Brewing Trouble for George W. Bush

page: 4
50
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MoonMine
 


If he did anything worthy of prosecution, then I wonder why it wasn't brought up during the time he was "ruining our country"...
I'm sure the Dems would have loved to get him out of the way...
Hmmm...
Maybe it's because if Bush got tried then a majority of congress would as well, as the majority obviously ruled in his favor. This is not a monarchy, and thus this shouldn't be solely about Bush. The fact that it is says something...


The reason this should be dropped is because it will do more harm than good. The decisions that Bush made are, by and large, intertwined with countless others who voted in his favor. Uprooting one politician which is out of office would uproot many who are in office - think of the backlash that would cause.

If you had a garden, and there was one dead plant with bugs on it, would you spray the whole garden with deadly poison just for the sake of killing the bugs on an already dead plant?
This is essentially what is being presented...




posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The UN did not authorise the US to go to war.
The UN Stated, no evidence nor weapons were found, and that more time was needed to justify the USA's accusations.

The US didn’t accept this, and just went in... and looky dee, no weapons nor factories were made.

the reason this is illegal is because its obvious to those who are willing to accept it,

that

'' you cannot have evidence of WMD's, when no WMD's exist ''

And when intelligence agencies say that they TOLD the US administration the evidence was fraudulent, fake, and completely off the mark, the administration hushed them up., or do you believe the Plaime affair is completely unrelated?

So, just because there isn’t a document at the UN Stating
'' any nation who lies about wmd's and declares war on Iraq will be deemed an illegal war ''

doesn’t mean its legal.

It just means you cant accept the USA would lie maim murder and manipulate to get its own way when it comes to occupation of oil rich nations.

Much like Germany and Poland, if you ask me!



[edit on 18-2-2009 by Agit8dChop]


I think you forgot to include the UN resolution against the US stating the removal of S. Hussein was an illegal act.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MoonMine
 


Actually, for the OP...'Brewing Trouble...' I JUST got the joke. Brilliant!

Keep up the good work, you are fairing well, my friend....fare thee well,,,,



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
American's are above the Law it seems, I also beleive to pull out troops successfully from Iraq, Bush and co should be prosecuted a la Saddam! This simple validation of the millions of lives destroyed, would calm the remaining and apease some of the hatred that causes true terrorism in the first place. Sad Sad Sad



[edit on 19-2-2009 by HulaAnglers]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Perhaps someone could help me remember the exact number of troops engaged in conflict in Iraq without the permission and declaration of war by Congress?

Could someone point out where in the Constitution that the US must secure permission from the UN for any action the US takes as a sovereign nation?

Was the other countries (or their leaders) in the coalition forces also up for war crimes?

Does not the Geneva Convention Guidelines call for the execution of opposing forces if they do not wear a recognizable uniform?

Are there any possible reasons that were not release publicly for reasons of national security that were also used for justification this author knows or does not know about?

JFK began our commitment in Vietnam, which divided our nation ideologically far more than the MSM and alternate sources with agendas pumped rhetoric over Bush...how many call for legal actions post-humorously? If so what? Drag his corpse out in the street and shoot him in the head again?

Honestly when will this end? Or do I need to shout "You won the damn election, now get over it"? Some threads are just becoming to close to Oberman's talking point outtakes anymore



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Your points are at best moot. The essence is that every President in modern time and maybe every world leader except a few has been involved in war and other crimes, covert or not.

The point is that in the GWB case it can clearly be proven and a case can be made against several individuals which can actually be brought to trial.

I am sure that if for any other individual in power -past or present- enough evidence would exist for such a procedure, it would no doubt have been instigated long ago. You may want to look into the movement after Blair though.

For your information, JFK was not keen on Vietnam, and that, with the fact that he tried to introduce a silver backed currency was the main reason he was removed from the scene.

UPDATE: Bob Alexander has not responded to my offer for support yet, anyone has had a reply yet?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MoonMine
 


I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my questions being moot. The fact that you quickly dismiss then out of hand is very telling in my opinion that in answering them honestly and directly would weaken your position.

