The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


furthermore

im not your 'homie'

You still fail to discuss the implications that if you prosecute bush, you have to prosecute all other world leaders that have a hand in Iraq

...so why do you fail to talk about THAT?
Because an artcle written by a biased attorney says that your politics are right?

You say he's undefeated. Good for him
But keep in mind
Everyone has to loose sometime

what if this is the one he's wrong about?

Regarding WMD's: You cannot prove a negative. The war was based on red herrings. The National Intelligence Estimate was created by a collaboration of 16 agencies and states plainly on page 8 (of 94) that Iraq posed no threat to U.S. interests "unless provoked." This portion of the NIE was deleted from the "White Paper" that was provided to Congress and the press.

The UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix was forced by Bush to leave Iraq, all the while begging the UN for a few more weeks to finish proving that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

This war was a lie, and this will come out once Bush vacates the office and loses his immunity from prosecution.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by flashback]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Agreed about the homie remark...Tongue in cheek--Bush excusists are certainly not in that realm for most. Particularly at this stage of the game. lol

As far as the complicity-It depends...How many ACTUALLY KNEW what the top tier admin officials knew prior to the go-ahead? If they knew (that the CIA was casting doubts) then you bet your a** EVERY ONE of them should be held accountable that DID KNOW. At the very least that makes them co-complicitory and co-conspiratory for murder of troops and innocent civilians in a war based on lies.




[edit on 13-6-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

I can't believe you are trying to link 9-11 to Pearl Harbor in justification of the Iraq war. That is the single biggest fallacy that has ever been sold to the people. Everyone with any sense left in their heads knows that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. There was little doubt that the Japanese fleet and the zeros were from Japan however. Ridiculous argument. I think I'm done.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Okay.
So there goes congress
there goes Blair
there goes The guy from Austrailia, france, etc. basically anyone who sent troops to Iraq.

im not supporting bush, so get off your high horse

Im saying keep middle ground

You are asying "HES GUILTY...uh.....Because...they didnt find anything!"

They havent found life on mars yet, so i suppose that means Life doesnt exist there?

And the japanese attack on Pearl harbor had nothing to do with Nazi Germany. So why not just attack Japan.

Im using your own argument against you.

You say its okay to enter WW2 because Japan attacked us.

To say that Iraq had no ties to terrorist leaders is absolutely mind blowing. Do i have proof? No. I am not a world leader, so i dont get that kind of access.

Congress ok'd it.
Congress funded it
The world joined us on it

So if bush is accountable, all are accountable

thats all im saying

if you twist it any other way, then you are only lying to yourself.

Dont be so quick to jump to one side of the argument, because in the event that the truth comes out and you're wrong, you'll loose all credibility. of course, if you're right you can say "i told you so" and be happy with yourself

Personally - i like to say "oh, well, guess they were right"
its a much safer gamble, especially when you have no information other than what biased opinionaters give you.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Did you actually bother to READ the report of them being CAUGHT LYING? Even BUSH HIMSELF now has back-pedaled claiming he had "faulty intelligence" (which again is a lie-he got caught THROWING OUT and ALTERING the intelligence reports)! So you continuing to argue the WMD angle when even the biggest proponent of them himself has now admitted was "off" is ludicrous...

I'm afraid people put too much emphasis on Bush and not enough emphasis on his pull stringers. He's merely another corporate puppet, who made promises to bring -them- prosperity during his term..which didn't quite turn out as planned.... and now they've all ditched him on the side of the road.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Faulty intelligence
The intelligence said "there's WMD's, lookit them"

They went in
There were no WMD's

The intelligence was faulty.

if you want to blame bush for anything, blame him for not acting sooner(someone else here said that, but i agree with them)

Had bush not given Sadam so much time, then there would be no shadow of a doubt today about his WMD's

So your assumption says that Sadamn had zero WMD's?

If my assumption about your opinion is correct, then i guess it'd also be safe to assume taht you think, after he gassed his "card buddies" (refered to earlier in this thread)
he simply....ran out of weapons?

The people oppressed by Sadam had a trial for him
he was convicted
he was sentenced to death

i guess that was bush's fault too?
I guess the people who testified about horrible treatment and inhumane dictatorship were liars, and politically obligated to do so, to support bush?

I suppose you think that movies like "redacted" are considered non-fiction, and hold them up like the bible.

If you do- hey man, thats fine. All the power to ya.

But you're not allowed to consider yourself an objective person.
you cannot prove that iraq didnt have WMDs
just like i cannot prove iraq DID have WMDs

but to say that bush should be tried fro murder, simply because your political ideology disagree's with his, is simply insane

but of course
thats just my opinion

reply to post by NGC2736


I have good faith that they would be WILLING to hand him over if that is the case.

