NationStates Jolt Archive

Going beyond his comment in his book, Ron Suskind has backed up how allegation that the Bush Administration forced the CIA to forge letters to make its case for war I don't know if it's worth it now to impeach these liars or just let them drown in the mess they have made?

http://www.ronsuskind.com/thewayoftheworld/transcripts/

i vote for a war crimes tribunal and long prison terms for just about everyone in any position of authority at all

There's so much evidence out there already, from forged letters linking Iraq with Al-Qaeda to completely planted stories in the media.

I suspect the full wash of media coverage will come when President Bush steps down, it's all out there it's just not a clamour for his impeachment.

The next president will pardon him, it's practically set in stone.

Fundamentally, I agreed with the invasion of Iraq, I just think the lies spun to ensure it happened removed any justification it once had.

Is that the guy on the daily show right now? I wasn't paying attention to the TV in front of me as I was reading this thread...

Is that the guy on the daily show right now? I wasn't paying attention to the TV in front of me as I was reading this thread...
yup.

its in the book.

There's so much evidence out there already, from forged letters linking Iraq with Al-Qaeda to completely planted stories in the media.

I suspect the full wash of media coverage will come when President Bush steps down, it's all out there it's just not a clamour for his impeachment.

The next president will pardon him, it's practically set in stone.

Fundamentally, I agreed with the invasion of Iraq, I just think the lies spun to ensure it happened removed any justification it once had.

I think it's fundamentally insulting to the American people that the Bush administration did not trust us with the geopolitical reasoning for the invasion of Iraq. They had to create these farcical WMD and Al Qaeda charges to somehow try and make it palatable. It's pretty damn insulting.

The worst part, to me personally, is I believed the WMD stuff (not Al Qaeda, that was a joke from the start), but I believed the WMD stuff.

Oh well, I was just 16/17...

I think it's fundamentally insulting to the American people that the Bush administration did not trust us with the geopolitical reasoning for the invasion of Iraq. They had to create these farcical WMD and Al Qaeda charges to somehow try and make it palatable. It's pretty damn insulting.

The worst part, to me personally, is I believed the WMD stuff (not Al Qaeda, that was a joke from the start), but I believed the WMD stuff.

Oh well, I was just 16/17...
if they had told us the true reason we would never have invaded.

whatever the real reason is.

suskind reports that they knew that there were no WMD. he also reports that the president ordered the CIA to forge a letter that linked mohammed atta (9/11 hijacker) AND uranium to iraq. which they did and had an iraqi bring it to the press.

i remember the atta thing being discussed in the news but dont remember why it was dropped (if that was ever explained pubicly)

Yes, Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq so he could invade and take all their oil. It was a plan masterminded by the second gunman, Elvis and the Roswell aliens. They all held secret meetings in the soundstage where they faked the moon landings. Fortunately for them, the guys in the CIA took time away from their busy schedules implanting microchips in bookshop owners' heads to secure the perimeter, or the Atlantean Elite Guard, led by the Bigfoot-riding Leprechauns would have invaded and gassed the whole place with SuperAIDS.

Crazy conspiracy-theorist liberals are just adorable.

The worst part, to me personally, is I believed the WMD stuff, but I believed the WMD stuff.

Wait... What?

Yes, Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq so he could invade and take all their oil.

More accurate would be to repair his father's broken legacy, but you're on the right track.

He used WMD's against Iran. There was always a risk he still had some.

That and Saddam was just plain evil. Good riddance to him.

More accurate would be to repair his father's broken legacy, but you're on the right track.

No, no, no. There were WMDs. They were discovered and shit. Saddam had, like, eight billion nuclear warheads. I know it's true. I read it on the Internet.

He used WMD's against Iran. There was always a risk he still had some.

Aside from the tiniest and remotest possibility that some freak accident of physics would spontaneously create WMDs in Iraq, there was no risk that he had any. His weapons programs had been completely dismantled for longer than the shelf life of anything he had the ability to produce or purchase.

Wait... What?

*instills confusion*

More accurate would be to repair his father's broken legacy, but you're on the right track.

Don't forget the misguided PNAC strategic vision. Ughughughugh. Awful. It's almost as sorry and pathetic as the Soviet reliance on Marxist-Leninist theory's dictate that the capitalists would go to war against each other after World War II.

i vote for a war crimes tribunal and long prison terms for just about everyone in any position of authority at all

Executive immunity. I think Reagan came up with it, and a bunch of people decided they liked it, so I doubt it will get seriously challenged, whether it should be or not.

For me, the fundamental point about Iraq was to forcibly hand power to the people, while holding their hands as they consolidated that power into a stable state. The idea being that this might provide impetus to other people in the Middle East to demand greater power themselves and shift the ME from being a collection of autocratic, theological states, into ones with slightly more democracy.

Far fetched possibly, and a number of other considerations I'm sure including:

1. The US position in Saudi Arabia became untenable yet the mere presence of US forces is fairly important in this region.
2. Saddam Hussein was openly contemptuous of the US, helping fuel regional hatred.
3. Lord knows oil played its part, as much as signifying the importance of the region in a stable global economy as an opportunity to control.

So fine, no WMDs, no Al Qaeda links, all these were pretty much conjured out of thin air to bolster support.

Certainly there's serious questions to be asked about whether any country has the right to impose its will on another, but the underlying concept, for me, was reasonable.

It was executed appallingly if it should be been at all.

Well, aside from the fact that it's a good six years too late and there's absolutely zero chance of any meaningful legal or political follow-up on the matter...

...it's hardly a surprise. I think the only time we can ever be confident that there's a justified reason for war is either when we're directly and clearly attacked or the entire world is behind us. Rather appropriate and unfortunate that both Iraq and Vietnam share that dubious honor, although the butcher's bill for Iraq has not yet approached that of Vietnam.

Executive immunity. I think Reagan came up with it, and a bunch of people decided they liked it, so I doubt it will get seriously challenged, whether it should be or not.

Actually, I'd say it's been in place since the beginning thanks to the system of pardons and quid-pro-quo dealings that underly the entire system of government. To be honest, I can't think of a senior official in American history that has ever received any kind of major punishment for actions committed while in office.

As sad as it is, I don't think it's ever really been the policy in any country to do so. Only in the event of either regime change or foreign military tribunal has there been any kind of comprehensive retribution for people involved in war crimes.

Has Bush actually committed any war crimes though? As in actual war crimes as defined by the Hauge and such?

Some US soldiers might be guilty of such things however. Prisoner abuse and such.

Crazy conspiracy-theorist liberals are just adorable.Wow, looks like Straughn had you to rites.
How unpleasant it must be to be you. How unfortunate for everyone involved.

Has Bush actually committed any war crimes though? As in actual war crimes as defined by the Hauge and such?

Some US soldiers might be guilty of such things however. Prisoner abuse and such.

To my knowledge, no.

More accurate would be to repair his father's broken legacy, but you're on the right track.
No s/he really, really isn't. It's even in the name.

