Obama will let " Bush's Crimes Remain Buried for all Time"

What other crimes has bush committed. Everybody keeps calling him a criminal and I want to know for what.

So then - it is true:

Bush can use the troops any way he see's fit, as long as he accomplishes it within 60 days?

He could, theoretically, attack anyone at any time without prior consent?

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Yes, he could. However think of the planning and logistics it takes to get troops in and to get them out. There is really little time in between. 60 days go by pretty quick. In addition most President will not send troops to a war that they know Congress won't authorized. That is why Bush got permission.

Prior to this war power act President could pretty much get us involved anywhere for any reason. This act put a lot of constraints on the President.

When China was rolling rolling over students with their tanks we were on standby to go into China and evacuate Americans if things got worse. Usually these are the types of mission the President uses those 60 days for or humanitarian issues.

reply to post by jam321




this furthers my post before last......

Why is it that our goal post keeps shifting on IRAQ?

First WMDs
Then connection to 9/11
then its because "sadamn was a bad guy"

well that may be true

But so is Mr. Ill over in korea

what makes sadamn so special?

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Listen, personally we should have finished the job the first time.

Do I think Saddam had wmd's? yes, so did a lot of other people who had far better intel than what I could find on the net.

The reason it keeps shifting is because Saddam played the Mother of all bluffs.

He intimidated everybody with WMD's that he really didn't have or some that was just outdated. This embarrassed the administration that's why they keep changing the story.

Saddam was dangerous because he proved he was willing to use chemical weapons. He did it to Iran and his own people. He needed to be taken out. I believe his hatred for the way the US (Bush Father) humiliated him in the first war was more than enough reason for Saddam to possibly give WMD's to terrorist. I feel we had to get him out. We couldn't risk that possibility.

However, the planning and execution was piss poor. We blitzed in there thinking everybody would love for getting Saddam out and we left all the bad guys standing. Then we got bogged down in the Iraq war. This I do blame on the administration. We got stuck and had to stay there to save face. we can't afford another Vietnam. Thankfully the surge has put us back on track and by next year no matter who is President, you will see troops leaving.

reply to post by jam321


Thats an assessment i could bring myself to agree with


Now if Bush could just admit to it.... :shk:

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


And I will agree with you, he should. He should have stuck to his wmd story because that was a legit reason. However, I disagree with all this war crime stuff because of Iraq. The UN said if he broke sanctions, then UN had right to use force. However, the UN doesn't back up what it says. We need to get rid of the UN, but that's another story.

Im pritty sure there will be more willingness to charge Bush or by the least reveal him under Obama.

Im pritty sure Bushes ass will be covered by McCain because McCain gave his soul to Bush for the presidency.

Im pritty sure Im not voting for a Bush third term.

Im pritty sure my reason for voting for Obama is verymuch understandable.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Do Rice and Bush have the shortest of short term memories or what?

"Iraq" anyone?

Oh, there were 17 UN Security Council resolutions against Georgia?

I had no idea, can you link them please?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Who is saying anything about that?

Their words

"you cannot invade a country and occupy a capital in the 21st century"


Thats exactly what the united states did.

Twice.

Afghanistan
Iraq




So why the double standard?

My personal view on the Goergian conflict is that "they started it" but that "Russia went too far in retaliation"

And i would say the same thing for the Iraq conflict.

Its the same thing.

So if "you cant do that in the 21st century"


Why did we do it ourselves?

Originally posted by L.HAMILTON
The last president that was actually held accountable for his crimes was Nixon . Though his crimes were no where even close to those that have been openly committed by the past several administrations.

Clinton?

lol.

America =

Land of the "cheat"
Home of the "Corrupt"

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
Let me explain to you what the difference between Iraq and Georgia are okay, and there are NUMEROUS, but I'll explain the massive difference.

"Cease Fire Agreement"

Fact: The first gulf war was ended on a cease-fire agreement, NOT a peace treaty. Why is this relevant? Because, at anytime party "A" violates the terms agreed upon in the cease-fire agreement with party "B", then by international law, party "B" can resume military operations.

Iraq had REPEATEDLY violated our cease-fire agreement, and had SEVENTEEN UNSC resolutions against her to meet certain demands.

