Is that you Gaff?
So you would deny the evidence for both assertions?
So you would deny the evidence for both assertions?
Of course. Both are complete BS.
That is if you had any real evidence, which you do not.
cutthemdown
11-20-2010, 12:08 PM
Iraq should have been taken care right after Kuwait in early 90's. Bush SR blew it. Had he invaded Iraq, killed Saddam, no way the country votes Clinton in. They would have wanted a repub to finish of Saddam.
World would have been better off had we just done it then.
Spider
11-20-2010, 12:12 PM
Iraq should have been taken care right after Kuwait in early 90's. Bush SR blew it. Had he invaded Iraq, killed Saddam, no way the country votes Clinton in. They would have wanted a repub to finish of Saddam.
World would have been better off had we just done it then.
Iraq had nothing to do with Clinton gettin elected ....... it was the economy , + Bush sr very own read my lips , then raised taxes ....... I dont know where you learned history , but a refresher course is in order
cutthemdown
11-20-2010, 12:29 PM
Iraq had nothing to do with Clinton gettin elected ....... it was the economy , + Bush sr very own read my lips , then raised taxes ....... I dont know where you learned history , but a refresher course is in order
You are right after all that the dem congress made him raise taxes and then Clitnon used that against him. My point is none of that would have mattered had we still been finishing off Iraq. I don't think country would care as much about the whole read my lips thing.
I doubt the country makes a switch at President if we were still fighting.
Spider
11-20-2010, 01:01 PM
You are right after all that the dem congress made him raise taxes and then Clitnon used that against him. My point is none of that would have mattered had we still been finishing off Iraq. I don't think country would care as much about the whole read my lips thing.
I doubt the country makes a switch at President if we were still fighting.
no economics at the time made him raise taxes , and there was no finishing off Iraq , not even today , we keep moving the goal post to what is acceptable what isnt , I dont mind the anti democrat bullshiat , but I do mind people making up their own facts to fit their agenda ...... IS honesty to much to ask ?
Spider
11-20-2010, 01:03 PM
And it was a fellow republican that beat sr up on the read my lips thing ,far worse then Clinton did
Spider
11-20-2010, 01:08 PM
but it is obvious that the The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act had to be enacted under senior , rescission, sky rocketing budget that Reagan left behind was way out of control , inflation adjusted , much like the times we are in now , if a lot of you took couple of hours a day to educate yourself , and see the pattern that after every republicna president out economy gets ****ed up , you wouldnt be so gung ho on voting for bedwetters .......
alot of people think it is funny i have an 8 th grade education , but I take it upon my self to read and study , not just our history , but world history ......
TonyR
11-20-2010, 01:33 PM
"I don't think torture belongs in the American arsenal. I think torture is illegal, is immoral, but I would go further and argue that it doesn't work. These silly scenarios [in which] the terrorist knows where the bomb is that's about to go off in 30 minutes -- that's not reality. Further, you have to judge what you get in information versus the strategic loss that you take when it is revealed, as it will be inevitably, that a country is employing torture.
In Madrid, [I chaired] a working group on intelligence at the time of the revelations of the abuses in Iraq. I was being pummeled by men who are not squeamish, not hand-wringing compassionate folks, [who said] it was worse than immoral -- it was stupid. The information really had very little value, and yet the loss that we took strategically to our reputation is tremendous. This is like going to Las Vegas and throwing down a million dollars to win a nickel.
Finally, you take into account that [using torture] changes the nature of our own society, and that is a tremendous cost. [As for legal justifications], I would find a legal brief more compelling if I knew the lawyer had witnessed an actual waterboarding -- more so, had the author been waterboarded. Let's waterboard a panel of lawyers and see where they come out," - Brian Jenkins, Senior Advisor to the President of the RAND Corporation.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-morrison-jenkins-112010,0,1785787,full.column
I'll never understand the "try Bush as a war criminal" push from the far left.
To me the only crime a POTUS can truly commit is treason, and he has done so if he ever violates the constitution (knowingly or unknowingly) or knowingly undertakes any act that is not in the best interest of the United States.
We give our CIA agents and the like license to kill. We'd restrict that from the person who directs them?
This is not a world of cuddly teddy bears and Bush just ran around tearing their heads off to make us all cry. Did he make some really ****ty choices? Sure as hell did. But I have yet to see anyone produce one bit of evidence suggesting he made those choices without the belief that he was doing what was best for America.
The population of the United States elected an ideologue and they got the results that an ideologue produces. Uninformed, often incorrect decisions based on one man's personal belief and "gut" instead of a pragmatic, democratic decision. The citizenry of the United States then elected that same ideologue again.