Has Bush actually committed any war crimes though? As in actual war crimes as defined by the Hauge and such?

yep

torture, for one, which we know was and is policy

You won't get him on that. You need something much bigger.

you Won't Get Him On That. You Need Something Much Bigger.
...
...
..
.

...

You won't get him on that. You need something much bigger.

Especially considering the lack of consensus on what exactly constitutes torture.

Actuall considering we won the Iraq War, I'd forget even trying. Victors Justice remember? Not saying it's right but that's how these things tend to go.

Actuall considering we won the Iraq War, I'd forget even trying. Victors Justice remember? Not saying it's right but that's how these things tend to go.

Therein lies the rub...no winner has ever tried its own people for war crimes. It's especially problematic when neutral states are just as bad.

Especially considering the lack of consensus on what exactly constitutes torture.

history says we executed people for less than we know has been ordered now and called it torture then

Especially considering the lack of consensus on what exactly constitutes torture.

If the party accused of torture claims that what they did is not torture, that does not constitute a "lack of consensus".

Therein lies the rub...no winner has ever tried its own people for war crimes.

its time to start. i mean, we used to always let cops walk, no matter what. now we have advanced to the point where we can usually get somebody on paid administrative leave for awhile when they murder an already detained person. progress is possible.

And I once again have to give you a big, huge "I told you so".

I told you so!

Going beyond his comment in his book, Ron Suskind has backed up how allegation that the Bush Administration forced the CIA to forge letters to make its case for war I don't know if it's worth it now to impeach these liars or just let them drown in the mess they have made?

http://www.ronsuskind.com/thewayoftheworld/transcripts/

Transcripts aren't evidence.

Are you still masturbating to the Mapes fake Air Force memos?

history says we executed people for less than we know has been ordered now and called it torture then

They weren't a bunch of lawyers though. You've better chance of nailing grease to a wall than getting this bunch.

Actually, I'd say it's been in place since the beginning thanks to the system of pardons and quid-pro-quo dealings that underly the entire system of government. To be honest, I can't think of a senior official in American history that has ever received any kind of major punishment for actions committed while in office.

As sad as it is, I don't think it's ever really been the policy in any country to do so. Only in the event of either regime change or foreign military tribunal has there been any kind of comprehensive retribution for people involved in war crimes.

Executive immunity isn't really an American invention. Reagan came up with it as an official policy, but prior to that it was a sort of big thing in Europe, even if it was unofficial. See the outrage when ol' Louise XVI lost his head.
As long as you dont go TOO far out of line (See, Hitler, Napoleon), its doubtful that anybody in a position of power will make an attempt to have you prosecuted.
Maybe assassinated or overthrown, which are fine traditions dating back to the days of Egypt (:p).

I mean, really, how many world leaders do you think have ever been removed from power via legal means? Not a whole lot. Especially when you compare it to the number that died of hemorrhoids. Or falling down the stairs in the basement.

Its the unfortunate truth that the people at the top, being the people at the top, really are less subject to the law than people further down. Mostly because a lot of the time they're good friends with the people who make and enforce those laws. Or own stock in their companies.

Snip.

In that case, let's all hope Bush falls off the stairs and develops locked-in syndrome due to it, with Laura abandoning him due to inability to cope, all the while he's fully aware, but defenseless, powerless, just like those he murdered, and that he descends into insanity wondering why God did this to him, a Godsend, and finishes his descent into insanity with the realization that God did not send him, entering insanity itself with the delusion that the Devil did so. Afterwards, let him hear in his head the imagined or real the voices and moans of the spirits of all of those he harmed and killed. Each and every last one of them. All of this with him silent, having to scream but unable to.

Forever.

And forever it is, because, as his family is composed of such good Christians, he won't be euthanized. After he dies, though, let's hope he goes to Hell, where the REAL fun begins...

Edit: The same goes to Cheney.

Has Bush actually committed any war crimes though? As in actual war crimes as defined by the Hauge and such?

The crime of waging a war of aggression.
Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law.
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial.
Torture. (Where ‘Torture’ means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions)
Directing attacks against civilians.


All of these are points that Bush arguably could be held responsible for.

In addition, he could possibly be held accountable for the following war crimes soldiers under his command have commited, depending on the orders he has given, the rules of engagement he has approved, and the command structure he has employed:

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i) Wilful killing;

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

im pretty sure that forging and distributing a document in order to mislead the american public into war is a crime.

if it can be pinned on specific individuals they should go to prison.

Is that the guy on the daily show right now? I wasn't paying attention to the TV in front of me as I was reading this thread...

I didn't even realize. I'll have to go to my dvr now. I'd like to see this appearence.

im pretty sure that forging and distributing a document in order to mislead the american public into war is a crime.

if it can be pinned on specific individuals they should go to prison.
Yes. Though even if they can pin it on someone, that won't ever happen.

Accountability is for wusses!

I didn't even realize. I'll have to go to my dvr now. I'd like to see this appearence.

You can see the entire episode on Comedy Central (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=178981) too :)

Has Bush actually committed any war crimes though? As in actual war crimes as defined by the Hauge and such?

Some US soldiers might be guilty of such things however. Prisoner abuse and such.

Just you wait, he will be brought up on them. I think there's something about ordering torture that falls under war crimes. If so (sarcasm duly noted) then he could be tried under international law at the Hague and for violations to the Geneva Conventions (Which the Supreme court of the US has already validated.) I'd say he's in for a very poor retirement plan.

You won't get him on that. You need something much bigger.

Bigger than torture which violates international law and the Geneva Accords? Like raping goats or something? :(

Yes. Though even if they can pin it on someone, that won't ever happen.

Accountability is for wusses!



You can see the entire episode on Comedy Central (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=178981) too :)
i know. thats why i try not to think about it.

i want these people in prison. too many lives were lost on that lie.

Transcripts aren't evidence.

Are you still masturbating to the Mapes fake Air Force memos?

wow, you are still a d bag. Nice to see things haven't changed. My point was that the transcipts prove that the recanting of his story is utter bullshit. Having audio recordings of someone saying something and then them saying" nuh uh" makes it a bit hard to swallow. The Mapes memos do not change the obvious. That weasel slipped out of his duty which kept him out of a war. Being given permission to work on a political campaign because of family connections is not honorably serving. The charge still stands on that, and the person in question was caught in a lie.

Bush is just another war criminal

Just you wait, he will be brought up on them. I think there's something about ordering torture that falls under war crimes. If so (sarcasm duly noted) then he could be tried under international law at the Hague and for violations to the Geneva Conventions (Which the Supreme court of the US has already validated.) I'd say he's in for a very poor retirement plan.

He can't, actually. Not in the Hague. He can be tried in US courts though.

For me, the fundamental point about Iraq was to forcibly hand power to the people, while holding their hands as they consolidated that power into a stable state. The idea being that this might provide impetus to other people in the Middle East to demand greater power themselves and shift the ME from being a collection of autocratic, theological states, into ones with slightly more democracy.