The questions deal directly with the main points of why Bush should be on trial. And while the JFK question is extreme and admittedly in poor taste it points out that even a good president can act poorly. JFK's commitment eventually lead to four college students dying by the hands of US military on American soil while protesting.

Soldiers die in wars. Civilians should not be killed by their own military while protesting. Failure to see a difference. Doesn't look good for your opinion of Bush.

Now don't get me wrong, there are things that Bush has done things that I strongly oppose (Mexican Pilot Program after it was denied by Congress, amnesty bills and the bailout) and I question his reasons. But none of those involve "War Crimes".

And until those "moot" questions can be addressed, I question your motivations and reasoning for your "War Crime" allegations as being influenced by the bandwagon or personal agenda for some reason or another.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Which mod entered this anonymous post in here???
edit on 7-19-2012 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
And until those "moot" questions can be addressed, I question your motivations and reasoning for your "War Crime" allegations as being influenced by the bandwagon or personal agenda for some reason or another.


If you had bothered to read the allegations you would have seen that labelling the allegations "War Crimes" does not do it justice at all. I know I did that myself too, but that is because I am an idiot in getting drawn into discussions which take the focus away from what really should be the focal point. Yes I am on the overthrow-the-Government-and-replace-it-with-true-government-at-all-cost bandwagon, and not hiding nor ashamed of it. And you?





John Ashcroft
Justice Department
Attorney General
Implicated in: Coercive interrogation, DoJ hiring, wiretapping

Lt. Col. Diane Beaver
U.S. Armed Forces
Staff Judge Advocate at Guantanamo
Implicated in: coercive interrogation

Joshua Bolten
White House
Chief of Staff
Implicated in: U.S. attorney firings

George Bush
White House
President
Implicated in: Coercive interrogation, CIA tapes, and wiretapping

Jay Bybee
Office of Legal Council
Implicated in: coercive interrogation

Richard Cheney
Office of the Vice President
Vice President
Implicated in: Coercive interrogation, CIA tapes, wiretapping

Michael Chertoff
Department of Justice
Criminal Division
Implicated in: coercive interrogation

Michael Elston
Department of Justice
Former Chief of Staff to Paul McNulty
Implicated in: U.S. attorney firings and politicized hiring

Doug Feith
Department of Defense
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (No. 3 at the Pentagon)
Implicated in: coercive interrogation

Timothy Flanigan
White House
Deputy Counsel
Implicated in: coercive interrogation

Alberto Gonzales
White House and Department of Justice
White House Counsel, Attorney General
Implicated in: coercive interrogation, wiretapping, destruction of CIA tapes, U.S. attorney firings, politicized hiring.

Monica Goodling
Department of Justice/White House
White House liaison and senior counsel to Alberto Gonzales
Implicated in: U.S. attorney firings and politicized hiring

William J. (Jim) Haynes II
Department of Defense
General Counsel
Implicated in: coercive interrogation

Paul J. McNulty
Department of Justice
Deputy Attorney General
Implicated in: U.S. attorney firings

Harriet Miers
White House
White House Counsel
Implicated in: U.S. attorney firings, CIA tape destructions

Colin Powell
State Department
Secretary of State
Implicated in: Coercive interrogation

Condoleezza Rice
White House, State Department
National Security Adviser, Secretary of State
Implicated in: Coercive interrogation

Jose Rodriguez
CIA
Head of Clandestine Services
Implicated in: coercive interrogation

Karl Rove
White House
Deputy Chief of Staff
Implicated in: U.S. Attorney firings

Donald Rumsfeld
Department of Defense
Secretary of Defense
Implicated in: coercive interrogation

D. Kyle Sampson
Department of Justice
Former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Implicated in: U.S. attorney firings

Bradley J. Schlozman
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Implicated in: politicized hirings

John Yoo
Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Implicated in: coercive interrogation, wiretapping.

