Reply
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 03:03 pm
"The Execution Of George W Bush For Murder"
Fixed!
BPB, This is old news, and teflon Bush is not going to be charged with any crime - now or after he leaves office. Too many chicken littles out there in our country of pharts. (nothing but hot air.)
I'm pretty sure they have evidence Bush personally murdered Vince Foster.
After a certain number, it's not called murder any more, it's called "diplomacy" or, more accurately, "foreign policy".
One or two = bad
Hundreds of Thousands = strong leader
(In some countries, it's also called "domestic policy" and you get made a hero and embalmed and such....unless you lose a war.)
cicerone imposter wrote:BPB, This is old news, and teflon Bush is not going to be charged with any crime - now or after he leaves office. Too many chicken littles out there in our country of pharts. (nothing but hot air.)
I just posted ity because I saw the book on display at barnes and noble...
Isn't also strange that at the beginning of the Iraq war, this administration mentioned the three thousand lost in the twin towers of New York, but now that we've lost over four thousand of our military men and women, it seems rather obvious that the call to war was misguided from day one. That doesn't even admit to the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost, and millions dislocated from their homes.
Bush wants to still win this war; go figure what that means.
It was a few hanging chads wasn't it c.i. and a USSC QUICK-FIT.
That's how I remember it.
The 4,000, were they all young as per the link? All American? How many died under Clinton's chronologically-equivalent Commander-in-Cheif-ness (it wasn't aroung 65% as many by any chance was it?) without taking a country, advancing our interests, and while he got the nookie?
Give me a 'P'!.. Give me the type of global coordinate what describes a line parallel to the equator!.. What's that come out to?.. Platitudes!
Not a bit surprising, since, according to the left, Bush's impeachment, legal condemnation for his National Guard service, etc. have always been just around the corner. Personally, I think that he ordered the invasion of Iraq because he believed that Saddam Hussein probably still had WMD development programs which might someday pose a terrible danger to the world. That's certainly what I then believed. Every president trying to initiate a controversial policy makes the best case he can based on the often conflicting evidence available. Certainly, many, many people did believe that Iraq had simply hidden its former WMD development programs. However, even if it could be shown that he started an unjust war (not a unique event in American or European history), there is no legal basis whatever for finding an American president guilty of murder for such a thing.
Also, contrary to the book's implication and the left's common assertion, Bush never said that perfection or use of Iraq's weapons was imminent. On the contrary, he said something like, "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."
Incidentally, Iraq was merely the leading edge of an iceberg. The next time an aggressive dictatorship has or seems to have nuclear or biological weapon development programs, particularly if they seem well on their way to fruition, the world will have to attempt to persuade that country to stop, and, if a long series of such attempts fail and negotiations seem fruitless, will have to invade again. I can practically guarantee that this will happen in the future, and not just once. I'm sorry to report that we were born in dangerous times.
I now await the usual chorus of lefties trying to impeach me as a poster, rather than trying to dispute my assertions.
Brandon9000 wrote:Not a bit surprising, since, according to the left, Bush's impeachment, legal condemnation for his National Guard service, etc. have always been just around the corner. Personally, I think that he ordered the invasion of Iraq because he believed that Saddam Hussein probably still had WMD development programs which might someday pose a terrible danger to the world. That's certainly what I then believed. Every president trying to initiate a controversial policy makes the best case he can based on the often conflicting evidence available. Certainly, many, many people did believe that Iraq had simply hidden its former WMD development programs. However, even if it could be shown that he started an unjust war (not a unique event in American or European history), there is no legal basis whatever for finding an American president guilty of murder for such a thing.
Also, contrary to the book's implication and the left's common assertion, Bush never said that perfection or use of Iraq's weapons was imminent. On the contrary, he said something like, "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."