Far fetched possibly, and a number of other considerations I'm sure including:

1. The US position in Saudi Arabia became untenable yet the mere presence of US forces is fairly important in this region.
2. Saddam Hussein was openly contemptuous of the US, helping fuel regional hatred.
3. Lord knows oil played its part, as much as signifying the importance of the region in a stable global economy as an opportunity to control.

So fine, no WMDs, no Al Qaeda links, all these were pretty much conjured out of thin air to bolster support.

Certainly there's serious questions to be asked about whether any country has the right to impose its will on another, but the underlying concept, for me, was reasonable.

It was executed appallingly if it should be been at all.
Except that wasn't the rationale. That is just another leitmotif in their symphony of bullshit about this war.

The actual rationale was to assert US hegemony in the region by a destabilizing military action that would allow for the permanent installation of a significant US military presence unbeholden to any local government.

Oh, and to make shitloads of money doing it.

The first part of that they did execute appallingly badly. The second part is, was, and continues to be a rollicking success.

Epic Failure. Like half the people in my school still think Iraq was DIRECTLY involved with 9-11.

Actuall considering we won the Iraq War, I'd forget even trying.

You call that a goddamn victory? Well, that must be awesome drugs you're on. I guess all those US soldiers that still die in Iraq probably had fatal accidents while cleaning their weapons, not to mention the thousands upon thousands upon thousands Iraqi civilians that apparently died because they were hit by traffic or ate something that wasn't good for them. Hell, Vietnam was probably a glorious victory in your eyes as well.

Nobody is going to get Bush on anything. Period. Ever. I think he, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should all enjoy the same high security cell block, but it will never, ever happen. He is too rich, too powerful, and far too well connected to ever be put in the slammer.

Moreover, you can't charge him with warcrimes based on the actions of troops in Iraq. For one thing, you wouldn't be able to lead it back to him. For another, it's a stupid point to make. If national leaders were charged for crimes based on the actions of their soldiers, there wouldn't be a single man or woman running a country today who wouldn't be tried for said crimes. Except maybe the Swiss.

If he gave the orders, absolutely. But again, you will never be able to lead it back to him.

Let's see. Bush invaded a sovereign nation with the approval of Congress (and yet without a declaration of war) with the stated goal of enforcing UN resolutions about alleged Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological weapons allegedly held by Saddam Hussein and his army. This invasion was further justified by alleged links to Osama bin Laden, thus creating a tenuous connection to 9-11. Once the army captured Saddam and all the original causes for war were shown to be false, the army was assigned the task of building a democracy and occupying a conquered nation that doesn't really want them there. Now it looks like we're gonna pick a fight with Iran even though there is no way they could harm us. The only beneficiaries in this conflict are multinational corporations and the banking interests. Inflation of the money supply has crippled the economy, and the numerous new agencies and laws have served to trample the rights of the Citizens of the United States of America.

Nope, I don't see anything wrong with that picture. Bush is my god, and my own doubts only prove my unworthiness to understand global politics.

:hail: *bows before shrine to Dick Cheney*

You call that a goddamn victory? Well, that must be awesome drugs you're on. I guess all those US soldiers that still die in Iraq probably had fatal accidents while cleaning their weapons, not to mention the thousands upon thousands upon thousands Iraqi civilians that apparently died because they were hit by traffic or ate something that wasn't good for them. Hell, Vietnam was probably a glorious victory in your eyes as well.

An empty victory maybe?

You got reigime change which is what you wanted.

Vietnam could have been a victory if you'd used the right tatics. Instead you let yourselves get spanked by a bunch of farmers with AK-47's.

Personally, I would given the insurgents in Faluja an ultimatum to surrender or have the town reduced to rubble. Would have saved all those soldiers of yours.

And you poor souls can't be held responsible for the Iraqi's taking religion too seriously. That's their fault. You obviously need to enlighten them.

Yeah, Iraq was a win. A bloody one. But a win. We (the Coalition) shouldn't admit defeat to Islamic Fascists. Although the fact my own countries troops made a deal with them in Basra is rather saddening.

You know, they can give you as much info as you want, but in the end the fascist political machine will continue chugging along, devouring whom it wants. We won't prosecute Bush or his croonies. We won't hold politicians accountable, because we won't first hold ourselves accountable. Aren't we responsible for the people in office? Aren't we responsible for electing Nancy "No Impeachment on the table" Pelois and Harry "I am a spineless coward" Reid? And its because we won't hold ourselves, as voters, accountable for who is voted in, likewise we won't hold anyone who commits a crime in office accountable for their actions.

Snip.

Do I laugh at you, do I puke...?

Either suits me.

Better to leave Bush alone for now. He can't be impeached, because that would make Cheney President, and Pelosi can't support impeaching both, because she's next in line and it would look like a power grab, provoking a big electoral backlash.

The Democrats should play nice until January, and hope Bush is lulled into forgetting about issuing blanket pardons. Then, once he's out of office, prosecute the lot for obstruction of justice and war crimes. Not that I think most Democratic politicians have either the brains or the balls to actually do this and thereby uphold the principle that the laws of a Constitutional Democracy also apply to those in power. Sadly:(.

An empty victory maybe?

You got reigime change which is what you wanted.

Vietnam could have been a victory if you'd used the right tatics. Instead you let yourselves get spanked by a bunch of farmers with AK-47's.

Personally, I would given the insurgents in Faluja an ultimatum to surrender or have the town reduced to rubble. Would have saved all those soldiers of yours.

And you poor souls can't be held responsible for the Iraqi's taking religion too seriously. That's their fault. You obviously need to enlighten them.

Yeah, Iraq was a win. A bloody one. But a win. We (the Coalition) shouldn't admit defeat to Islamic Fascists. Although the fact my own countries troops made a deal with them in Basra is rather saddening.

Do you really think Vietnam was no more than "a bunch of farmers with AK-47's?" It was a gurilla resistance with a lot of local support where the enemy hid among the civilian populace. And you think an ultimatum like the one you proposed above would work in Iraq? You're fighting an enemy force of religious fanatics who believe that martyrdom is a path strait to paradise. And if you carried out your threatened atrocity and leveled a city, you would simply radicalize the rest of the population and lose all international support for your cause. We tried atrocities in Vietnam. We still lost. That is not a road to go down, unless you are prepared to engage in all-out genocide to pacify a country.

Besides, if we have to stoop to the enemy's level in order to win, then we've lost anyway. The question you have to ask yourself is weather you wish to defeat terrorism, or defeat Iraq. If the latter, then you can simply carpet bomb the nation and round up whole towns at gun point. You can defeat Iraq through atrocities, but terrorism will still have won.

I don't want America to win out of tribal loyalty in the form of Patriotism. Personally, I want the good guys to win, and I define "good" based on actions, not what flag you march under, some lines drawn on a map, the color of your skin, or the God you pray to. So ask yourself, do you only want America to win, even at the cost of everything that makes it great, or do you want freedom and justice to win?

