Have Bush/Cheney ever done anything that is actually illegal? Nope!

reply to post by dariousg


So are you trying to say that everyone who has ever lost data in a server crash or a hard drive crash is trying to cover up a crime?

I do see your point that it could have been done to cover up a crime, but there would have to be other evidence to make that case.

So how bout

Iraq/Weapons of Mass Destruction (Saddan didnt even like Osama) show me the weapons and ill let this one slide.

Declaring War. when did Congress declare war ?

some of those tings seem illegal to me

reply to post by jatsc


Well no weapons were found, but Bush/Cheney were got the info from 2 sources the CIA and because Sadaam kept runnng around saying he had them and he could use them whenever he wanted.

Also, Congress wasnt exactly against the war, because even to this day they keep voting to fund it.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

Originally posted by jatsc
So how bout

Iraq/Weapons of Mass Destruction (Saddan didnt even like Osama) show me the weapons and ill let this one slide.

Declaring War. when did Congress declare war ?

some of those tings seem illegal to me

War was never declared. Congress authorized Bush to use force in the Iraq Resolution . Congress gave the President a lot flexibility in that resolution.

Link

[edit on 18-6-2009 by adamc3]

This thread is a perfect example of how uninformed many people are these days.

It is impossible to have a coherent discussion with people who get their information from Kayne West's twitter page.

According to most of the posts in this thread, Bush/Cheney are guilty of crimes because Iraq didn't have WMD. It is far more complicated than that. This statement alone shows that the only information they have was spoon feed to them by the likes of Bill Maher and Al Franken.

Even more interesting is the people who have actually asked for proof that Bush/Cheney did not commit a crime. Hey, I learned in grade school the old axiom about proving a negative. I just hope these folks are never on a jury.

At any rate, arguing with people who hate the Bush administration because they were told to is pointless and counter productive. If there is anyone out there that wants to actually debate these issues then u2u me.

You may get back to your Bush bashing now.

Originally posted by adamc3
reply to post by truthquest

 

The President can invade a country/deploy troops for up to 90 without approval from Congress. - War Powers Act
Bush got the approval first.

The President needs a declaration of war from Congress in order to declare war.
War was not declared. Congress authorized Bush in the Iraq War Resolution to use force against Iraq and gave many reason to justify it.
This was the authority used to invade Iraq not a declaration of war.



[edit on 18-6-2009 by adamc3]

[edit on 18-6-2009 by adamc3]

The constitution explicitly grants the power to declare war to congress. Therefore, congress MUST declare war before any invasion. If the executive branch does so, the president is in violation and needs to be put in jail and punished very severely. What lower laws you point to cannot possibly over-rule the constitution.

The only way congress can legally move away from their responsibility to declare war is to amend the constitution. The war powers act was not an amendment to the constitution, therefore the war powers act is null/void until the constitution allows it.

Congress believes they can pass on their duties to the executive branch. They are wrong according to the constitution. That is not how it is to work. George W Bush violated the highest law of the land when he invaded Iraq without a congressional declaration of war. He is a war criminal. He belongs in jail.

reply to post by adamc3
Brilliant! And what do we know about Congress today??? We have learned, at least i have, that its all the same ball game, just different players. They all have the same agenda.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE THREAT THEY RECEIVED THAT UNLESS THEY WENT ALONG WITH BUSH AND HIS POLICIES THERE WOULD BE MARTIAL LAW???? Just a little threat posed here and there, at least twice or so....

More acting, you know, if anything, you should be questioning BOTH Obama and Bush. Not just Bush. Cut from the same mold.

You're defending one party as if we really REALLY had a two party system.
Ha!

Concentrate on how you can contribute to get us ALL out of this mess of a country and world we live in. Forget about defending a has been lame duck ex president. A mess directly pointing to >>>>> GEORGE, and now Obama carries the torch.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by dariousg

 

So are you trying to say that everyone who has ever lost data in a server crash or a hard drive crash is trying to cover up a crime?

I do see your point that it could have been done to cover up a crime, but there would have to be other evidence to make that case.

There was 'other' evidence. There were links to 'memos' that 'got lost' in the crash that lead to the firings of many AG's. Although I still feel that it is the president's right to fire any AG he wishes and replace them as he wishes. It's just that there were so many issues at that moment in our history.

With 911 to the firings, to the war in Iraq and the BAD intel, to the outing of Plame.