Incidentally, Iraq was merely the leading edge of an iceberg. The next time an aggressive dictatorship has or seems to have nuclear or biological weapon development programs, particularly if they seem well on their way to fruition, the world will have to attempt to persuade that country to stop, and, if a long series of such attempts fail and negotiations seem fruitless, will have to invade again. I can practically guarantee that this will happen in the future, and not just once. I'm sorry to report that we were born in dangerous times.
I now await the usual chorus of lefties trying to impeach me as a poster, rather than trying to dispute my assertions.
It doesn't do any good to dispute your assertions, since you always refuse to accept anything "the left" says anyway.
edgarblythe wrote:It doesn't do any good to dispute your assertions, since you always refuse to accept anything "the left" says anyway.
T'is what happens when you try to stuff things down our throats like political correctness, gay "marriage", celebrating diversity, and naming a street in every city and town Martin Luther King Blvd. Basically, we stopped listening to you a long time ago, and are fighting back.
edgarblythe wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Not a bit surprising, since, according to the left, Bush's impeachment, legal condemnation for his National Guard service, etc. have always been just around the corner. Personally, I think that he ordered the invasion of Iraq because he believed that Saddam Hussein probably still had WMD development programs which might someday pose a terrible danger to the world. That's certainly what I then believed. Every president trying to initiate a controversial policy makes the best case he can based on the often conflicting evidence available. Certainly, many, many people did believe that Iraq had simply hidden its former WMD development programs. However, even if it could be shown that he started an unjust war (not a unique event in American or European history), there is no legal basis whatever for finding an American president guilty of murder for such a thing.
Also, contrary to the book's implication and the left's common assertion, Bush never said that perfection or use of Iraq's weapons was imminent. On the contrary, he said something like, "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."
Incidentally, Iraq was merely the leading edge of an iceberg. The next time an aggressive dictatorship has or seems to have nuclear or biological weapon development programs, particularly if they seem well on their way to fruition, the world will have to attempt to persuade that country to stop, and, if a long series of such attempts fail and negotiations seem fruitless, will have to invade again. I can practically guarantee that this will happen in the future, and not just once. I'm sorry to report that we were born in dangerous times.
I now await the usual chorus of lefties trying to impeach me as a poster, rather than trying to dispute my assertions.
It doesn't do any good to dispute your assertions, since you always refuse to accept anything "the left" says anyway.
As I predicted. Cute way of impeaching the poster and not arguing the point.
Brandon, I believe you were swayed into thinking Saddam had WMDs, because that was the message Bushco forced onto the public at large. Some of us didn't believe their message, even when Colin Powell showed his photographs of where Saddam had his WMD program.
That's the difference; most of the people of this world didn't believe Bushco. That's the bottom line.
Another thing: the majority of Americans still think Saddam was involved in 9-11, because that's the message Bushco inferred from the very beginning of his campaign to level a war with Iraq. Funny how people seem to remember the first message from the president as being the "truth."
Now there's a "factoid" still dripping with poop.
Most Americans c.i.? Nobody every thought that that I knew. Not one person.
heard the editor of the onion interviewed the other day, the host of the show brought up this january 2001 article
damn they nailed it
Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'
cicerone imposter wrote:Brandon, I believe you were swayed into thinking Saddam had WMDs, because that was the message Bushco forced onto the public at large. Some of us didn't believe their message, even when Colin Powell showed his photographs of where Saddam had his WMD program.
That's the difference; most of the people of this world didn't believe Bushco. That's the bottom line.
First of all, I believed it long before I heard of George Bush. Many people believed it, including Bill Clinton. But the actual bottom line is that a president can't be tried for murder on the basis of war casualties. Show me the precedent.
cicerone imposter wrote:Another thing: the majority of Americans still think Saddam was involved in 9-11, because that's the message Bushco inferred from the very beginning of his campaign to level a war with Iraq. Funny how people seem to remember the first message from the president as being the "truth."
He said no such thing. If you disagree, show me some quotation in which he said or even
implied this.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace