The Assassination Of George W. Bush????

Re: The Assassination Of George W. Bush????
Re: The Assassination Of George W. Bush????



Not true. I read that post and LSM said "assination."

LINK

Concerning his "assination," Bush may proclaim "mission accomplished" without actually lying for a change. Bush is in a perpetual state of being an ass.

I couldn't think worse of GWBush, but I don't want to hear threads even intimating slightly about these matters. Not slightly funny, and dispicable if real.

You might want to read the thread. It is a discussion about what provisions there are in the constitution for getting a president out of office if he is determined to be mentally incapacitated. Then it veered off onto the possibilities of a president being sued for actions taken during a presidential term or after the term expires. In the middle of it, LSM did her "assinating" question and there was a bit of joking around about sending asses to Iraq.



And then this thread raised the question about the heightened dangers to the president in light of how angry people are over the Iraq situation.

Deb was one of the folk who switched avatars temporarily and posted a response to that question here that was out of character for the avatar she was using. That's why all the ensuing discussion about the filters we use when reading posts.

Re: The Assassination Of George W. Bush????
Well, that was your first mistake...expecting me to pay mind to LSM.


I would have more time for snips such as you if you would learn how to spell The Vice President's name. It is ChenEy.

Are we going down the Gerald Ford pathway again?




First off, by even suggesting an assassination, you are at least marginally advocating it. Secondly, your additional statements that Revolution and impeachment are off the list implies (since you had mentioned it) that assassination is a viable alternative. Assassination is never a good option. Murder is wrong no matter how you try to present it and that's all an assassination is...clear cut murder.

Nothing.


Nothing to see here.

Yeh, move along...

There is nothing wrong with discussing assassination, and the original post made it very clear that they did not advocate an assassination attempt upon the President. In our world becoming rich, famous, and powerful is alone enough to make one a target of assassination. Unfortunately, to sit in the Oval Office has become the same as having a big red target painted on your body. Chief Executives of even small, poverty ridden and seemingly inconsequential countries must have very stringent security to avoid being killed.

Assassination IS murder as has already been pointed out. What is it that distinguishes "assassination" from ordinary "murder"? In Anglo-American law we treat homicide as one of the most serious crimes, and unlike most other criminal offenses we take into account the state of mind of the accused and their motivations. For instance we don't treat a contract murder with exlosives the way we treat a bar fight that unfortunately results in a human death. Assassination is a homicide that is carried out for some obstensible political motive. The media have called the Lennon murder an assassination, but they were mis-speaking. A better example might be the assassination of Huey Long, where the motivation may have been far more personal than political. When the target of a homicidal attempt is a political figure, the default term is assassination, even though the facts may reveal a more personal motive that has nothing to do with politics. If may not be politically correct to talk about either, but that doesn't change the realities of what history has shown us about human behavior.

Many U.S. President's have been targeted for assassination in the last 150 years. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and JFK were all murdered for political reasons. Attempted assassinations of Presidents are a bit harder to count. However, there are well known attempts made on Truman, Reagan, and the elder Bush. We don't know the motivation for the killer bunny rabbit that attempted to "take out" President Carter while he was fishing. Other attempts that were foiled before they got into the popular media may never be known. Presidential assassinations are not that unusual, and as such are fair and proper targets for discussion. On the other hand, to call for the assassination or murder of anyone is bound to raise warning flags among those charged with prevention of such crimes. Talk about, but don't advocate the killing of any particular person.

Removal of a politician by assassination can drastically change the course of a nation's policies. Ferdinand is killed, and millions followed him in the trenches of the Great War. Failed assassination attempts on a liberal, reform-minded Czar resulted in a brutal crack down on dissent and the creation of a Secret Police that scared the dickens out of Russians long after the Czar was dead. JFK was replaced by LBJ and the Vietnam War became a national nightmare. So assassination IS a practical way of changing the political direction of national, and perhaps world history. The problem is that no one can predict what the outcome of an assassination might be. The odds appear to be better than 50-50 that the results will be worse than if the legitimate ccourseof action were left alone to resolve themselves.

In some extreme circumstances, assassination may even be desirable. The assassination of Hitler might have lowered the Butchers Bill for WWII. Decapitation of the DPRK regime might free and improve the lives of countless numbers. Would anyone have mourned the death of Pol Pot, or Edi Amin? There are a number of Al Quida and Radical Islamic leaders today whose very existence is a threat to world peace. Targeting them for death whether by a long range rocket, or a couple of .22 caliber slugs to the head would be cause for celebration ... even though no one anywhere can predict the actual outcome of their elimination. Targeting the enemy's leadership is a common practice in war, and we are engaged in a war that those people started.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

It's sad that whenever there is a discussion about ways we can remove a president from office, the A word is always brought into the discussion as a way to stifle said discussion.

Huh? The "A" word has been brought forward in this thread, and the one referenced by candidone1 in his initial post, as an option, not as a way to stifle the discussion about ways to remove Bush from office.

I'm referring to the other two or three threads that the question had been raised by the madam. One of them has already been linked to in this thread. If you need me to, I can wade through the posts and find the others to link here.

Yes, so was I. In particular, I was referring to this thread: Is There Not Provision In The Constitution To Remove bush?

There, the prospect of Bush being executed for war crimes was raised by gustavratzenhofer -- not a Bush supporter; it was not raised by LSM.

Please point to the thread(s) where LSM raised the question as a way to "stifle the discussion about ways to remove Bush from office." I must have missed it.

Sadly, only truly great, inspiring and profound leaders are ever successfully assasinated in this country: Lincoln, Kennedy, MLK, etc. Bush hardly fits the above profile--in fact, he's the complete opposite.

Yes, I'd say GWB is completely safe.

James Garfield? William McKinley?

Congratulations! Thanks to your listing two relatively insignificant US Presidents, Bush is suddenly AMAZING.

In fact, I've just received word that, minutes after your post, we WON THE WAR IN IRAQ. Our brave men and women are coming home!

Starts here and goes on for a few pages

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2445803#2445803


starts here and goes on to the next page

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2480972#2480972

and resumes here http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2481088#2481088



First one isn't about the judicial process to remove a president, it was about the judicial process at Gitmo for the prisoners there and referred to the agression against Iraq and the trial and sentencing of Iraq's president as not a good way to export democracy.

Second one is a discussion of the judicial process for removing a president, Gus suggested execution for being found guilty of war crimes and posted a charactature of a beheading.

Third one it's pretty much admitted to, and continues.

We won it a long time ago, juice box boy.

With waxing and waning war aims, then a waxing and waning criteria for what constitutes a victory is a logical consequence.
Sure, the war was won a long time ago. Bush said so in his little flight suit.

So, if the war has been won, why is it still being fought?

Last time I checked, when the Superbowl is "won", the game is no longer being played and the players got to go on vacation with their families.

In your first link, the prospect of assassinating Bush was raised by old europe, not LSM.



In your second link, as I said in my last post, the prospect of executing Bush was raised by gus, not LSM. She asked if he was advocating assination (sic).



The third link ... same as the second.

And in this thread, the "A" word was raised by the thread's originator, not LSM.

I suspect that if you anti-Bush folks would stop talking about killing Bush, the "A" word wouldn't be brought up as much.

He was not in a flight suit ... but he was correct.



Quelling the insurgency and fighting islamic terrorism on foreign soil. Trying to get the Iraqi forces up to snuff.



This is not a football game. But if it were, the US are the Chicago Bears, winning by 300 points, and the insurgency are the Valley High School Titans, refusing to give up ... many of you are rooting for the underdog, cheering them on, giving them hope.