Do you really think Vietnam was no more than "a bunch of farmers with AK-47's?" It was a gurilla resistance with a lot of local support where the enemy hid among the civilian populace. And you think an ultimatum like the one you proposed above would work in Iraq? You're fighting an enemy force of religious fanatics who believe that martyrdom is a path strait to paradise. And if you carried out your threatened atrocity and leveled a city, you would simply radicalize the rest of the population and lose all international support for your cause. We tried atrocities in Vietnam. We still lost. That is not a road to go down, unless you are prepared to engage in all-out genocide to pacify a country.

Besides, if we have to stoop to the enemy's level in order to win, then we've lost anyway. The question you have to ask yourself is weather you wish to defeat terrorism, or defeat Iraq. If the latter, then you can simply carpet bomb the nation and round up whole towns at gun point. You can defeat Iraq through atrocities, but terrorism will still have won.

I don't want America to win out of tribal loyalty in the form of Patriotism. Personally, I want the good guys to win, and I define "good" based on actions, not what flag you march under, some lines drawn on a map, the color of your skin, or the God you pray to. So ask yourself, do you only want America to win, even at the cost of everything that makes it great, or do you want freedom and justice to win?

You are a honorable, gentle and skilled fighter, but you give your opponent far too much credit.

I love the rampant Bush Derangement Syndrome run amok here. Watching the bleeding-heart warm-and-fuzzies so consumed by hatred of a single individual is like watching a soap opera.

I love the rampant Bush Derangement Syndrome run amok here. Watching the bleeding-heart warm-and-fuzzies so consumed by hatred of a single individual is like watching a soap opera.

Oh, really? What does he have to do to get YOUR ire? Wage unprovoked war against WHITE people? Invade Canada, so it'll be closer to home and you'll actually give a damn about them because, guess what, they look like you?

I love the rampant Bush Derangement Syndrome run amok here. Watching the bleeding-heart warm-and-fuzzies so consumed by hatred of a single individual is like watching a soap opera.

That's nice. Any comments on the forgeries that are the subject of this thread?

Yes, Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq so he could invade and take all their oil. It was a plan masterminded by the second gunman, Elvis and the Roswell aliens. They all held secret meetings in the soundstage where they faked the moon landings. Fortunately for them, the guys in the CIA took time away from their busy schedules implanting microchips in bookshop owners' heads to secure the perimeter, or the Atlantean Elite Guard, led by the Bigfoot-riding Leprechauns would have invaded and gassed the whole place with SuperAIDS.

Crazy conspiracy-theorist liberals are just adorable.

This is actually far more possible then the crazy 9/11 and JFK conspiracies.

Oh, really? What does he have to do to get YOUR ire? Wage unprovoked war against WHITE people? Invade Canada, so it'll be closer to home and you'll actually give a damn about them because, guess what, they look like you?

Ah, and the liberal ad hominem attack machine comes out. I have this theory, that Bush Derangement Syndrome is so deeply ingrained that George W. Bush himself is not physically massive enough to contain all the hatred, so said liberals find the hatred welling up inside their brains, and require another target to allow the pressure to dissipate. Thus, Bush supporters become the targets for all the excess irrational hatred the liberals have left over.

He used WMD's against Iran. There was always a risk he still had some.

That and Saddam was just plain evil. Good riddance to him.

Agreed. Additionally, it wasn't only our job to invade Iraq, it was the job of the U.N. It doesn't seem like it, but Iraq broke a dozen and a half too many sanctions, if Iraq had nothing to hide, why were they so secretive between the two Gulf Wars?

Propoganda created by the state to fuel war happens. Sometimes you just have a foolish populace, and you need to rally their support for an otherwise just war, this was the case in my opinion. Could we have done it better? Of course. Was it wrong to use propoganda? That's a gray area. Was the war necessary? Absolutely. The first part of evil is inaction, had we not invaded Iraq, the blood of anyone Saddam would've ordered dead would be on our hands, and now, the lives that live in freedom thanks to our efforts do so because some good people had the sense to stand up, and do what's right.

Also, I am from America, should one question the 'we' bit.

Bigger than torture which violates international law and the Geneva Accords? Like raping goats or something? :(

Bush ordered torture? Bush gave direct orders to violate the Geneva Accord? Well, surely something so stupid wouldn't be said without pretty concrete sources, so I look forward to any evidence at all that that can back up this otherwise foolish banter.

Ah, and the liberal ad hominem attack machine comes out. I have this theory, that Bush Derangement Syndrome is so deeply ingrained that George W. Bush himself is not physically massive enough to contain all the hatred, so said liberals find the hatred welling up inside their brains, and require another target to allow the pressure to dissipate. Thus, Bush supporters become the targets for all the excess irrational hatred the liberals have left over.

Yours is to prove that the war was warranted, my wannabe-pop-psychologist friend...

Agreed. Additionally, it wasn't only our job to invade Iraq, it was the job of the U.N. It doesn't seem like it, but Iraq broke a dozen and a half too many sanctions, if Iraq had nothing to hide, why were they so secretive between the two Gulf Wars?

Propoganda created by the state to fuel war happens. Sometimes you just have a foolish populace, and you need to rally their support for an otherwise just war, this was the case in my opinion. Could we have done it better? Of course. Was it wrong to use propoganda? That's a gray area. Was the war necessary? Absolutely. The first part of evil is inaction, had we not invaded Iraq, the blood of anyone Saddam would've ordered dead would be on our hands, and now, the lives that live in freedom thanks to our efforts do so because some good people had the sense to stand up, and do what's right.

Also, I am from America, should one question the 'we' bit.

You invaded Iraq, and, now, the blood of thousands of Iraqis IS in your hands. The war was unjust, unnecessary, and that you favor or call "gray area" the act of lying to get your country in it speaks volumes about you, as much as I respect you as a D&D player. The bloodshed wasn't right by any measures, it was a genocidal, brutal, country raping police action that was NOT yours, nor anyone's but the Iraqis' themselves, to take. And do you REALLY think Bush gives a fuck about Democracy? They bombed Al Jazeera, a legitimate news channel! They have yet to do anything against MANY, MUCH WORSE dictatorships, including the ones in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan they are cuddly with. And here you are claiming the war was just, fair, NECESSARY? Please.

Bush ordered torture? Bush gave direct orders to violate the Geneva Accord? Well, surely something so stupid wouldn't be said without pretty concrete sources, so I look forward to any evidence at all that that can back up this otherwise foolish banter.

We will never know if he directly ordered torture. The term the "buck stops here" still applies. If torture was the official policy then he is responsible. Extraordinary rendition has already been proven to be true. Do you think ordering people to other countries where torture is legal absolves the Unites States from the law? I agree with John McCain when he said that torture should never be used. It is not known to produce reliable results. Before you go spouting 24 (tv show) logic you have to know that my MOS is of the 02 division. Torture doesn't work and is an abomination to the values of humanity and the US. As for some sources which show his complicity in torture...

