Bush lied about Iraq: the smoking memo

True enough.

But there is something to be said for a president, who, as this memo shows, was clearly decieving the American people. For a long time.

It is this kind of information (that the Brits, our biggest allies, knew that we were faking the intel) that leads to congressional investigations in '06 (after we take the senate back from your personal-life interfering, tax cut for the rich, Radical right-wing religious senators) which will either lead to admissions of guilt under oath, or perjury as the pres and senior staffers lie.

I know you don't think the evidence is there, that he lied, even though there is great reason to do so, and I respect that opinion, CR. I just disagree with it, and it's galling to see the man still in office given the amount of shite he's put this country through.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

CoastalRat
What do you have to say about:
War crimes and crimes against humanity. If we were on the losing side Bush and the rest of his motley crew would be in a jail cell right next to Saddam.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

CoastalRat
What do you have to say about:
War crimes and crimes against humanity. If we were on the losing side Bush and the rest of his motley crew would be in a jail cell right next to Saddam.

No they wouldn't, but then that is my opinion.

As far as war crimes and crimes against humanity, why don't you enumerate exactly what the President has done that qualifies as a war crime or a crime against humanity?

0 Replies

Read back a few pages, or, in short, Torture and Extraordinary Rendition.

Cycloptochorn

0 Replies

Torture? I take it you have proof that the President was complicit in the torture to which you are referring? Are you saying he ordered it? Covered it up? I don't see it nor have I seen any evidence to suggest it. You are allowing your opposition to Bush and his policies to cloud your rational thinking.

Someone suggested a bit back that if this were a democrat President, we republicans would be all over his case about these same issues. Well, I would likewise suggest that if it were a democrat leading us that we would hear nary a peep about his supposed war crimes and such from the democrats among us. It is the nature of politics, don't you think?

0 Replies

No, I wouldn't support torture, no matter who was doing it. What makes you think I would?

The real issue CR is that the Executive branch was advised by Gonazales that we could torture people, they know EXACTLY what is going on, and they are encouraging it. The president has been made well aware of our policy of Extraordinary Rendition and sees nothing wrong with it, even though it is a crime against humanity to disappear people. There is a vast amount of evidence that the senior staff and Bush know what is going on; hell, they appointed Gonzales AG and it's not like we keep them in the dark with what happens in Guantanamo, AG and with the Red Sox Jet...

I believe that those at the top of organizations are responsible for the vast majority of actions that take place underneath them, especially when they knew what was going on at the time and did nothing to stop it. Do you disagree?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Mys

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48048

There's a whole thread with the proof you need about the torture. I suggest you actually attempt to read the links and articles if you don't believe me.

I'm not saying Bush is responsible for every death of the war (legally, morally he sure as hell is) but torture, where people get killed and maimed, he is responsible for.

Also, if ya want to find out about how we are disappearing people, google 'extraordinary rendition' or 'red sox jet' and you'll see how it goes.

It's not neccessary for the pres. to sign an executive order for him to be responsible for things. I'll ask you again, do you believe in 'the buck stops here?'

Cycloptichorn

re: extraordinary rendidion:
I especialy liked this part....

Quote:

Under military order No 1, issued by President Bush in November 2001, the president gave himself the right, in defiance of national and interna tional law, to detain indefinitely any non-US citizen anywhere in the world. Many ended up in Guantánamo where at least some of their names were discovered. Others simply vanished. They became in the US euphemism, "ghost prisoners", an unrecorded host held in secret, their detention denied, hidden from the Red Cross, legal or family access barred, their fate in the hands of unaccountable and unnamed US personnel.

Source

Saddam making Iraqis disappear: bad.
Bush making anyone he wants disappear: good.

At least Bush has the means and the minions to legitimize his actions.
Wait...so did Saddam.

*edited to add source*

0 Replies

Gosh Cy, I never said you would support torture. I don't think anyone here would support torture. What I said was that if it were a democrat President while these things happened, democrats such as yourself would not be talking about charging him with war crimes. IMO you would be arguing that you cannot hold a president responsible for the actions of some military personnel unless the President had ordered the actions or tried to cover them up. Neither is the case here.

What Gonzales told the president was that in his opinion the prisoners we holding were not subject to the Geneva conventions (these were not POW's, but rather suspected terrorists, so let's keep that distinguished here) which does prohibit torture. This was in no way advising the president to torture people or to allow it.

I won't comment on the Ex. Rendition since I am not up to date on that. I need to do some reading and I am not one to comment on stuff I know little about. So you'll have to let me slide on that one for the time being.

As to your last question, I do agree. The key is did the president order something done or did he know about it and not do anything to stop it. I haven't seen anything of the sort yet. (Again, pending my getting up to date on the Ex. Rendition stuff)

0 Replies

(Quick aside on the title, it doesn't seem to be a memo but minutes, or notes/ transcription from a meeting. As far as I can tell, the British usage of "minutes" is "minute", singular.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Gosh Cy, I never said you would support torture. I don't think anyone here would support torture. What I said was that if it were a democrat President while these things happened, democrats such as yourself would not be talking about charging him with war crimes. IMO you would be arguing that you cannot hold a president responsible for the actions of some military personnel unless the President had ordered the actions or tried to cover them up. Neither is the case here.

Nah, I don't think that is the case here at all. I think the pres. knows exactly what is going on, and his senior staff (who he is responsible for) certainly do, re: torture.

And I wouldn't be arguing to save a Dem. president who allowed this sort of thing to go on under his watch. I wouldn't make any of the arguments you made at all. I would say that those in charge of the army, are responsible for the actions of the army. It doesn't matter to me which party they are from at all.

And I believe that if you don't do anything about a problem, and you are aware of that problem, then you are complicit in the problem. Especially if you are the guy in charge.

Quote:

What Gonzales told the president was that in his opinion the prisoners we holding were not subject to the Geneva conventions (these were not POW's, but rather suspected terrorists, so let's keep that distinguished here) which does prohibit torture. This was in no way advising the president to torture people or to allow it.

Are you kidding?

Gonzales: Well, sir, you can't be held responsible for doing ANYTHING to these 'non-combatant' terrorists, and by extension, any individual we SUSPECT of terrorism, under the Geneva convention, as I see it.

GWB: Really?

Gonzales: Really.

GWB: How would you like to be AG?

Gonzales: Really?

GWB: Really.

Let me get this absolutely straight.

The prez. and senior staff get advised by a lawyer that they can legally torture and disappear people in the name of the War on Terror.

They begin to do so. (see my other thread for the VAST amount of evidence of torture and killings by US troops, and google the extraordinary rendition)

Then, they promote the guy who told them it was legal (AND MORAL) to do so.

And you're telling me that there is no complicity here? That things just sort of happened in a vacuum? I don't believe it and frankly neither should you.

Quote:

s to your last question, I do agree. The key is did the president order something done or did he know about it and not do anything to stop it. I haven't seen anything of the sort yet. (Again, pending my getting up to date on the Ex. Rendition stuff)

Well, the key is, did the staff of the Executive branch know about it, as the Pres. is directly responsible for their behavior (which is an extension of his power). And there is little doubt that Rumsfeld knew exactly what was going on; he offered to resign twice during the AG scandal, and Bush wouldn't let him.

The fact that the President might not be told certain things in order to protect him, doesn't protect him.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Intrepid,
You said..."In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation."

Now,for you and all the rest of you that want Bush or his Admin charged with treason,let me educate you.
Treason is the ONLY crime defined in and by the constitution,and it has a very specificdefinition.
In case you didnt know (or refuse to learn),here is the official,legal,constitutional definition of treason,as defined in Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution...
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

So,as you can see,there is NO LEGAL WAY for Bush or anyone in his Admin to be charged with treason.

Sorry,but you need to find a new fantasy.

You are putting words into my mouth mysteryman. Nowhere did I say that your beloved George W should be charged with treason or anything else. I merely quoted a definition of treason based on previous posts!
My definitions, btw was a dictionary definition.

That said, I also read your post regarding the fact that George W could not be charged with crimes against humanity etc. IMHO, he could be charged with gross stupidity and the calous disregard for human life and suffering on innocent children, old people and others
His daddy probably convinced him to finsh what he started 10 years before.
Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Bush lied about Iraq: the smoking memo

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know