David Addington
Office of the Vice President
General Counsel and Chief of Staff
Implicated in: coercive interrogation, wiretapping, destruction of the CIA tapes



From: An interactive guide to Bush-administration lawbraking

And that's just for starters.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
if george bush gets tryed for murder what about all of us soliders who are here in iraq..this is my 4th deployment to iraq ..im not saying by any means we should be hear or we shoudnt but dos proscuting bush mean we are aiding and abiding a criminal and we will be proscuted or should be..
what ever the original reasons for coming here the mission has changed from using violence to accomplish or mission to training these people to take care of the place and doing humaintarin missions ..so we can leave..
anyways peace out guys so youll in texas soon : )


First of thanks for your brave post and great to hear you will be coming home soon... I would not presume that unless you personally committed acts against humanity you will never be blamed or charged with anything but rather praised for defending your country, however wrong or illegal or whatever the war in Iraq may be. You chose to be a soldier and I respect that.

Stay safe and thanks again for your post.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Perhaps someone could help me remember the exact number of troops engaged in conflict in Iraq without the permission and declaration of war by Congress?


Exactly.
This whole proposal is crazy, because the OP fails to realize that you can't just prosecute Bush n' co'. If what Bush did was illegal, then you would also have to prosecute every single congressman that voted in favor of his actions.

Of course these people just want to see Bush punished for this without thinking about the negative repercussions.

Just play the friggin' scenario out in your head. It doesn't take a genius to see that this would lead to a major trial of hundreds of people in congress.


Then what?
Would we hold a special election to regain those seats?
Would there not be a negative backlash from the public because their elected official was thrown out of office?
Do you honestly think that this would be good for our county, especially now when we need to focus on other things?

To me, punishment is far less important than restrainment.
Bush can't do any more harm because he is no longer President.
If you had gone after him while he was President, then you would be seeking both punishment and restrainment. Now, you seek only punishment.

I just wonder why this is brought up now, and not years ago if people feel so strongly about the deaths rather than seeing the politician they hate hang for it...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoonMine



Playing the devil's advocate I would say the chances that they get even a single conviction in this case are the same as getting a conspiracy conviction against Shaw in the Garrison JFK trial in New Orleans.

Needless to say that if Bush were to be formally charged, the pot of Revolution which is now still quietly bubbling will start to cook, and quite possibly boil over into real change.

bushproject.com
prosecutegeorgebush.com
List of Allegations

www.bushproject.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2/18/2009 by semperfortis]


Shaw?


This Bush thing know it will never get off the ground and thats not thier intention. This is simply more slime and pucky.

If this thing ever did start to fly then the Bush defense would wheel out all the good the war did and that its justification was warranted on many defensible levels. The creators of this murder fiction know this and it isn't really what they want.

By the way Obama just orders several thousand troops to Afghanistan per the Bush guy leftover war chief. So bling blat boop.
And Obama is basically and wisely using the Bush big stick soft talk method.

Obama will have to go to trial next.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AdmiralObamaGFOL
 



I hope you are being sarcastic..please tell me so...you cannot possible believe that the Iraq war is ' won' or ' over'...it is madness!!

BUSH and his Neocon pals created the Iraq situation from the first day they took office. It is a horrible quagmire that we in no way, shape or form have ' won' in any sense. All we can do is get out before thousands more of our troops are wasted.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. FACT. Beyond dispute. Iraq was in sights of the Neocons....I KNOW you have not read the PNAC documents, or you would not dare make statements like you did. It is like you are merely repeating old Fox news lies from years ago...heypal, we have PROOF positive that the ntire Iraq war nonsense was for purely criminal purposes.

Bush and Cheney deserve a trial...I would give them that, even though they have deprived many many people of this right, as well as condoning murder and torture..and then I would hang them both from the same rope that hung the Nazi scum that Bushand his ilk idolize so much.

bush and Cheney are criminals of the worst sort....war criminals, liars, murderers, tortuers, filthy scum who deserve the same fate as Mussolini, but will no doubt get away with it all because of the same coverup cronies that sat by while the neocons pulled 9-11 off.