NEW YORK — A secret memo authored by the Department of Justice (DOJ) asserting that President Bush has unlimited power to order brutal interrogations to extract information from detainees was declassified today as a result of an American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The memo, written by John Yoo, then a deputy at the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), was sent to the Defense Department in March 2003.

"Senior officials at the Justice Department gave the Pentagon the green light to torture prisoners," said Amrit Singh, an ACLU staff attorney. "It is outrageous that none of these high-level officials have been brought to task yet for their role in authorizing prisoner abuse."

A similar OLC memo asserting the same kind of unchecked executive authority was sent to the CIA in August 2002. In that now-notorious document, torture was defined so narrowly that it encompassed only those methods that result in pain akin to that associated with "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function."

In many respects, the March 2003 memo released today parrots the advice previously given to the CIA. In other ways, however, the 2003 memo goes even further. For example, it argues — without any qualification — that, during wartime, the president's Commander-in-Chief power overrides the due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.

"The memo shows that the same disgraceful legal analysis that was at the root of the CIA's illegal interrogation program was also at the root of the Defense Department's program," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The memo takes an extremely broad view of the president's power as Commander-in-Chief. If you believe this memo, there is no limit at all to the kinds of interrogation methods the President can authorize."

In the memo released today, Yoo writes: "If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network." The memo goes on to say, "In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."

The memo was declassified in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and other organizations in June 2004 to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for records concerning the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad. The ACLU has been fighting for the release of the March 2003 Yoo memo since filing the lawsuit. A few weeks ago, after the court ordered additional briefing on whether the Defense Department could continue to withhold the memo, the government reluctantly agreed to conduct a declassification review by March 31. The Defense Department released this memo after conducting the review.

The March 2003 Yoo memo also sheds considerable light on the development of interrogation methods for use at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. In a recently published book, Administration of Torture, ACLU attorneys Jaffer and Singh explain that, in early 2003, a Defense Department working group convened by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was supplied with the March 2003 Yoo memo and told that it should regard the memo as "definitive guidance." Relying on the Yoo memo, the working group ultimately endorsed a slew of harsh interrogation methods, some of which violated U.S. and international law. Secretary Rumsfeld relied on the working group memo to authorize a new interrogation directive for use at Guantánamo Bay. General Geoffrey Miller, who was in charge of Guantánamo, was later sent to Iraq to encourage the adoption of abusive methods there.

The Yoo memo can be found online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34745res20030314.html

In Administration of Torture, Jaffer and Singh write that interrogation practices sanctioned at the highest levels of the Bush administration led to the system abuse and torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. More information about the book is available online at:
www.aclu.org/administrationoftorture

To date, more than 100,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at:
www.aclu.org/torturefoia

Attorneys in the FOIA case are Lawrence S. Lustberg and Melanca D. Clark of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, P.C.; Jaffer, Singh and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the New York Civil Liberties Union; and Shayana Kadidal and Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.


and

Bush Administration Documents on Interrogation

Wednesday, June 23, 2004; 3:30 AM

The following is a summary of White House, Pentagon and Justice Department documents about interrogation policies. The documents were released by the Bush administration on June 22. Some files are presented as PDF files, which require the Adobe Acrobat Reader, and may require high-speed Internet connections to download.

Click here!

Jan. 22, 2002: Justice Department Memo to the White House and Pentagon Counsels (3.3MB)
A 37-page memo written by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and addressed to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and the Pentagon's general counsel, William J. Haynes II. Bybee argued that that the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Convention did not apply to al Qaeda prisoners and that President Bush had constitutional authority to "suspend our treaty obligations toward Afghanistan" because it was a "failed state." Bybee, then head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, has since become a federal judge.

Feb. 1, 2002: Letter to President Bush From the Attorney General (49KB; from FindLaw)
The memo by Attorney General John D. Ashcroft summarized the Justice Department's position on why the Geneva Convention did not apply to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. The memo was Ashcroft's personal response to the State Department position that, as a matter of law, the Geneva Conventions protected Taliban soldiers. Ashcroft warned that if the president sided with the State Department, American officials might wind up going to jail for violating U.S. and international laws.

Feb. 7, 2002: Justice Department Memo to the White House Counsel (49KB; from FindLaw)
A memo written by Jay S. Bybee, then head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, advised White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales that the president had "reasonable factual grounds" to determine that Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan were not entitled to prisoner of war status.

Feb. 7, 2002: Memo Signed by President Bush (130KB)
Bush's presidential memorandum to members of his national security team said he believed he had "the authority under the Constitution" to deny protections of the Geneva Conventions to combatants picked up during the war in Afghanistan, but that he would "decline to exercise that authority at this time." The memo settled the dispute between the State and Justice departments over the issue.

Feb. 26, 2002: Justice Department Memo to the Pentagon's General Counsel (2.5MB)
A memo to the Pentagon's general counsel, William J. Haynes II, written by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee examined constitutional questions related to detainees captured in Afghanistan, including the admissibility of statements made in interrogations.

Aug. 1, 2002: Justice Department Memo to the White House Counsel (864KB; from FindLaw)
A memo to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales from Jay S. Bybee of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that techniques used to interrogate al Qaeda operatives would not violate a 1984 international treaty prohibiting torture. Bybee also concluded that the interrogation of al Qaeda members was outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but warned that a "rogue prosecutor" could choose to investigate U.S. interrogation techniques because the international court "is not checked by any other international body, not to mention any democratically-elected or accountable one."

Aug. 1, 2002: Justice Department Memo to the White House Counsel (27.5MB; from FindLaw)
The memo from Jay S. Bybee, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales found that torturing terrorism suspects might be legally defensible. Bush administration officials said on June 22, 2004 -- when the document was publicly released -- that the memo's conclusions were overbroad and would be rewritten.

Dec. 2, 2002: Defense Department Memo Regarding "Counter-Resistance Techniques" (780KB)
A memo written by the Pentagon's general counsel, William J. Haynes II, on Nov. 27 and approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Dec. 2 summarized specific interrogation techniques that could be used at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; this document also includes a series of related memos on interrogation techniques.

A related one-page summary document (56KB) issued to reporters by Bush aides on June 22, 2004, reviewed which specific techniques were approved and used.

Jan. 15, 2003: Rumsfeld Memo to the Head of U.S. Southern Command (47KB)
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's memo rescinded his approval for some interrogation techniques for Guantanamo Bay. The memo allowed commanders to seek Rumsfeld's direct approval to use the tougher techniques if they are "warranted in an individual case" but would require a "thorough justification."

Jan. 15, 2003: Rumsfeld Memo to the Pentagon Counsel (53KB)
The defense secretary's memo to William J. Haynes II, the Pentagon's general counsel, asked Haynes to convene a working group to examine all aspects of interrogation policies. The memo also was referenced in Rumsfeld's memo to the head of U.S. Southern Command dated the same day.

Jan. 17, 2003: Memo From the Pentagon Counsel to the General Counsel for the Air Force (56KB)
Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes II designated Mary L. Walker, the general counsel for the Air Force, to head the working group Rumsfeld requested in his Jan. 15 memo.

