'War Criminal Bush' Blamed For Worldwide Crises, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times


reply posted on 22-11-2008 @ 12:48 PM by jam321
reply to post by Britguy


But wait, isn't Bush the Commander in Chief and the self proclaimed "Decider"?
If so then the buck stops with him.


Yes, he is the Commander in Chief. I don't know what he calls himself and don't care. The issue here is that Bush committed war crimes. If this is true and your average person claims it to be, How is it that our Congress, who have access to classified information, deems it not to be true. With the exception of a few Congressmen, no one else in Congress has called for the impeachment of Bush based on the claims being made. That means one, they don't believe a crime was committed or two, they know a crime was committed but have chosen to cover it up. If they are covering it up then the BUCK doesn't stop at Bush.


reply posted on 22-11-2008 @ 12:53 PM by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by jam321


It is very simple to see why---THEY ARE ALL GUILTY OF THE SAME CRIMES.

By impeaching / prosecuting, they likely will be implicated as well. They are covering their own behinds by not following through.

This is why it will likely take a foreign country to achieve justice. Our entire gov body (save for a couple) is corrupt and compromised.



reply posted on 22-11-2008 @ 12:55 PM by Britguy
reply to post by jam321


The assertion, most definitely, is that many members of congress backed war for reasons known only to themselves, in the full knowledge that the reasons were false. Maybe their stock portfolios in arms suppliers and other corporations who would make a killing (pun intended) from war helped? Maybe it was the accepted funds from AIPAC and others, who then called in the markers, that helped them vote in favour of war but whatever the reason they should be held accountable.

Simply brushing it off as "bad intelligence" is so lame, especially given the fact that they even set up a group within the Pentagon to manufacture and cherry pick Intel to build the case for war, outside of the usual channels and even the CIA.


reply posted on 22-11-2008 @ 01:06 PM by anonymousATS
Originally posted by jam321
I don't agree with the war criminal mess. I respect that you feel that way but I can't see allowing some zealous outsider go after one of our Presidents just to further humiliate the United States. We have a US Congress that has the power to impeach a sitting President for abuse of powers and other crimes. For the past eight years, our Congress have found no reason to impeach President Bush. If Bush is a war criminal as you state, then you should also be calling for the arrest of the US Congress for aiding and abetting or for Dereliction of duty. Furthermore, most of these people calling Bush a war criminal are basing it off what they hear, not proof.




Jeez, I don't even know where to begin.

Congress has been rubber stamping everything that has come down the pike oover the last 8 years. Perhaps it was due to those concressmen that wanted to slow down Bush's legislative onslaught in the beginning. You know what I mean -- those congressmen that received anthrax letters.

The democrats started making noises that they would hold public hearings on massive criminal activity (reported by credible whistleblowers) if they took control of congress in 2006. They took control and then promptly forgot about their promises. Something is clearly wrong.

Later congress is talking about the Wall Street bailout. 99 out of 100 Americans said "no way". Congress, with some members threatened, some bribed, did it anyway. The result was the largest theft in the history. And the chief genius doling out the money won't even tell us where the money went. Does that sound kosher to you?

If you don't think there is prima face evidence of Bush's crimes over the last 8 years, you are simply not paying attention. And yes, his policies are partially responsible for the ecopnomic crash.

This monster deserves a fair trial, followed by a proper hanging in public.




[edit on 11/22/2008 by anonymousATS]


reply posted on 22-11-2008 @ 01:06 PM by jam321
reply to post by Britguy


Simply brushing it off as "bad intelligence" is so lame,


Lame....


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


www.davidstuff.com...

Was Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd part of that secret group cherry picking intel info to build a case for war?

Maybe Hillary was.... (and the conspiracy grows as to who lied) Obama's soon to be Secretary of State.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


same source as above

Do you believe Obama's soon to be Secretary of State also lied in order to make a case to go to war?


reply posted on 22-11-2008 @ 01:12 PM by Britguy
Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Britguy


Do you believe Obama's soon to be Secretary of State also lied in order to make a case to go to war?


In a word...... YES!

She is part of the system after all and as corrupt as the rest of them.


reply posted on 22-11-2008 @ 01:12 PM by jam321
reply to post by anonymousATS


If you don't think there is prima face evidence of Bush's crimes over the last 8 years, you are simply not paying attention.


I haven't said that. Are you paying attention? I even told the op that he has a good case on the torture issue.

What it boils down to is that you choose to go after one guy when there are others equally responsible if such stated crimes are proven to be true. Seeing that you and I are not privilege to all the classified information or potential evidence that may be available to prove such a case, I don't see why you should be judging the guy to be guilty and hung.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags