Bush on trial for murder? Wingnut Alert!

[JustRalph]

http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/images/bookcover.gif

This is why the left has no credibility. This kind of stupid shit..............??? :bang:


www.prosecutionofbush.com


Hey PA. Post that video of the other 25 Democrats that Bugliosi needs to have prosecuted............. :ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

Handy label: ANYONE who disagrees with the pablum is AUTOMATICALLY given the title.

[Snag]

So 46, what would you call this? We'd love to read your views.

[46zilzal]

a book

[Snag]

Ok. I'll save this thread and replay it when President Bush's first book comes out and we'll see what you post then. I can't wait!!!!!

[46zilzal]

Ok. I'll save this thread and replay it when President Bush's first book comes out and we'll see what you post then. I can't wait!!!!!
When did the rutabaga learn to write without crayons?

[lsbets]

When did the rutabaga learn to write without crayons?

Probably sometime before you did, but who knows - your writing style does remind some of his speaking style.

[highnote]

When did the rutabaga learn to write without crayons?


LOL

But seriously, I'm not far left, nor am I far right. But it is interesting how much influence the far left and far right can have on the middle.

Sometimes their ideas seem radical, but overtime they can become mainstream.

Kind of like when the 1970's punk rockers dyed their hair pink, had wild tatoos and pierced their bodies in unusual places. Now, 30 years later, it seems every young adult in their twenties feels the need to pierce their body, dye their hair and have a tatoo.

I suppose the post WWII beatniks had some influence on the 60's generation who in turn are running the country today.

I wonder if a left or right wing fringe group of today will have a profound influence on the world 30 years from now?

[delayjf]

This is plain stupid.

[highnote]

This is plain stupid.


What is stupid? My post or the book -- or both? :D

Has anyone read the book? I haven't.

Just watched the video. Now I'll have to read the book.

[highnote]

http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/images/bookcover.gif

This is why the left has no credibility. This kind of stupid shit..............??? :bang:


www.prosecutionofbush.com


Hey PA. Post that video of the other 25 Democrats that Bugliosi needs to have prosecuted............. :ThmbUp:


If you read the excerpts you will find that he is pretty critical of the "liberal" media.

I wouldn't say he is on the left. He seems independent to me. He says he supported McCain in 2000.

[delayjf]

What is stupid? My post or the book -- or both

The book or the notion that they are going to try President Bush for Murder - Hell why stop there, why not throw in the House and Senate, they voted for it.

[JustRalph]

This is being featured on every Liberal DemoWhacknut website on the net right now.

The problem with the premise is that what Bush did was called for by almost every member of the Clinton cabinet for at least five years prior to heading into Iraq. The fact that Bush would be prosecuted for Murder is absurd. The fact that the CIA has been at war with the Executive branch for decades is an age old issue that most Americans don't even think exists. But in this case it is germane to the issues in the book.

Bugliosi may not be free handed leftist, but he just handed them a paper howitzer to carry into battle. And that is the sad part of his attempt to make money. Which is all this really is.

[highnote]

The book or the notion that they are going to try President Bush for Murder - Hell why stop there, why not throw in the House and Senate, they voted for it.


I'm sure a lot of people would like to throw in the Senate.

The case Bugliosi is trying to make is that Bush told lies to the public and the congress in order to gain support for the war.

I can't say whether he presents a strong case or not. It will be interesting to read his book and the rebuttals to the book.

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that Bush or any president lies to the country and congress in order to start a war. What, if any, should the consequences be?

[JustRalph]

The book or the notion that they are going to try President Bush for Murder - Hell why stop there, why not throw in the House and Senate, they voted for it.

excellent point. Extend the idea further; If anybody should go to jail, it should be half of the CIA and tons of those working in Intelligence all over the world.

[highnote]

This is being featured on every Liberal DemoWhacknut website on the net right now.

The problem with the premise is that what Bush did was called for by almost every member of the Clinton cabinet for at least five years prior to heading into Iraq. The fact that Bush would be prosecuted for Murder is absurd. The fact that the CIA has been at war with the Executive branch for decades is an age old issue that most Americans don't even think exists. But in this case it is germane to the issues in the book.

Bugliosi may not be free handed leftist, but he just handed them a paper howitzer to carry into battle. And that is the sad part of his attempt to make money. Which is all this really is.


Good points. That is why I'm interested in hearing all the rebuttals. This is what Tom Wolfe referred to in "Bonfires of the Vanities" as "putting out the chow". The "system" needs to be fed. This will be good fuel for the TV shows, newspapers political journals, editorials, etc.

Will it have any serious effects? We'll see.

[highnote]

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470261978,descCd-buy.html

How about this book? Any thoughts?

[ljb]

Looks like a good book. Repugs will soon be out with their trash talk regarding the author.

[delayjf]

Oh contraire, Let me suggest to all that support the idea, to donate generously to he President Bush Prosecution fund. I’m sure the attorney will be most grateful. ;)

[wonatthewire1]

JR,

Inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale, repeat - see nothing happened

:cool:

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey PA. Post that video of the other 25 Democrats that Bugliosi needs to have prosecuted............. :ThmbUp:Happy to oblige....


ePb6H-j51xE

[DrugS]

Isn't the dude who wrote the book the guy who put Manson away?

[highnote]

Isn't the dude who wrote the book the guy who put Manson away?


yes

[DrugS]

Isn't there also a law that says the president can't be tried for stuff he did while in office?

Even if he lied and misled everyone and some conspiracy for profit happened, it wouldn't matter.

[highnote]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080527/pl_politico/10649;_ylt=AlW37GK4is_V2J4FuBiG054b.3QA

"Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence. "

Even Scott McClellan is critical of the war.

[JustRalph]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080527/pl_politico/10649;_ylt=AlW37GK4is_V2J4FuBiG054b.3QA

"Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence. "

Even Scott McClellan is critical of the war.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing............especially if it will sell your book! :lol:

[highnote]

Hindsight is a beautiful thing............especially if it will sell your book! :lol:


"Veering off course" is an opinion and something that is easier to see in hindsight, for sure.

But not being "open and forthright about Iraq" sounds like he is making a statement of fact.

I can't say if Bush was or wasn't, but that's what McClellan says.

[hcap]

The problem with the premise is that what Bush did was called for by almost every member of the Clinton cabinet for at least five years prior to heading into Iraq.As I have posted a number of times, the official policy under Clinton was containment. PA's video shows only that many dems feared Saddams eventual use of WMDs. But since the UN inspectors had NOT been in Iraq for a number of years, no one knew for sure the extent of WMDs existing then in 2003. Obviously resuming UN inspections and SIMPLY waiting for them to complete their task would have verified what 10,000,000 worldwide peace protesters signaled before the war, and the caveats in many intel documents.

Not every one was unanimous about WMDs or "imminent threat." Pre-emption as the bush doctrine called for was a 200 year drastic departure from level headed official US foreign policy.

Shortly after Powell gave his presentation before the UN and shortly after Britain issued it's own propaganda-the Doggy Dosier, both were shown to be shoddy works of PR and both exaggerated Iraqs threat big time.

If it can be shown there was a concerted propaganda effort based on concealment of truths, and twisting of facts, Bugliosi has a point.

[JustRalph]

But not being "open and forthright about Iraq" sounds like he is making a statement of fact.

I can't say if Bush was or wasn't, but that's what McClellan says.

No, it sounds like he is expressing an opinion. His opinion is that he was that way.

Look, If I had my way I would kick Prez. Bush in the nuts (metaphorically speaking of course) multiple times if we could sit down and talk. I would, like many others who voted for him, express how disappointed I am in what he did, became etc. But just like Clinton before him...........the outcasts or early outers always come out with a book in a last chance attempt to capitalize on their time in the whitehouse. I don't know what category Scotty fits in..........but it is really no story. You can expect more in the coming months. If he had written that Bush was right about everything, then nobody buys the book. And he damn sure wouldn't be getting play in the mainstream media. So this is one more book that will tell tales and intrigue those who are so inclined. It is old news, but will sell. For past references.......look up George Stephanopoulos.

[highnote]

I don't know what category Scotty fits in..........but it is really no story. You can expect more in the coming months. If he had written that Bush was right about everything, then nobody buys the book.