April 4, 2003: Report of the Pentagon Working Group (6.7MB)
The 85-page report requested by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in January reviewed "legal, historical, police and operational considerations" and made recommendations to the Pentagon on what techniques should be approved.

April 16, 2003: Rumsfeld Memo to the Head of U.S. Southern Command (1.6MB)
The defense secretary, acting on the working groups' recommendation, restates which specific interrogation techniques are approved for Guantanamo Bay and which require his direct approval. The document also includes excerpts from the Army Field Manual.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62516-2004Jun22.html

Before you start calling someone stupid you should at least do a little background checking. Perhaps you might want to substitute pragmatic thought over "America, love it or leave it" instead of sycophant iconoclasm. It's this myopic thought process that allows people to feel good about themselves even when it may not be warranted. It's described best like this. Great is what everyone should look to be. America is a great country. Americans are great people who are steeped in morality. So if America is great, and the people are moral, than everything that America does must be great.

This attitude comes from people who never bother to research information that is not written from a US or Euro-centric perspective. They can easily dismiss that anything written from the alternative perspective must be simply propaganda made to show the US to be evil. They never stop to think how this logic could be applied in the contrary. After all, article written by Americans could not be biased or propaganda. That is only a product of the enemy. Everything from our perspective is altruistic truth. Bush may have thought torture was the right thing to do in this situation. Such rationalization should never be allowed to cloud good judgment. It's like John Edwards trying to explain his affair by saying that his wife's cancer had been in remission at that point. What influence that has I do not know. I'll go back to believing everything America does is great and in the best interest of the world. After all, there couldn't be any evidence to the contrary involving say: Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Chile, etc. We are a great people, therefor all that we do is great.

*can't see facts* Bush is gud. him want niceness 4 all. Him ellakwent 2. war is just and onnerabel. there is no reezun to kweschun guvvermint ever.

if Iraq had nothing to hide, why were they so secretive between the two Gulf Wars?

to keep the iranians on their toes

*can't see facts* Bush is gud. him want niceness 4 all. Him ellakwent 2. war is just and onnerabel. there is no reezun to kweschun guvvermint ever.

..and look forward to more political insight when Bizarro is a guest on Meet the Press.

Yours is to prove that the war was warranted, my wannabe-pop-psychologist friend...

Another classic liberal attack. Come up with a crazy hypothesis and then claim that the onus is on the opponent to disprove said crazy hypothesis.

Another classic liberal attack. Come up with a crazy hypothesis and then claim that the onus is on the opponent to disprove said crazy hypothesis.

Yeah, you see, I didn't ask you to DISPROVE a thing. I asked you to PROVE, and, yes, to prove a NON-NEGATIVE. Unless you're trying to claim (again, sans evidence) that "the war was unwarranted" is a "crazy hypothesis", in which case, excuse me while I laugh at how unintentionally funny you are.

Yeah, you see, I didn't ask you to DISPROVE a thing. I asked you to PROVE, and, yes, to prove a NON-NEGATIVE. Unless you're trying to claim (again, sans evidence) that "the war was unwarranted" is a "crazy hypothesis", in which case, excuse me while I laugh at how unintentionally funny you are.

I'm sure you do laugh. Laughter and ridicule are what you liberals are best at. That and meeting in your secret chambers, wearing your aluminum hats, to discuss the vast conspiracies all masterminded by the Bush administration. Your kind are so far beyond rationality I don't even get angry at you anymore. The only emotion you provoke is pity, since I imagine living in a world where the sole focus of your being is the hatred of the current most powerful man on the planet is maddening.

I'm sure you do laugh. Laughter and ridicule are what you liberals are best at. That and meeting in your secret chambers, wearing your aluminum hats, to discuss the vast conspiracies all masterminded by the Bush administration. Your kind are so far beyond rationality I don't even get angry at you anymore. The only emotion you provoke is pity, since I imagine living in a world where the sole focus of your being is the hatred of the current most powerful man on the planet is maddening.

I fear, sir, that you are the one whose behavior is irrational. There is ample evidence that Bush was at the very least eager to disregard unfavorable information when preparing to attack Iraq. Furthermore, Bush has written more Executive Orders and Signing Statements than any previous president, and these actions demonstrate a level of tyranny that is very disturbing. In essence, GWB has built a complete framework for martial law while engaging in an illegal war. If you don't find that disturbing, I must consider you to be dogmatic at the level of Andaras the Stalinist.

The problem with the two-party system is that about half of the population is always willing to overlook the flaws of the current president because "He's our guy, so we don't care." Your irrational ad-hominem attacks when presented with evidence demonstrate either desperation or unfamiliarity with proper debate procedures. If you can demonstrate that the evidence presented is false, do so.

For the record, I am only a 'liberal' in the most classical sense. I favor individual liberty, laissez faire economics, and international non-intervention. I certainly to not align myself with the Democratic Party, but neither do I worship the Republicans. Furthermore, I am not a 'centrist' who just wants to compromise between two brands of tyranny.

I'm sure you do laugh. Laughter and ridicule are what you liberals are best at. That and meeting in your secret chambers, wearing your aluminum hats, to discuss the vast conspiracies all masterminded by the Bush administration. Your kind are so far beyond rationality I don't even get angry at you anymore. The only emotion you provoke is pity, since I imagine living in a world where the sole focus of your being is the hatred of the current most powerful man on the planet is maddening.

And yet you made not a single attempt at proving anything you said. As for your belief my "single focus" is hatred for Dubya, wow, you're one deluded sod. But do continue dittoheading for him if that's what you like. I'll rest assured I won this argument without breaking a sweat, all the while I get annoyed at the fact that you were such a weak opponent.

If you can demonstrate that the evidence presented is false, do so.

Heck, I settled for him demonstrating HIS claims have some proof behind them, and all he did was... well, that.

Yes, Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq so he could invade and take all their oil.Crazy conspiracy-theorist liberals are just adorable.

More accurate would be to repair his father's broken legacy, but you're on the right track.
Yup....you got that right!!

Crazy conspiracy-theorist liberals are just adorable.
What can possibly be more crazy than those liberals......oh I know.....the crazy conservatives that condone the death and destruction that results from the actions of those that seek to hide the truth.

We will never know if he directly ordered torture. The term the "buck stops here" still applies. If torture was the official policy then he is responsible. Extraordinary rendition has already been proven to be true. Do you think ordering people to other countries where torture is legal absolves the Unites States from the law? I agree with John McCain when he said that torture should never be used. It is not known to produce reliable results. Before you go spouting 24 (tv show) logic you have to know that my MOS is of the 02 division. Torture doesn't work and is an abomination to the values of humanity and the US.
For once, I am in total agreement with you. :)

i vote for a war crimes tribunal and long prison terms for just about everyone in any position of authority at all

What if some of them genuinely believed that Iraq was a serious threat due to the false information passed down to them, and were convinced that the war was legal (the issue of whether or not it was legal is a little ambiguous)? Or what if it was someone in a position of authority who didn't have any involvement in Iraq at all?