The populous has spoken so until there is a smoking gun that he ordered torture, executions, etc. all for some insidious plot to undermine the United States stop wasting everyone's time.
And FYI, if you want to find said smoking gun you'd have a whole lot better luck poking through Dick Chenney's dirty laundry because I'm pretty much positive that ****er was the one leading Bush down such a wrong path, and his motives were far less innocent.
mhgaffney
11-20-2010, 05:18 PM
I'll never understand the "try Bush as a war criminal" push from the far left.
To me the only crime a POTUS can truly commit is treason, and he has done so if he ever violates the constitution (knowingly or unknowingly) or knowingly undertakes any act that is not in the best interest of the United States.
We give our CIA agents and the like license to kill. We'd restrict that from the person who directs them?
This is not a world of cuddly teddy bears and Bush just ran around tearing their heads off to make us all cry. Did he make some really ****ty choices? Sure as hell did. But I have yet to see anyone produce one bit of evidence suggesting he made those choices without the belief that he was doing what was best for America.
The population of the United States elected an ideologue and they got the results that an ideologue produces. Uninformed, often incorrect decisions based on one man's personal belief and "gut" instead of a pragmatic, democratic decision. The citizenry of the United States then elected that same ideologue again.
The populous has spoken so until there is a smoking gun that he ordered torture, executions, etc. all for some insidious plot to undermine the United States stop wasting everyone's time.
And FYI, if you want to find said smoking gun you'd have a whole lot better luck poking through Dick Chenney's dirty laundry because I'm pretty much positive that ****er was the one leading Bush down such a wrong path, and his motives were far less innocent.
No, they did not elect him. Gore won the 2000 election fair and square -- and the Republican party stole the election via campaign fraud in Florida.
If you read the memoir by Bush's Treasury Secretary O'Neill THE PRICE OF LOYALTY you would know that the agenda from day one -- -long before 9/11 -- was to attack and invade Iraq.
9/11 has all the earmarks of a classic false flag operation. Why? Simple. To generate the pretext to stampede the American people in the direction the neo conservatives wanted to go. Others were involved, high level people on Wall Street -- for their own interests.
I also recommend you check out Russ Baker's book FAMILY OF SECRETS about the Bush crime family's rise to power. It started with Prescott Bush's involvement on the board of a Wall Street bank that did business with the Nazis - -well after WW II had started. In fact, the US government shut down the bank for this reason.
This is the pattern the family has followed over the decades, which can be summarized as venal self-interest at the expense of the nation.
In short, your statement that Bush sincerely acted in the best interests of the nation just doesn't withstand scrutiny. And this is just as true of GW's daddy George Herbert W Bush as the son. The senior Bush was at the epicenter of the October Surprise scam in 1980 -- and went on to undermine Reagan's presidency. Incredibly, a vast majority of Americans to this day have no clue either about his central involvement in Iran-Contra-Gate or his role as Mr CIA.
But the issue at present is torture. And the bottom line is that torture is a war crime. GW Bush cannot hide behind his incompetent lawyers. The buck stops with the president. Remember, we are talking about an individual who has never been man enough to admit ever making a mistake.
Bush must be held accountable.
The only reason you go on making excuses for GW is because you don't know any better. However, this is no excuse. People like you need to have their nose shoved into it to face the truth. Maybe you should visit Iraq and see first hand the destruction GW and his cronies have wrought.
TailgateNut
11-20-2010, 11:41 PM
I'll never understand the "try Bush as a war criminal" push from the far left.
To me the only crime a POTUS can truly commit is treason, and he has done so if he ever violates the constitution (knowingly or unknowingly) or knowingly undertakes any act that is not in the best interest of the United States.
We give our CIA agents and the like license to kill. We'd restrict that from the person who directs them?
This is not a world of cuddly teddy bears and Bush just ran around tearing their heads off to make us all cry. Did he make some really ****ty choices? Sure as hell did. But I have yet to see anyone produce one bit of evidence suggesting he made those choices without the belief that he was doing what was best for America.
The population of the United States elected an ideologue and they got the results that an ideologue produces. Uninformed, often incorrect decisions based on one man's personal belief and "gut" instead of a pragmatic, democratic decision. The citizenry of the United States then elected that same ideologue again.
The populous has spoken so until there is a smoking gun that he ordered torture, executions, etc. all for some insidious plot to undermine the United States stop wasting everyone's time.
And FYI, if you want to find said smoking gun you'd have a whole lot better luck poking through Dick Chenney's dirty laundry because I'm pretty much positive that ****er was the one leading Bush down such a wrong path, and his motives were far less innocent.