The invasion of Iraq would have been "justified" after Iraq violated the very first agreement they made for the cease-fire. What politicians here in the US bank upon when they claim our invasion "wasn't just" or there was no "declaration of war" is that the American people are too ignorant of international law to call their bluff.

To compare Georgia to Iraq is to compare apples to oranges. Georgia and Russia do NOT have a ceasefire agreement, nor did Georgia initiate an act of war on Russia. If either of those had been true then you could compare the invasion to Iraq or Afghanistan by the US.



[edit on 17-8-2008 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by jephers0n

Originally posted by L.HAMILTON
The last president that was actually held accountable for his crimes was Nixon . Though his crimes were no where even close to those that have been openly committed by the past several administrations.

Clinton?

lol.

Clinton was acquitted.

Moot point.

(Coincidently though, he was charged with the same things Nixon was.)

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So, we invade without a congressional act.

We invade without UN approval

.......we invade on the premise of WMD's

and then admit there were none

then it was "oh well thye had connections with 9/11'


Then "well...i never said they had connections with 9/11, this was about liberation and promoting democracy"


Promoting democracy may be admirable. But what if those people dont' want it?

Going to war to promote democracy is no different from any other cause America has tried to defeat.

"do as i say, not as i do"

should replace the words on the statue of liberty.

If you call me unamerican for saying that - i call you unamerican for so blindly supporting your government.

Bush commited war crimes. The only reason some see it differently is how it affects them.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
So, we invade without a congressional act.

Huh? There was a congressional act. They authorized force...Bush is just the guy who asked for it. they gave it to him. Though I still think it's pathetic how Congress goes to war but refuses to declare it.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
We invade without UN approval

And this doesn't matter, legally.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Let me explain to you what the difference between Iraq and Georgia are okay, and there are NUMEROUS, but I'll explain the massive difference.

"Cease Fire Agreement"

Fact: The first gulf war was ended on a cease-fire agreement, NOT a peace treaty. Why is this relevant? Because, at anytime party "A" violates the terms agreed upon in the cease-fire agreement with party "B", then by international law, party "B" can resume military operations.

Iraq had REPEATEDLY violated our cease-fire agreement, and had SEVENTEEN UNSC resolutions against her to meet certain demands.

The invasion of Iraq would have been "justified" after Iraq violated the very first agreement they made for the cease-fire. What politicians here in the US bank upon when they claim our invasion "wasn't just" or there was no "declaration of war" is that the American people are too ignorant of international law to call their bluff.

This is basically the bottom line (in terms of international justification). Whether or not it was right to go into Iraq, or if our "leaders" gave us the right reasons, is very debatable, but it can be justified simply with what's in the above quote.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by jam321

 

this handy little article is what raises suspicion in my mind.

Explain to me what the Iraqi conflict has done to be different from what Russia is doing to Georgia?

IN AND OF ITS SELF.

Im just curious - because if we label Russia the bad guy for doing the same thing we did - doesnt that make us the bad guy too?

I agree. If its true that Russia has wronged Georgia like this how are we to say anything about it?

Its not the governments responsibility to do something about Bush it is ours. Thinking that political leaders should fix themselves got us into the mess we are currently in and the mess our founding fathers worked so hard to get us out of.

As an Obama supporter, this thread worried me (past tense), until I took the two minutes required to track down the source. In the youtube clip, Keith Olbermann was quoting an article from the Nation.

Cass Sunstein, an informal adviser to Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law School, urged caution in prosecuting criminal conduct from the current administration, while also noting that egregious crimes should not be ignored. Prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, he argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton--or even the "slight appearance" of it.
Netroots Summit Grapples with Bipartisan Attacks on Rule of Law

So, two important points have been overlooked here, 1) that this Sunstein person is an "informal adviser," meaning that he has no permanent position in a future Obama administration, and 2) that he said that no "egregious crimes should be ignored," meaning that, while Obama's Attorney General may not prosecute Bush for, hypothetically, stealing some stuff from the WH when he leaves, he would be prosecuted for 'breaking' the Constitution, an illegal war, etc.

You know, the 'big' stuff.