The only reason I think there is some truth in what he says is because if he had faith in Bush then he'd still be working there or in some other job gotten because of his work at the White House.

I always wondered what went down with Georgopolus. He always seemed to have a chip on his shoulder whenever I saw him speak. He seems to have mellowed, but for awhile there he had a real edge.

[Light]

What do they call the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler: The Holocaust, and notice the word "murder" is usually used to describe their deaths.

What do they call the deaths of thousands of Iraqi's and the millions that have been uprooted by the war: A mistake.

When the lives of Iraqi's are equal to the lives of Jews and Americans then they will use the word murder in association with their deaths and GW will be held accountable.

[ddog]

I'm sure a lot of people would like to throw in the Senate.

The case Bugliosi is trying to make is that Bush told lies to the public and the congress in order to gain support for the war.

I can't say whether he presents a strong case or not. It will be interesting to read his book and the rebuttals to the book.

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that Bush or any president lies to the country and congress in order to start a war. What, if any, should the consequences be?

I don't think in the past anything has been done leagally.

I would bet my last dollar that if you could get Bush alone and take a vow of silence for 50 years , he would say , it was a mistake.

Now, the question is, even though many could see and said it at the time, did he really believe it was going to be a cakewalk and flower showers as he was being told it seems.

if so, then he needed a course in history of war.

there was no reason I could/can see to have gone in when he did.

given the stuff that has come out from all sides on this, i suspect we know what they thought they knew at the time.

rookie mistake.
after all what experience in foreign affairs did he have?
none.

just goes to show, that when you start late as he did and accomplish nothing other than getting elected it's not enough seasoning in my book anyway.

being a decider in that job is all well and good if you have some basis to decide on other than hand feeding of flunkies who all want to suck up.

cabinets should be mandated to be filled by at least half with people you could never agree with.

him or Cheney have a bad habit of surrounding themselves with flunkies of the worst kind it seems to me and it has cost them a lot in credibility.

[PaceAdvantage]

What do they call the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler: The Holocaust, and notice the word "murder" is usually used to describe their deaths.

What do they call the deaths of thousands of Iraqi's and the millions that have been uprooted by the war: A mistake.

When the lives of Iraqi's are equal to the lives of Jews and Americans then they will use the word murder in association with their deaths and GW will be held accountable.The scary part is that you actually believe what you type.

[hcap]

Excerpts from Interview with BUGLIOSI

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Yeah, OK. OK, now, there many, many things in the book, but let’s talk about a couple key pieces of evidence.

In George Bush’s first speech to the nation on Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7, 2002, he told the nation that Hussein was a great danger to America either by his attacking us with his weapons of mass destruction or giving those weapons to some terrorist group to attack us. And he said this attack could happen, quote, “on any given day,” meaning the threat was imminent.

On October the 1st, six days earlier, the CIA sent George Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a report from sixteen US intelligence agencies—Anyway, he was sent this report representing the consensus opinion of all sixteen US intelligence agencies on the issue of whether Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country. And on page eight of this ninety-one-page report, page eight, it clearly and unequivocally says....
that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country, that he would only be a threat if he feared that America was about to attack him. In other words, he would only be a threat if he was forced to fight in self-defense.

So we know—not “think,” but we know—that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October the 7th, 2002, Cincinnati, Ohio, that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. So if we had nothing else at all, this alone shows us that he took this nation to war on a lie, and therefore, all of the killings in Iraq of American soldiers became unlawful killings and therefore murder.

But it gets worse. October 4th, three days after the October 1st classified top-secret report, Bush and his people had the CIA issue an unclassified summary version of the October 1st classified report, so that this report could be issued to the American people and to Congress. And this report came to be known as the “White Paper.” And in this White Paper, the conclusion of US intelligence that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country was completely deleted from the White Paper. Every single one of these all-important words were taken out. And the question that I have is, how evil, how perverse, how sick, how criminal can George Bush and his people be? And yet, up to this point, unbelievably—and there’s no other word for it—he’s gotten by with all of this.

I’ll touch upon another piece of evidence. January 31st, 2005—2003—by the way, you’ve all heard of the Downing Street memo, got a lot of attention. If I prosecuted Bush, that would be a very insignificant part of the case, because it’s ambiguous. This is the Manning memo that seems to have gone over the head of everyone. It’s a hundred times more important than the Downing Street memo. January 31st, 2003, George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair met in the Oval Office with six of their top aides, including Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser for Bush, and Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning. Now, two months later, they go to war, because they say Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they had to go in there and disarm Hussein and these weapons of mass destruction.

After the meeting, Manning prepares a five-page memo stamped “extremely sensitive,” in which he summarizes what was said at the meeting. And Manning writes that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any weapons of mass destruction would ever be found in Iraq, although two months later they went there because they said they had the weapons and we had to disarm them. But it gets much, much, much worse. Manning wrote that Bush was so worried, so upset, over the failure of the UN inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction, that he talked about three ways to, quote, “provoke a confrontation with Hussein,” one of which, Bush said, was to, quote, “fly U2 aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, over Iraq, falsely painted in United Nations colors,” and Bush said if Hussein fires upon them, this will be a breach of UN resolutions and justify war.

[PaceAdvantage]

And he said this attack could happen, quote, “on any given day,” meaning the threat was imminent.Absolutely NOT true. "Any day now" means IMMINENT. "Any given day" could mean anything you want it to mean.....it could mean today, tomorrow, or TEN YEARS from now....strike ONE.

So we know—not “think,” but we know—that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October the 7th, 2002, Cincinnati, Ohio, that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this countryWhich he did NOT do....strike TWO....

Bush and his people had the CIA issue an unclassified summary version of the October 1st classified reportStop right there....SUMMARY VERSION....STRIKE THREE....YOU'RE OUT!

If I prosecuted Bush, that would be a very insignificant part of the case, because it’s ambiguous.Kind of like everything else you've posted in this thread.

Now, two months later, they go to war, because they say Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they had to go in there and disarm Hussein and these weapons of mass destruction.Not only did "they" say it, but almost every prominent Democrat had been saying it, sometimes YEARS BEFORE Bush ever came to power....do I have to play that video yet again?

And Manning writes that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any weapons of mass destruction would ever be found in Iraq, although two months later they went there because they said they had the weapons and we had to disarm them."Doubts" also mean that there is a belief that they could be there...."Doubts" do not equal "certainty" and in war, you're often playing with incomplete information.

But it gets much, much, much worse. Manning wrote that Bush was so worried, so upset, over the failure of the UN inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction, that he talked about three ways to, quote, “provoke a confrontation with Hussein,” one of which, Bush said, was to, quote, “fly U2 aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, over Iraq, falsely painted in United Nations colors,” and Bush said if Hussein fires upon them, this will be a breach of UN resolutions and justify war.If Bush was so distressed over the UN failure to find WMDs, why did Bush "kick them out early" as you like to point out?

[riskman]

Never used the word "imminent"--but these speak for themselves:

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

[hcap]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm

"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter"

Need I remind you in the marketting campaign selling of the war of the "Mushroom Cloud" scenario?


You really are in denial.
If Bush was so distressed over the UN failure to find WMDs, why did Bush "kick them out early" as you like to point out?Mr. Sherlock H, it was embarrassing NOT finding anything even after our CIA gave them sites to check. Sort of puts a damper on the rush to war if your claims are being disproven and not panning out.

The entire "imminent" debate, or "We never said imminent © ® by bushco " clearly demonstrates just how dishonest bush, his administration, and the bush enablers like you are.

[Lose The Juice]

Erm, the Iraqis are, by and large, being killed by other Iraqis, as indeed they were were for decades before Dubya took office. I realize AMerRicCa is vErRy bAdD PlUs bUsCh iS LiKe jIm HitLur aNd fReD sTaLiN and all, but do any of you lefties have the faintest idea that Iraq was a Shi'a-majority state run by a Sunni minority, and that the Sunni-Shi'a schism dates back to the Battle of Karbala, in the year (wait for it...) 680?

Quiz:

The "Iraq Liberation Act Of 1998" was signed into law by:

a) Barclay Tagg;
b) That "Karl Rove" dude;
c) Eibar Coa
d) Bill Clinton

Think about it.