You see, I'm a fan of coincidence if it only happens so much. However, when it happens over and over and over and the same old BS is claimed it becomes a bit obvious.

Lying to the people from office is a crime. Now, does it mean he should die for it? No. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that there is so much that this administration has done (from top to dirty bottom) that was excused because of the powers of the office they held that any other normal person would be in prison for that I'm just sickened when I hear that our current leader wants the past to remain in the past.

I'm sorry but we can't give a free pass to these people. Then the next power hungry person will come in and profit from the misery of innocent people and know that they can hide behind their office and the biggest BS shield their is: National Security.

I ask you this. To try and clear up the mud about 911. What about the events of that day should be hidden by National Security? Not one thing. Everything should be made public about the events of that day. Why would our president not give public testimony WITHOUT Cheney by his side? Why would they make sure that nothing was on record?

I'm sorry, too many coincidences. Act like a chicken and many times you are one. Guilty minds want to hide things. Guilty minds make sure their stories match up and make sure that their words are NEVER on record.

It is against federal election laws for a Presidential and Vice presidential candidates from the same state to run for office on the same ticket..... Cheney was taking a homestead exemption on a residence in Dallas County Texas, while he was CEO of Haliburton in Garland Texas..... George W. Bush was the Governor of Texas, making the election campaign unconstitutional and therefore the their election should have been nullified, and both of them prosecuted.

War is war and killing is part of war. Common sense. You act like Bush and Cheney went on a shooting spree. Get yourself together and quit being on of those Ashburians which think and say "I don't like him because he..." and then provide no evidence for your justification.
reply to post by phi1618

And Lincoln went to war without approval from congress, and he suspended writ of habeas corpus, and he arrested the congress of both Pennsylvania and Maryland so they could not vote to succeed....what is your point?

reply to post by hypervigilant

reply to post by Seth Bullock


Sir, you are a complete an utter moron! I won't even address the imbicile that started this thread nor his sheep peddling sidekick, because they're not trying to have a discussion, they're trying to incite a baseless argument and are having alot of fun with this because of the emotionality attached to this subject.

For you to come on here and say how people's responses are ingnorant and baseless because since you have some political moniker under your name you think you are an authority. PHAQ buddy!




To the douchebag OP here you go:

1. On August 6, 2001 Bush was given a national security memo that warned of a possible attack by al-Qaeda during the next few weeks using hijacked aircraft by al-Qaeda agents already inside the United States. Bush responded by taking a long vacation at his ranch in Crawford.

IGNORNANCE IS NOT BLISS! FAILURE TO REACT IS CRIMINAL

2. Bush stopped Clinton's Saudi money tracking system.

HMMM....HOW CONVENIENT SINCE 17 OF THE 19 HIJACKERS WERE FROM SAUDI ARABIA

3. Bush told FBI to stop investigating Saudi money connection.

SEE ABOVE

4. Airlines stocks were being heavily traded during the weeks leading up to 9/11 indicating possible insider trading transactions.

DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH, BUT IF YOU REALLY WANT THE TRUTH IT IS THERE TO FIND

5. Former CIA Director John Oneil is fired within weeks of 9/11 becuase he did not agree with the Bush's administration on al queda and terrorism in the Middle East.

BUSH ADMIN HAS THIS GUY FIRED FOR ALLEGEDLEY LOSING A BRIEFCASE IN AN AIRPORT WITH SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS.....YEAH RIGHT....OH AND JOHN ONEIL IS MURDERED ON 9/11 AS HE IS IN HIS 2ND DAY OF HIS NEW SECURITY POSITION IN WTC TOWER II

6. FBI employee Sibel Edmonds warned about attack using hijacked commercial aircraft.

BOTH CONDELIZZA RICE AND BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SAID THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAD NO PRIOR INTELLIGENCE TO WARN OF WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11...THIS IS ON TAPE, YOUTUBE IT!!

7. A German agent told FBI about possible terrorist attack just prior to 9/11.

SEE ABOVE

8. Bush objects to 9/11 commission, he objects to the creation of the new department of Homeland Security, he refused to turn over documents, and he refuses to testify before the 9/11 commission. He does finally agree to testify but only after having an agreement that restricts questioning.

FEWEST AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT ON AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE US. 443 DAYS TILL THIS COMISSION WAS CREATED! IF WERE SO CONCERNED WITH TERRORISM, WOULDNT YOU RACE TO FIND THE TRUTH!