Bush is the one person that CANNOT be defended because there is too much hard evidence of their crimes. Bush and Cheney will go down in history, at some stage, as the worst gansters ever to stain the offices they held...they are beyond enemies of ASmerica they are vile filth, and the world will be much better off when they breath their last and a legion of demons arrives to escort the blackhearted Cheney and his monkey boy Bush to the infernal regions for all time. They deserve it.

If only they would have a lottery for the person to thow the trapdoor...I would love to be the one!!



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Bush would have to get in line behind Clinton.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


So, bush wants to F Clinton up the A????


come on......One President lied about getting a blow jog (sorry, Mods)

And the other lied and killed over 4,000 soldiers????

Let's see, again....under Prex Clinton....no 'wars', and great economy.

Under Bush (43).....a terrible economy, eight years of tearing up the Constitution....NOTHING being done for the everyday American Citizen....

I just cannot understand how ANYONE can pump for this idiot, (43).

'Stupid, as Stupid does....thanks to Forrest Gump.....perfectly describes the last eight years.......

EDIT....well, one bad apostrophe...I ledt the reast of the mistakes in.....

ENJOY!




[edit on 2/19/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Lets see Clinton/Reno constitution? Forget about it.

Clinton no wars? Does Yugoslavia ring a bell? Although I liked what he did there!

Clinton selling state of the art guidance systems technology to China.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Yugoslavia for a few months, compared to seven years in Iraq and Afghanistan....yeah, good comparison!!!!

Let's realize WHAT the mission should have been.....it was about taking down OBL....problem is, the bin Laden Family, were great frinds of Prex #41.

Oh, dear....this happens to be the Father of Prez #43....wow, this is awkward!!!!!


Am I the only one to see the BS here???

I'd like to see BOTH the Father, and the Son, get hauled into Court ...I would also like to see the crap that is supposed to be secret come out into the open....I'm sick to death of the "Skull and Bones" secrecy, and the 'Masons'....really I'm sick of ALL the secrets.

New to me, the Bohemian Society....really, this is ridiculous. I am still sick and tired of 'secret societies'...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I could start a 'secret society' that included a Purple Spaghetti Monster.....well, but we'd have to keep the details secret.....



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
Great way to sell alot of books. But no one is going to clean house. The only way we'll get Justice is if everyone goes to the streets and demands it. And we all know it is impossible to get Americans off their butts long enough to protest how the government systematically ruins their lives and livelihood.


Actually, since the MSM are not picking up on this, it is not doing any good as advertising so so far it is a huge loss for this guy and not at all a good way to sell any books.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Logarock
 


Yugoslavia for a few months, compared to seven years in Iraq and Afghanistan....yeah, good comparison!!!!

Let's realize WHAT the mission should have been.....it was about taking down OBL....problem is, the bin Laden Family, were great frinds of Prex #41.

Oh, dear....this happens to be the Father of Prez #43....wow, this is awkward!!!!!








You do know that Usama is an embarrassment to the Bin Laden family, who have disowned him and wanted him dead for years, don't you?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
What do you all think?

Should we have prosecuted LBJ for the US servicemen and women who were killed in Vietnam?

After all the Gulf of Tonkin resolution has been exposed as a lie. The war has been declared immoral by almost everyone. Tens of thousands of US troops killed, ten years of wasted effort, millions of Vietnamese killed, civilians bombed, neutral nations involved, and billions and billions of dollars wasted.

Oh, but wait a minute LBJ was a Democrat. So, therefore he enjoys the protection of the US Constitution and the Mainstream Media. Therefore, he will be known forever as the late great President Johnson.

Those of you ranting to put President Bush on trial for his actions as President should read the 11th Amendment of the Constitution which protects government officials in the performance of their duties. So, Bush is immune from prosectution.

Also, what goes around comes around. If you break down the protections of the Constitution for political reasons, then those protections won't be there the next time you Dems elect an LBJ or a Bill Clinton.





new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join