Ah, and the liberal ad hominem attack machine comes out. I have this theory, that Bush Derangement Syndrome is so deeply ingrained that George W. Bush himself is not physically massive enough to contain all the hatred, so said liberals find the hatred welling up inside their brains, and require another target to allow the pressure to dissipate. Thus, Bush supporters become the targets for all the excess irrational hatred the liberals have left over.

While I find your combination of Freud with Bernoulli's Principle. . .entertaining, I have no idea what Bush Derangement Syndrome even is. I don't hate the President, nor do I suffer from some sort of psychiatric disorder (and by the way, way to one-up Bill Frist's diagnosis of chronic loss of brain function; you apparently can diagnose psychological disorders merely by looking at the type of a person. You should patent your diagnosis method, because it would revolutionize the diagnostic process in clinical psychology). I hate the fact that our policy with respect to torture is distinguishable from that of the Gestapo (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html) largely because we do things that they considered to be inhumane.

What if some of them genuinely believed that Iraq was a serious threat due to the false information passed down to them, and were convinced that the war was legal (the issue of whether or not it was legal is a little ambiguous)? Or what if it was someone in a position of authority who didn't have any involvement in Iraq at all?

doesn't excuse the organized torture, the hostage taking, the kidnapping, the 'disappearances', the officially sanctioned murders...

Once again, the left has revealed its true face: that its irrational hatred of the current president has so blinded it to any possible non-partisan views of the world that it will buy any load of tripe handed to it by any crazy conspiracy theorist who cares to come forward. Their arguments amount to "Oh yeah? Well, disprove this crackpot's ideas!" and "You must be the crackpot, since you disagree with my view, which is so clearly the correct one."

My suggestion, not that any of you Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers will take it, is to get over it. He's got only a few more months in office, and still you fume and fluster as much as he did when he won the 2000 elections. Bite your tongue until January, and you won't hear from him anymore, problem solved. In the meantime, go back to masturbating to recorded speeches of Barack Obama. That ought to get you through the transition to the McCain administration.

My arguments amount to "Oh yeah? Well, disprove my crackpot's ideas!" and "you must be the crackpot, since you disagree with my view, which is so clearly the correct one."


Fixed for factual accuracy. *nods*

Intelligence agencies = lie factories. Thats what they're trained to do - lead people to believe lies or to believe that the truth is a lie. How many times in history have intelligence or secret agencies used their craft on their own government or people? I'm not condoning it, I'm just saying that its in their nature. And anytime a government in any form surrounds themselves with "yes men", these problems tend to crop up and the people are the ones who end up biting the big one. This is just a particularly recent and polarizing one of the more controversial instances of this occurrence in history because they got caught. I'll bet that just about every government in the history of the world has had something underhanded done, just the ones we view as "good" didn't get caught.

Once again, the left has revealed its true face: that its irrational hatred of the current president has so blinded it to any possible non-partisan views of the world that it will buy any load of tripe handed to it by any crazy conspiracy theorist who cares to come forward. Their arguments amount to "Oh yeah? Well, disprove this crackpot's ideas!" and "You must be the crackpot, since you disagree with my view, which is so clearly the correct one."

My suggestion, not that any of you Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers will take it, is to get over it.
Coming from some one who probably listens to Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, or anyone other right-wing crackpot who regularly advocates things that make the most deranged person appear sane.

Intelligence agencies = lie factories. Thats what they're trained to do - lead people to believe lies or to believe that the truth is a lie. How many times in history have intelligence or secret agencies used their craft on their own government or people? I'm not condoning it, I'm just saying that its in their nature. And anytime a government in any form surrounds themselves with "yes men", these problems tend to crop up and the people are the ones who end up biting the big one. This is just a particularly recent and polarizing one of the more controversial instances of this occurrence in history because they got caught. I'll bet that just about every government in the history of the world has had something underhanded done, just the ones we view as "good" didn't get caught.
yeah the hitch in this one is that our own intelligence agencies spread lies and disinformation to US.

at the behest of the white house.

its just a tad illegal.

That's nice. Any comments on the forgeries that are the subject of this thread?

No no no!!!!! I will not have people focusing on the allegation that documents were forged by the CIA at the request of the White House. I want to talk in blithering generalities about how it's all "Bush #@$@$ syndrome."

For once, I am in total agreement with you. :)

CH, regardless of our disagreements over Clinton vs. Obama we have more in common they we might once be willing to admit. Our overall view of right and wrong were always very much in sync. In essence, we have essentially agreed on the message but differed on the messenger. I certainly like to agree with you far more than the contrary.

Once again, the left has revealed its true face: that its irrational hatred of the current president has so blinded it to any possible non-partisan views of the world that it will buy any load of tripe handed to it by any crazy conspiracy theorist who cares to come forward. Their arguments amount to "Oh yeah? Well, disprove this crackpot's ideas!" and "You must be the crackpot, since you disagree with my view, which is so clearly the correct one."

My suggestion, not that any of you Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers will take it, is to get over it. He's got only a few more months in office, and still you fume and fluster as much as he did when he won the 2000 elections. Bite your tongue until January, and you won't hear from him anymore, problem solved. In the meantime, go back to masturbating to recorded speeches of Barack Obama. That ought to get you through the transition to the McCain administration.

Oh I see now. You're just a copy/paste spam type troll. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again either to 1. Prove you really cannot back up anything that you are typing or. 2. Try to fan the flames of anger at your vitriolic repetition. Good show then Sir.

Snip.

I love it when I find an opponent in an argument that's worthy of my time.

Which is why I'm so disappointed at you.

You see, when one is attempting to prove a statement that's not a negative, such as "the war was just" or "Saddam had WMDs", the burden of proof is theirs. You made such statements. You're asking us to "disprove" you. The errors you're claiming to see? All yours.

There are so many people that offer more of a challenge than you here. I'll just go ahead and look for them.

You're a hundred years too young to defeat me.

You're a hundred years too young to defeat me.

For some reason I am picturing you as a sort of large and ancient granite statue.

For some reason I am picturing you as a sort of large and ancient granite statue.

I was hoping for an anime-esque effect, here, a la Kenpachi Zaraki from Bleach but better looking...

I was hoping for an anime-esque effect, here, a la Kenpachi Zaraki from Bleach but better looking...

I also thought of an old Obi-wan Kenobi.. or some Jedi.

I'm not much into anime. Animes.. animii?

I also thought of an old Obi-wan Kenobi.. or some Jedi.

I'm not much into anime. Animes.. animii?

Mmm, nerdy and cool enough, I suppose. :D

Animes. ;)

I love it when I find an opponent in an argument that's worthy of my time.

Which is why I'm so disappointed at you.

You see, when one is attempting to prove a statement that's not a negative, such as "the war was just" or "Saddam had WMDs", the burden of proof is theirs. You made such statements. You're asking us to "disprove" you. The errors you're claiming to see? All yours.

There are so many people that offer more of a challenge than you here. I'll just go ahead and look for them.

