The Prosecution Of George W Bush For Murder

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.

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

Do you know what "inference" means, and non-denial's effect on misinformation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

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.

From the first two paragraphs of the BBC article:

Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link

US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected
Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

CLUE: This is the primary reason more than fifty percent of Americans still believe Saddam had something to do with 9-11. When something is repeated often enough by the president and his staff to "associate the two in keynote addresses," and senior members also conflated the two, it becomes "fact," even without spelling it out. You fail to understand the simplist of concepts.

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

You don't grasp facts. Therefore no need to present any.

edgarblythe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

You don't grasp facts. Therefore no need to present any.

If the liberals were in the right, they would be able to defend their ideas in a dignified debate. Instead, usually they just hurl insults at the person posting another view. This speaks for itself. When you develop the capacity to defend your viewpoint, let me know.

Brandon9000 wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

You don't grasp facts. Therefore no need to present any.

If the liberals were in the right, they would be able to defend their ideas in a dignified debate. Instead, usually they just hurl insults at the person posting another view. This speaks for itself. When you develop the capacity to defend your viewpoint, let me know.

When you learn to quit stonewalling, let all of us know.

Don't sweat it Brandon. After Bush leaves office we will get him. We wont do anything with him now because we Don't want his brains, Cheney, in office as president.