''we wont extradite him, but some mad maniac might kidnap him, put him on a jet and fly him to nuremburg... but we had nothing to do with it.. honest''

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Bugliosi's case is built on the fact that he KNEW it was bad intelligence, and that he suppressed the NIE conclusions, and that there is sufficient proof of that beyond a reasonable doubt. His claim of ignorance is not valid. Just as testimony will soon show that he approved of the outing of Valerie Plame.

This will all come out. It's only a matter of time. Bugliosi (retired) is sending out his book and his case to a thousand prosecutors nationwide and says that he will assist, in any capacity, any of them who pursue wrongful death charges against Bush for constituents of their jurisdiction.

He makes a strong argument of Juris Diction in his book also, by the way. I would be interested to discuss this book with anyone who reads it that is seriously interested in the law or law students.

Thanks.

I'm still waiting to hear from Obama and Mccain on what they think should be done to a President who is clearly gulity of War Crimes. This is the number one issue facing this country. I want to know what the next President of this Country intends to do about George W Bush, so far it seems like nothing. Thank You Vincent Bugliosi for doing the work, and caring about justice for all. It's time to take the blindfold off of lady liberty.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

Faulty intelligence
The intelligence said "there's WMD's, lookit them"

They went in
There were no WMD's

The intelligence was faulty.

if you want to blame bush for anything, blame him for not acting sooner(someone else here said that, but i agree with them)

Had bush not given Sadam so much time, then there would be no shadow of a doubt today about his WMD's

So your assumption says that Sadamn had zero WMD's?

If my assumption about your opinion is correct, then i guess it'd also be safe to assume taht you think, after he gassed his "card buddies" (refered to earlier in this thread)
he simply....ran out of weapons?

The people oppressed by Sadam had a trial for him
he was convicted
he was sentenced to death

i guess that was bush's fault too?
I guess the people who testified about horrible treatment and inhumane dictatorship were liars, and politically obligated to do so, to support bush?

I suppose you think that movies like "redacted" are considered non-fiction, and hold them up like the bible.

If you do- hey man, thats fine. All the power to ya.

But you're not allowed to consider yourself an objective person.
you cannot prove that iraq didnt have WMDs
just like i cannot prove iraq DID have WMDs

but to say that bush should be tried fro murder, simply because your political ideology disagree's with his, is simply insane

but of course
thats just my opinion

The intelligence was cherry picked froma variety of soucres and slammed together,even most intelligence agencies said this...They knew it was a lie,thats a simple fact,they also knew the whole country would split and civil war would start.America is in it for the long haul..Stop being naive

The interesting thing for me is what might come out of any serious trial on a 9/11 related issue like the war in Iraq. Could the whole ball of yarn start to come unravelled? I certainly hope so. Also, such a case could bring out evidence that might be useful in civil claims against him or in possible future war crimes proceedings.

There is momentum building, I think, and I'm a real 9/11 pessimist. Maybe we are beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel. Of course, no war crimes trial for Henry Kissinger resulted from the publication of Christopher Hitchen's book.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


DD, you're the man!!

Honestly, I doubt that we'll ever see retribution for the acts of this administration. They're too well dug in. With Bush leaving office (well it's possible that he will leave!! soon, the complacent will forget and move on to the next guy and believe his lies.
The good 'ole boys will have his back and make him and his cronies untouchable.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective
I am both a gun lover and a crazy(lol), the only tizzy I am likely to get in is if the prosecution is unsuccesful. Mucho props to Dennis Kucinich(sp?) and Vincent Bugliosi for having the cajones to stand up to this criminal. Lets bring this crime family down!!

Hearing on Limits of Executive Power: Vincent Bugliosi

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU

Vincent Bugliosi on Weapons of Mass Destruction

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7abu9a0xtNI


Hearing on Limits of Executive Power: Vincent Buliosi

www.youtube.com/watch?v=q53p34yzZac


Bugliosi put Charles Manson behind bars for life with a case based on Manson's intent of malice aforethought... Manson never was accused of using his own hand in the Manson Family Murders , but Charles Manson was convicted for CONSPIRING these murders in California. Vince Bugliosi was a brilliant prosecutor then, and clearly is still to this day.

Wonderful thread! Starred and flagged! Not to mention DU weaponry is considered weapons of mass destruction and crimes against humanity by the UN and he should be charged and tried for warcrimes in an international court. There is nothing but evidence!

Saddam Hussein was a terrible man by all accounts and had many people murdered, but this Iraq war we're in has killed many more than Saddam ever did...all those lives wasted for nothing. It makes me sick to my stomach what happens in this country.

man this is one of the best threads i have found on this subject. definate flag.george bush is little lord fontleroy spoiled basturd rich kid.there's damn sure nothing tough about him. look at his mother we're talkin t=rex.
come in to the world and call her mom. guess he's been in hell all along
huh?

[edit on 23-6-2009 by randyvs]