i don't know if we were the ones but i agree that something had to be done in iraq. For instance: wife back-talks you. Cops take wife away. Before a big soccer game they line up all of the wives who have expressed free thinking and chop off their heads in the center of the arena to the roaring crowd. I'd say iraq got its just deserts.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Infact, I am just going to say it.This thread is nonsense, mistakes were made and people paid terribly for those mistakes. However the popular consensus is to put all the blame on one man- Bush.
Fact is, Congress agreed to the War as did most of the American Nation.
BigRed's argument is either that Bush didn't have enough information to warrant a war or he fabricated the information. Doing either means he failed in his duty.
If he failed in his duty then so did Congress and so did the American people. They did not demand more evidence or say the evidence given wasn't valid. They said to the President. OK!
All of the United States then, shares the blood of Iraq.
(atleast, that is how it would play out if BigRed got his silly wish and the President went on trial)
None of this (Congress agreeing to the Iraq War, Americans agreeing to the War, the Media failing us, 100,000 dead civilians, over 4,000 dead Americans, Afghanistan falling back to chaos and so forth and so on) if Bush and his cronies had not originated the idea of invading Iraq (long before 9/11...ever heard of the PNAC?).
Originally posted by Robtard
Hey, you can't blame the guy for trying to sell a book and make some pocket change.
Like I said, this is a very well respected and credible Author. The book has mostly been ignored. So I doubt profit was on his mind. What profit does someone in there 70's desire? You haven't even read the book (and probably not my posts either) and you're already passing judgement on the author. Not even adddressing the content provided.
Originally posted by BackFire
Not a thing will come of this, on matter your opinion. Bush won't stand trial and he probably shouldn't.I think the man has been something of a spectacular failure but I do believe he did what he thought was right at the time and that we likely have more important things to do then to waste time trying to charge an ex president with murder while the country crumbles economically.
Obama has pretty much flat out said that this won't happen.
This book proves quite clearly that Bush knew what he was doing (as in premeditated) and that he wasn't an accident of 'good intentions'.
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
So then the Media should be put on trial as well?And now you're going on into conspiracy theories.
You really should read the book. Also, consent of the victim means nothing with regards to the crime of murder. The Media failed us, but they wouldn't have been able to 'fail us' had Bush and his people not originated a lie.
Originally posted by inimalist
the government declares the war to be just and defines criminal action as different than the actions made by the Bush administrationipso facto, Bush isn't guilty
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Prove Bush fabricated the War in Iraq stuff. Then we'll talk. (When that proof is found he will be arrested.)You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him away!
I don't see what people are assuming here. I don't have some conspiracy agenda. I don't have a political agenda. The only agenda I have here is the truth and justice.
Originally posted by BigRed
And if it doesn't under Obama, he deserves no respect from me. Some candidate of change.This book proves quite clearly that Bush knew what he was doing (as in premeditated) and that he wasn't an accident of 'good intentions'.
Actually, if you look at the very PNAC you are promoting, the hawks CLEARLY (though wrongfully) assumed that Saddam was the leading contributer and funder of all types of Jihadi violence (and there is clear evidence he was a supporter of various Jihad causes).
The justification for going after Hussein in that very document (iirc) is his support for anti-American sentiment.
The whole mess is a textbook case of confirmation bias. The people of america and their leaders had a very specific scape goat in mind when they found out the terrorists were Arab Muslim.
EDIT: it is either the PNAC or other wolfowitz documents made by the same think tank
Originally posted by BigRed
Even if you read all of my original posts in this thread, you probably still wouldn't agree with me. But if you did that, any sane person would be convinced that at the least, Bush lied and deceived his way to war (you don't have to accept that he's actually guilty of murder). If you read the book, the clarity of that statement (that Bush lied to go to war) becomes obvious.I don't see what people are assuming here. I don't have some conspiracy agenda. I don't have a political agenda. The only agenda I have here is the truth and justice.
You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him away!
Originally posted by BigRed
If he was trying to sell a book, his partisanship politics along with a poorly constructed case against Bush would fall flat. They don't.Like I said, this is a very well respected and credible Author. The book has mostly been ignored. So I doubt profit was on his mind. What profit does someone in there 70's desire? You haven't even read the book (and probably not my posts either) and you're already passing judgement on the author. Not even adddressing the content provided.
He is trying to sell a book, that's just a fact. That doesn't take away from his point though.
I haven't read it, does he prove beyond the shadow of a doubt or at least within probable cause that Bush lied, fabricated the war etc. etc. etc., or is it full of speculation and what if's?
Originally posted by inimalist
Actually, if you look at the very PNAC you are promoting, the hawks CLEARLY (though wrongfully) assumed that Saddam was the leading contributer and funder of all types of Jihadi violence (and there is clear evidence he was a supporter of various Jihad causes).The justification for going after Hussein in that very document (iirc) is his support for anti-American sentiment.
The whole mess is a textbook case of confirmation bias. The people of america and their leaders had a very specific scape goat in mind when they found out the terrorists were Arab Muslim.
EDIT: it is either the PNAC or other wolfowitz documents made by the same think tank
Originally posted by BigRed
I'm not sure the motives behind wanting to invade Iraq exactly. Money was definitely made in the venture though.
well, to prove murder, you need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush was not ideologically motivated to attack Iraq.
ie-> Bush HAD to know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The fact he and his administration were ignorant of this fact would make the murder case very difficult.
Criminal negligence is a way better fit.
Re: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
My son read this book and really liked it. He's a big fan of hypothetical history and said it does a good job with the ethical question "Is the president above the law".
Whether Bush is evil incarnate or just a 5-year-old with a shotgun, I think its still matter of the winner deciding the terms. If the Axis won WW2 then Truman, Eisenhower, Patton, MacArthur and Tibbits all would've been executed for warcrimes.
Re: Re: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
My son read this book and really liked it. He's a big fan of hypothetical history and said it does a good job with the ethical question "Is the president above the law".
He is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him away!