DID YOU KNOW THAT THE 9/11 COMMISSION WAS CREATED ONLY AFTER A COURT MANDATE? LOOK IT UP MORON!

9. NSA intercepts suspect chatter day before 9/11 warning of an attack that next day.

SEE ABOVE

10. Five hours after 9/11 attack Donald Rumsfeld told aides to come up with plans for attacking Iraq.

ONCE AGAIN, PRETTY DAMN GOOD INVESTIGATING BY THAT OLE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

To Be Continued.......

[edit on 18-6-2009 by OnTheFelt]

Whew! I bet your head is about to explode!
reply to post by OnTheFelt

11. Someone in Bush cabinet allowed the evacuation of bin Laden family member from the U.S..

I KNOW, I KNOW...THEY WERE JUST LOOKING OUT FOR THE SAFETY OF THE BIN LADENS....WHOM BY THE WAY THEY HAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INVESTED TOGETHER IN BUSINESS

12. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shut down a plan to weaken the Taliban.

RESEARCH IT!

13. The CIA's National Reconnaissance office had scheduled an exercise in which a small corporate jet would crash into an office tower following an equipment failure for the morning of 9/11.

BUT REMEMBER, THE BUSH ADMIN HAD NO IDEA OF THAT KIND OF POTENTIAL ATTACK!


14. Numerous and repetitive lies from Condoleezza Rice, and Bush about warnings they had received prior to 9/11.

SEE ABOVE

15. Rumsfeld threatened a veto when Congress proposed to shift $600 million from Bush's Star Wars program to counter-terror programs prior to 9/11.

DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? I DIDNT THINK SO EITHER

16. Clifford Clarke gave numerous warnings to Bush officials about al-Qaeta plans to attack inside the U.S..

ONCE AGAIN SEE ABOVE

17. Despite increased threat warning Tenet only briefed Bush twice in August 17 and 31. This is usually a daily briefing.

DUDE WAS ON VACATION 121 DAYS IN 2001

18. Ashcroft's Justice Department curtailed a program to monitor al-Qaeda suspects in the U.S.

PRETTY INGENIOUS HUH?

19. Ashcroft stops flying in commercial aircraft and starts flying in private jets due to security alerts in the weeks before 9/11.

THIS GUY IS A GENIUS!

20. In 1996 Clinton and Gore recommended changes in air safety but Republicans in Congress removed many recommendations claiming they were two costly for the airlines, or might infringe on civil liberties.

GOD FORBID WE WOULD LOWER PROFITS!




All these facts may just be incredible coincidences, or there could be a criminal collusion and conspiracy between the Bush administration, the Saudis, al-Qaeta, and the terrorist.

YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO INCITE BS.....SHAME ON YOU SIR!

The truth is 9/11 was the perfect excuse the Bush administration needed to do what they have been doing; starting a costly long term war in Iraq, running up huge budget deficits for as far as be projected, rolling back civil liberties of American citizens, and using the war on terror as an excuse for massive increases in military budgets.

YOU ALREADY KNEW THIS, BUT I GUESS YOU'RE JUST AS WORTHLESS AS THOSE THAT COMMITED THESE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!

Did the Bush administration know about 9/11 in advance? Did they help plan 9/11? Are they profiting from 9/11? How does that saying go? "If it looks like it, smells like it, and acts like it". You can draw your own conclusions Bush's character, I already know he is a low life scum bag liar and a thief who has no qualms about killing people.


MARK MY WORDS....IN OUR LIFETIME YOU WILL SEE BOTH CHENEY AND BUSH CONVICTED OF TREASON!

THE TRUTH WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL IN THE END!

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by dariousg

 

So are you trying to say that everyone who has ever lost data in a server crash or a hard drive crash is trying to cover up a crime?

Holy crap man, take your head out of your butt and stop just making things up. IT WAS NOT A SERVER CRASH OR MISTAKE THAT THE E-MAILS WERE DESTROYED. IT WAS A DELIBERATE ILLEGAL ACT.

I do see your point that it could have been done to cover up a crime, but there would have to be other evidence to make that case.

Oh my god it's like you can't even read. THE VERY FACT THAT THEY WERE ERASED IS THE CRIME, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THOSE E-MAILS CONTAINED.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Tiloke]

reply to post by OnTheFelt


Ahhh finally! Someone willing to state a case and throw out some possible evidence. It only too 8 pages or so. Now let me review your points and I will get back to you.

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by adamc3
reply to post by truthquest

 

The President can invade a country/deploy troops for up to 90 without approval from Congress. - War Powers Act
Bush got the approval first.

The President needs a declaration of war from Congress in order to declare war.
War was not declared. Congress authorized Bush in the Iraq War Resolution to use force against Iraq and gave many reason to justify it.
This was the authority used to invade Iraq not a declaration of war.



[edit on 18-6-2009 by adamc3]

[edit on 18-6-2009 by adamc3]

The constitution explicitly grants the power to declare war to congress. Therefore, congress MUST declare war before any invasion. If the executive branch does so, the president is in violation and needs to be put in jail and punished very severely. What lower laws you point to cannot possibly over-rule the constitution.

The only way congress can legally move away from their responsibility to declare war is to amend the constitution. The war powers act was not an amendment to the constitution, therefore the war powers act is null/void until the constitution allows it.

Congress believes they can pass on their duties to the executive branch. They are wrong according to the constitution. That is not how it is to work. George W Bush violated the highest law of the land when he invaded Iraq without a congressional declaration of war. He is a war criminal. He belongs in jail.

If you had read my post you would know that war was never declared in regard to Iraq. Congress does not have to authorize deploying troops or even invading a country.

War has not been declared since WWII, by your logic the the invasion of Greenland in 1940, Korean war, Vietnam, Haiti, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Somalia were all illegal. Which would mean FDR, Nixon,Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, and Bush42 are all criminals. Other than Nixon, I would disagree so would the Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the constitution.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the first draft of the Constitution gave Congress the sole power to "make" war. This was changed to "declare" war, so as not to limit the Commander in Chiefs powers. Had they wanted or intended Congressional approval for engaging in war they would have written it that way.

A state constitution at the time prohibited the Governor from "making" war without Congressional approval.

Lastly, the powers granted to the President in the War Powers Act have been held as constitutional by the Supreme Court and therefore do not violate the Constitution.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by adamc3]

I apologize for not showing the proper courtesy to the few I addressed in this thread, I am all for this, normally. However, IMHO this is a vicious thread that needed a good pounding.

Carry on!

Originally posted by OnTheFelt
reply to post by Seth Bullock

 

4. Airlines stocks were being heavily traded during the weeks leading up to 9/11 indicating possible insider trading transactions.

DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH, BUT IF YOU REALLY WANT THE TRUTH IT IS THERE TO FIND

5. Former CIA Director John Oneil is fired within weeks of 9/11 becuase he did not agree with the Bush's administration on al queda and terrorism in the Middle East.

BUSH ADMIN HAS THIS GUY FIRED FOR ALLEGEDLEY LOSING A BRIEFCASE IN AN AIRPORT WITH SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS.....YEAH RIGHT....OH AND JOHN ONEIL IS MURDERED ON 9/11 AS HE IS IN HIS 2ND DAY OF HIS NEW SECURITY POSITION IN WTC TOWER II






[edit on 18-6-2009 by adamc3]

Originally posted by adamc3

Originally posted by OnTheFelt
reply to post by Seth Bullock

 

4. Airlines stocks were being heavily traded during the weeks leading up to 9/11 indicating possible insider trading transactions.

DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH, BUT IF YOU REALLY WANT THE TRUTH IT IS THERE TO FIND

5. Former CIA Director John Oneil is fired within weeks of 9/11 becuase he did not agree with the Bush's administration on al queda and terrorism in the Middle East.

BUSH ADMIN HAS THIS GUY FIRED FOR ALLEGEDLEY LOSING A BRIEFCASE IN AN AIRPORT WITH SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS.....YEAH RIGHT....OH AND JOHN ONEIL IS MURDERED ON 9/11 AS HE IS IN HIS 2ND DAY OF HIS NEW SECURITY POSITION IN WTC TOWER II






[edit on 18-6-2009 by adamc3]

sorry I screwed that up

I agree with you a lot of shady stuff was going on. Just a couple of corrections:

John O'Neil was FBI not CIA and was not fired, he quit b/c the FBI/bush admin would not take his warnings seriously.

#16
Richard Clarke not Clifford Clarke

Sorry dont mean to knit pick, but I assume you would like to be as accurate as possible.


[edit on 18-6-2009 by adamc3]