Treason, as in the Valerie Plame incident?
Intl. War crimes, as in authorizing/ ordering Torture.
Good enough for me to want to see him hang, or electrocute him as he ordered for many Texan prisoners.
I don't really care how, just when.
Treason, as in the Valerie Plame incident?
Intl. War crimes, as in authorizing/ ordering Torture.
Good enough for me to want to see him hang, or electrocute him as he ordered for many Texan prisoners.
I don't really care how, just when.
Stretch much?
Most of you guys need to consider medication.
TailgateNut
11-21-2010, 05:07 AM
Stretch much?
Most of you guys need to consider medication.
What the **** am I stretching. That your hero outed a CIA operative because her husband had evidence that Bush's claims about Iraqs' WMD parts shopping spree were LIES?
That Bush, in fact, authorized Torture, which we as a nation have denounced since the Vietnam war?
That Bush ingnored the information from UN inspectors and conjured up his own "Factoids" which would garner support for his revenge tour?
Spider
11-21-2010, 06:11 AM
Stretch much?
Most of you guys need to consider medication.
just hope the world you live in isnt to crowded
TailgateNut
11-21-2010, 06:19 AM
just hope the world you live in isnt to crowded
Oh, it's crowded. Too many still believe that Bush was acting in the best interest of our country.
****ing asshole needs to be dragged into a courtroom and tried for treason. Then drag his ass into the "town square" and have him face the firing squad.
He deserves as much mercy as he's shown during his reign as Decider.
Atwater 27
11-21-2010, 07:00 AM
For that matter, the US is a harbor of terrorism.
Leave then.
Atwater 27
11-21-2010, 07:04 AM
Your ignorance surpasses that of McSkillet. Congratulations, you are the new village idiot!
triple j owned your ass and that's all you can come up with.:spit:
Spider
11-21-2010, 07:06 AM
Oh, it's crowded. Too many still believe that Bush was acting in the best interest of our country.
****ing a-hole needs to be dragged into a courtroom and tried for treason. Then drag his ass into the "town square" and have him face the firing squad.
He deserves as much mercy as he's shown during his reign as Decider.
yeah but a lot of people still connect Afghanistan with Iraq ...... Thats PELOSI fault
Spider
11-21-2010, 07:06 AM
triple j owned your ass and that's all you can come up with.:spit:
LOL u got a low standard for owning ........ Triple J hasnt got one thing right .. oh well
Atwater 27
11-21-2010, 07:24 AM
No, they did not elect him. Gore won the 2000 election fair and square --.ROFL!LOLHilarious!:rofl::crazy::griese:
TailgateNut
11-21-2010, 08:19 AM
triple j owned your ass and that's all you can come up with.:spit:
No one owned me. Can I help the fact that people like you and the Mcdrama's and JJJs refuse to acknowledge that Bush IS a war criminal and should face trial.
TailgateNut
11-21-2010, 08:20 AM
LOL u got a low standard for owning ........ Triple J hasnt got one thing right .. oh well
He's just another uneducated redneck ditto monkey.
Atwater 27
11-21-2010, 10:40 AM
He's just another uneducated redneck ditto monkey.
Oh man that hurt. You cut me deep dawg.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-21-2010, 11:59 PM
Of course. Both are complete BS.
That is if you had any real evidence, which you do not.
So you're denying that the CIA new Castro knew we were coming (Bay of Pigs) and deliberately withheld that info from JFK?
Wow - you're more clueless than I thought. :crazy:
Rohirrim
11-22-2010, 07:59 AM
Damn, it's hard to remember what a pathological liar Bush was, he's so good at it. Now he's touring the country spreading more of his bull****.
And that's why the two most essential lies -- among the many -- in his new memoir are that he had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq, and that he had a legitimate reason to torture detainees.
Neither is remotely true. But Bush must figure that if he keeps making the case for himself -- particularly if it goes largely unrebutted by the traditional media, as it has thus far -- then perhaps he can blunt history's verdict.
It may even be working. Extrapolating from the response to the book, former vice president Dick Cheney on Tuesday told a crowd gathered for Bush's presidential library groundbreaking in Dallas that "judgments are a little more measured than they were" and that "history is coming around."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/22/the-two-most-esssential-a_n_786219.html
Obushma
11-22-2010, 08:08 AM
This aired on Friday, move to 2:30 in the video.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-FT9yymUstg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-FT9yymUstg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
TonyR
11-23-2010, 07:21 AM
The steady drip of ... elisions and falsifications suggests a deeper necessity than the ordinary touch-ups of personal history. Bush has no tolerance for ambiguity; he can’t revere his father and, on occasion, want to defy him, or lose charge of his White House for a minute, or allow himself to wonder if Iraq might ultimately fail. The structure of “Decision Points,” with each chapter centered on a key issue—stem-cell research, interrogation and wiretapping, the invasion of Iraq, the fight against AIDS in Africa, the surge, the “freedom agenda,” the financial crisis—reveals the essential qualities of the Decider. There are hardly any decision points at all. The path to each decision is so short and irresistible, more like an electric pulse than like a weighing of options, that the reader is hard-pressed to explain what happened. Suddenly, it’s over, and there’s no looking back. The decision to go to war “was an accretion,” Richard Haass, the director of policy-planning at the State Department until the invasion of Iraq, told me. “A decision was not made—a decision happened, and you can’t say when or how."
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/11/29/101129crbo_books_packer?currentPage=all
mhgaffney
11-23-2010, 07:52 AM
I wrote that the US is a harbor of terrorism.
Dennis Smith replies "Then, leave..."
But if I go -- how can I help fix the problem? To try to set things right -- I must remain.
I wrote that the US is a harbor of terrorism.
Dennis Smith replies "Then, leave..."
But if I go -- how can I help fix the problem? To try to set things right -- I must remain.
Our hero. Gaffman.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-01-2010, 12:24 AM
Some of you need to get up to speed about JFK. Here is the definite book -- complete with 100 pages of notes. I believe the first edition appeared in 2007 or 2008.
You need to understand how JFK was bushwacked by the CIA -- pressured by the Pentagon - and ultimately betrayed by hard liners -- including hawks in his own administration.
Here's a thumbnail: JFk started as a hawk himself but underwent a sea change after the Cuban missile crisis. During the last year of his life JFK was preparing to exit Viet Nam, end the Cold War, dismember the CIA, bring an end to the nuclear arms race, and prepare the American people to live in peace.
This is why he was murdered. It's also why the silly posts about JFK being a war criminal are hogwash. JFK was the last US president to stand up to Wall Street -- and Israel. Had he lived JFK might even have blocked Israel's nuclear weapons program.
MHG
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters [Paperback]
James W. Douglass
Here's a review of the book posted at Amazon:
In James W. Douglass' outstanding new book, "JFK and the Unspeakable," the author explains the title in his introduction. Coined by spiritual writer Thomas Merton, The Unspeakable refers to "an evil whose depth and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe." Regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Unspeakable succeeded due to deniability by the nation's citizens of the horrifying truth of the event and to plausible deniability by the government agencies responsible for the murder. (Vincent Bugliosi's recent fictional paperweight is a perfect example of the plausible deniability that allows the Unspeakable to thrive.)
Many excellent books have proven that the assassination of JFK was the result of a conspiracy. Douglass verifies the certainty of the conspiracy and, as the subtitle of the book states, explains "Why He Died and Why It Matters." He scrutinizes the historical facts surrounding the assassination, from the creation of the CIA to the gradual obliteration of the freedoms upon which this nation was founded.
This book is primarily the story of John F. Kennedy who changes from a Cold Warrior to an altruistic leader willing to risk his life to ensure that the world's children will not become victims of a nuclear catastrophe. Equal time is spent on JFK's presidency as on the assassination but one of the many rewards of this book is the author's capacity to show the relationship between his policies and his death. And the book is a tragedy because it gradually becomes obvious that each step he makes toward peace steadily increases the hatred of his enemies who will eventually betray him.
It is also the story of the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Moved around the country like a pawn by government agencies (as was the second "Oswald"), he was being set up as the scapegoat. Enter some despicable characters, including David Atlee Philips, James Hosty and, of course, Michael and Ruth Paine. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union was being set up as the evil empire behind the assassination, along with its satellite Cuba.
Douglass credibly illustrates the origin of the Crime of the Century. During President Truman's administration, the CIA was empowered to be a paramilitary organization with unlimited powers. Truman's successor, President Eisenhower, fell out of favor with the CIA when he planned a summit meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. This was cancelled after a U.S. spy plane crashed in Russia. Eisenhower had reportedly ordered such flights cancelled and had his suspicions about who had ruined his peace plan. He subsequently issued his warning about the "military industrial complex" in his farewell address. But he didn't defy "this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry." He left that task to his successor, JFK.