You're a hundred years too young to defeat me.

Once again, you've missed the point. I'm not attempting to debate you. The very focus of this thread is a collection of crackpot claims which are undeserving of justification by debating them. Similarly with the proponents of such crackpot theories, fueled as they are by irrational hatred of a man many of them have never even met. In essence, I'm not making any claims or asking anyone to disprove or prove anything. I don't debate with you because, frankly, you are unworthy of debate. I find you humorous, when you gather together with other like-minded schizophrenics and rally around your crackpot du jour. You are to be laughed at, gawked at, and perhaps pitied, but not debated. Perhaps when you grow up.

Once again, you've missed the point. I'm not attempting to debate you. The very focus of this thread is a collection of crackpot claims which are undeserving of justification by debating them. Similarly with the proponents of such crackpot theories, fueled as they are by irrational hatred of a man many of them have never even met. In essence, I'm not making any claims or asking anyone to disprove or prove anything. I don't debate with you because, frankly, you are unworthy of debate. I find you humorous, when you gather together with other like-minded schizophrenics and rally around your crackpot du jour. You are to be laughed at, gawked at, and perhaps pitied, but not debated. Perhaps when you grow up.

So you categorically deny all allegations against President Dubya? That's at least as bad as the Democrats who ignore Waco, Ruby Ridge, the war in Bosnia, and the pardoning scandal because Clinton was a Democrat and therefore incapable of wrongdoing.

Furthermore, dismissal of others as crackpots is an ad hominem attack because you refuse to look at any evidence they present. I used to think Bush was an overall good president until I began to educate myself beyond the sound byte level of politics and economics. I am now convinced that the majority of both parties are at the very least shortsighted and selfish, with no desire to take a truly statesmanlike stand for a good policy. At worst, it is within the realm of possibility that there is a conspiracy to move toward a totalitarian world government - at least, I doubt they could do more to push toward that goal if they tried.

Snip.

Oh, you poor, deluded sod.

I studied Linguistics. I've dedicated my life to analyzing discourse and arguments. I'm seen, here and in most places I go, as a person that's hard to argue with. And I did all of this while you were masturbating to the sound of Rush Limbaugh's voice. I'm so superior to you in this area that I actually had lost sight of what it is like to speak like you're speaking, like a child that thinks their best resource in an argument is saying "nuh-uh, you meaniehead" and still claims he's actually arguing or speaking sense. Until, that is, you appeared and reminded me that there are still people so low in the argument scale that all they have is this kind of excrement you throw.

For that, and for reminding me what to do with your kind, I thank you.

Welcome to my Ignore list.

doesn't excuse the organized torture, the hostage taking, the kidnapping, the 'disappearances', the officially sanctioned murders...

Most people in authority in the USA probably had nothing to do with that. I'm not sure why you must act in a religious 'guilt by association' way.

Most people in authority in the USA probably had nothing to do with that. I'm not sure why you must act in a religious 'guilt by association' way.

its more like a rico sort of way.

in addition, i am talking about the restricted domain of people in the bush admin, congress, the military, the intelligence agencies, probably some factions of various police organizations, and such. school administrators are probably in the clear - though not necessarily, of course.

in addition, i am talking about the restricted domain of people in the bush admin

Some of whom had no control over whether the US goes to war or not (or anything else like Guantanamo Bay).


, congress

Many of whom were against the war.


, the military

Many of whom were also against the war but forced to follow orders. Many people in the military probably didn't even harm or kill a single person.


, the intelligence agencies

The CIA weren't actually the ones I believe who said that Iraq had WMD.


, probably some factions of various police organizations

Why so?

...

ok, you seem to think this is all about punishing people for the iraq war. as i said, that is not really my concern. it does give us even more of an 'in' on the deal though, as the lies and cover-ups unravel (more so than they were at point of delivery, when the incredibly ignorant or mentally addled might have excusably believed them, at least)

people in all of those positions i listed either ordered, actively participated in, or knew about and didn't stop a pile of war crimes and human rights abuses, as well as numerous other crimes - many of which have already been openly admitted on the fucking tv, let alone in documents gained through foia requests or in court cases. and who knows how much more an independent and objective investigation would uncover.

we need an independant council to investigate and prosecute the entire bush administration. the legal and ethical violations span far more than the iraq war and the war on terror.

or knew about and didn't stop a pile of war crimes and human rights abuses

Yes but many of the people you are including were not able to stop it and were not in a place to. I don't think we should blindly punish anyone who is linked to the government, that's very old fashioned thinking. I also don't believe in punishing anyone who has been misinformed by the government and believe that the orders they were following were just and legal, that again is very old fashioned thinking.

Yes but many of the people you are including were not able to stop it and were not in a place to.

makes them an accessory, at least, if they didn't take any steps at all to stop it.

there are always things you could do about it - tell the fucking press, leak some documents, something.

I also don't believe in punishing anyone who has been misinformed by the government and believe that the orders they were following were just and legal, that again is very old fashioned thinking.

'just following orders' is not now nor has it ever been an excuse. we are talking about torture, murder, kidnapping, etc. serious and obvious fucking wrongs. anyone that doesn't have the mental capacity to tell that holding someones children hostage and then 'disappearing' all of them is wrong needs to be locked up for my safety.

makes them an accessory, at least, if they didn't take any steps at all to stop it.

there are always things you could do about it - tell the fucking press, leak some documents, something.


Firstly, I'm not talking about people who knew information that the public didn't know but should, I'm simply talking about officers who were misinformed about the threat of Iraq or whatever, and were not in a position to stop the war or anything like that. Also, now you're talking about positive duties, not fulfilling your positive duties does not deserve punishment. There is plenty more you and I could have done to stop the war as well. In fact, by your logic every single citizen in the US should be punished for not revolting against the government and stopping the war. Every single citizen in the US that voted for Bush should also be punished.


'just following orders' is not now nor has it ever been an excuse.

It's not an excuse but you have to take it into account. Otherwise every single Nazi soldier the allies could find would have been sentenced to death.


we are talking about torture, murder, kidnapping, etc.

No, we're not just talking about that, otherwise around 90% of the people you mentioned would be totally irrelevant to that.


serious and obvious fucking wrongs. anyone that doesn't have the mental capacity to tell that holding someones children hostage and then 'disappearing' all of them is wrong needs to be locked up for my safety.

What are you talking about in this particular case?

I'm simply talking about officers who were misinformed about the threat of Iraq or whatever, and were not in a position to stop the war or anything like that.

and i'm not

Going beyond his comment in his book, Ron Suskind has backed up how allegation that the Bush Administration forced the CIA to forge letters to make its case for war I don't know if it's worth it now to impeach these liars or just let them drown in the mess they have made?

http://www.ronsuskind.com/thewayoftheworld/transcripts/

That's like saying it isn't worth arresting a murderer after he manages to wipe out the whole family he was after, because now the victim doesn't have any relatives who will press charges.

As for the evidence... I have a photo that indicates that the sky is almost certainly blue.