The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was planned by the CIA to regain control of the island and to re-open the casinos for organized crime. President Kennedy refused to provide air support for the Cuban brigade because he knew that he had been lied to by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by the CIA; the invasion had been designed to fail without U.S. support but they hadn't told this to JFK who refused to fall into their trap. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK once again enraged the CIA and the Joint Chiefs by resisting their tremendous pressure on him to take military action which would have led to nuclear war.
Following that crisis, JFK became intent on ending the Cold War by establishing a peaceful relationship with the Soviet Union. However, many CIA and Pentagon personnel believed that it was better to be "dead than red" and that it was preferable to destroy civilization rather than let the Communists rule. They also knew that war generated billions of dollars into the arms industry. As a result, they would repeatedly subvert the President's policies and isolate him within his own government. Enter some more despicable characters: Richard Bissell, Charles Cabell, Henry Cabot Lodge, Lyman Lemnitzer, Curtis LeMay and perhaps the most contemptible of all, Allen Dulles. Ironically, JFK learned to trust Khrushchev more than people within his own government.
At American University on June 10, 1963, JFK spoke about his desire for world peace. He communicated his resolve to form a new relationship with Khrushchev. He spoke about the necessity of a pursuit toward disarmament. He related his intentions to establish a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He acknowledged his country's past faults and recognized the Russian people as wanting peace as much as the American people. "And we are all mortal," he stated. Though this extremely important speech was ignored in the United States, it was disseminated throughout the Soviet Union, per order of Khrushchev, who was prepared to respond favorably to JFK's peace initiative. The speech also certified JFK's death warrant. With so many powerful enemies opposing his policies and hating him, JFK didn't have a chance as he was being maneuvered into the crossfire in Dallas.
President Kennedy was aware of the power of his enemies and he knew the dangers facing him. But he persevered and mandated that all U.S. personnel would be withdrawn from Vietnam; he was determined to never send in combat troops even if this meant defeat. He also refused to intervene militarily in Laos. He exchanged private letters with Khrushchev, which infuriated the CIA, and secretly initiated plans to attain rapproachement with Cuba, which further incensed the Agency. Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA hated as intensely as it hated Kennedy, was equally eager to begin an American-Cuba dialogue. In fact, Castro was meeting with a JFK representative when the President was murdered. JFK died a martyr and the forces of evil that killed him also killed his vision of peace.
Lyndon Johnson, the CIA's ally, assumed the presidency. He cancelled talks with Khrushchev and refused Castro's pleas to continue the dialogue. He reversed JFK's withdrawal plan from Vietnam as well as his plan to neutralize Laos. The military industrial complex took control of the country. The policy of plausible deniability led the way to assassinations of foreign leaders, the overthrowing of foreign governments and horrors committed all over the globe. If JFK had not been murdered, we would not have had the prolongation of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the purported War on Terror and the steady moral deterioration of America. Interestingly, one month after JFK's assassination, President Truman wrote an article for The Washington Post cautioning about the threat of the CIA taking over America.
The author meticulously examines the evidence and draws conclusions which ring with unassailable truth: (1) The CIA coordinated and implemented he assassination of President Kennedy, an act of treason which destroyed democracy in the U.S. (2) The Warren Commission was created to propagate lies to conceal the truth from the American people. (3)There has been a continued cover-up by successive administrations and their stooges in the mass media. (4)The murder of JFK is directly related to the current domination of the American people by powerful oppressors within a shadow government that will continue to insist that only sustained war can keep the country safe from its enemies, never admitting that they themselves are the supreme evil.
This is an exceptional book that will be used by future historians to determine the truth about the assassination and how it changed America. And it will also be used to honor John F. Kennedy as a courageous president who believed in doing God's work on earth. In doing so, he came into conflict with the Unspeakable and his life was extinguished.
--by Nick Anez
Reading it right now.
Very thoroughly researched and well-documented book.
Obushma
12-01-2010, 08:52 AM
What the **** am I stretching. That your hero outed a CIA operative because her husband had evidence that Bush's claims about Iraqs' WMD parts shopping spree were LIES?
That Bush, in fact, authorized Torture, which we as a nation have denounced since the Vietnam war?
That Bush ingnored the information from UN inspectors and conjured up his own "Factoids" which would garner support for his revenge tour?
God its nice to see you use your brain instead of your forked tongue.
And FYI, if you want to find said smoking gun you'd have a whole lot better luck poking through Dick Chenney's dirty laundry because I'm pretty much positive that ****er was the one leading Bush down such a wrong path, and his motives were far less innocent.
You really think Chenney holds more power then the Bush dynasty? I can see what you're saying as GWB was a imbecile, but if anything, Bush Sr was giving the orders to Chenney. All of them should be tried, and found guilty, of international war crimes.