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".

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.

Is it likely? Probably not though.

Originally posted by Robtard
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?

For the record, before I read any political book I always do a background check on the author to see where they are on the political spectrum, if they seem partisan and so forth. The author of the book is in fact a Democrat which almost stopped me from reading the book thinking it would be incredibly biased.

However, he lashes out at the 'liberal' columnists and pundits just as much as the 'conservative' ones in the book. Not to mention, the case against Bush can't really be biased when he is using Bush and his cronies' own speeches and words and documents by intelligence agencies around the world and so forth and so on.

Like I said, a real case is made in my estimation. I can't understand the law as much as the author obviously does, but even as a lay man, I understand a strong case has been made that a jury might find interesting.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, to prove murder, you need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush [B]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. [/B]

As for Bush and 9/11 and Iraq. Bush before the war continues to make innuendo at the fact that 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam are linked. Of course he doesn't directly say it, but everybody (from pundits to average americans to soldiers) made the inference that he was linking the two.

Bush himself later though will remark that he knows there is no connection.

His CIA told him that there was no connection and he told the CIA to find a connection.

Originally posted by BigRed
I don't care what the government says about this war. The war wasn't a just one and still isn't a just one.

There is little hindsight revelation that can argue this point. However, it is not the point being made by the majority of posters who disagree with you, despite not having read the book you recommend. However, the strongest evidence for your own and the authors presumption is that the administration has never made one effort to reconfigure their justification for the war. The only change in rhetoric, other than national security, has been one of questionable patriotism when focused on detractors of the war. There is nothing more patriotic than asking "why" when so many people, foreign or domestic, are dying. So, while the specific details of this conflict are likely never going to be questioned in depth, there is little doubt that it was a matter of national prejudice and poor leadership that got us into it.

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).

In fact, he was often a leading figure in condemning the actions of fundamentalist followers of Islam.

Originally posted by BigRed
Why does that matter?

As for Bush and 9/11 and Iraq. Bush before the war continues to make innuendo at the fact that 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam are linked. Of course he doesn't directly say it, but everybody (from pundits to average americans to soldiers) made the inference that he was linking the two.

Bush himself later though will remark that he knows there is no connection.

His CIA told him that there was no connection and he told the CIA to find a connection.

that is actually a good point 🙂

I think it is worth noting historically, but I get your point here. Whether or not he was primed to think it was Saddam, he knew it wasn't after people like Dick Clarke told him so.

touche

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
In fact, he was often a leading figure in condemning the actions of fundamentalist followers of Islam.

There is a difference between fundamentalism and Jihad. iirc Saddam financially supported the families of suicide bombers and in 1999 offered asylum to Bin Laden. Politics make strange bedfellows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/feb/06/julianborger

(notice the guardian article is dated 1999)

Originally posted by inimalist
that is actually a good point 🙂

I think it is worth noting historically, but I get your point here. Whether or not he was primed to think it was Saddam, he knew it wasn't after people like Dick Clarke told him so.

touche

There is a difference between fundamentalism and Jihad. iirc Saddam financially supported the families of suicide bombers and in 1999 offered asylum to Bin Laden. Politics make strange bedfellows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/feb/06/julianborger

(notice the guardian article is dated 1999)

Besides, Saddam literally had no motivation in attacking us. His army was more depleted than the last time we attacked him in the early '90's and since then, UN sanctions were killing his country.

Originally posted by BigRed
There is no doubt Saddam was in assocation with certain terrorist organizations. He didn't like Bin Laden though. And Bin Laden certainly didn't like him. There also was no record of terrorists in Iraq prior to the war (of course they all came swarming in after). Also, there is no record that Saddam funded anyone that attacked us.

Besides, Saddam literally had no motivation in attacking us. His army was more depleted than the last time we attacked him in the early '90's and since then, UN sanctions were killing his country.

while this might be true for Al Qaeda (and even then there is some reason to believe that Saddam knew of Zarqowi prior to the invasion, though I'm personally skeptical of this being a "link" to anything) "terrorist" is a very loaded term. The PKK for instance, and other Kurdish groups undeniably were in Iraq, though they were anti-Saddam. I can look it up, but I'm sure some Palestinian or other militant likely stayed in Iraq at some point, as Saddam was a supporter of anti-Israel militancy which targeted civilians, call it terrorism or not.

and yes, Bin Laden was opposed to how secular the Iraqi state was, and thus refused (several times) offers of asylum from Saddam. My thought is this is more anti-American politicing than it is a declaration of alliance from mr Hussein.

no, Saddam was no threat to you. Canada never had a reason to be scared of him.

Originally posted by inimalist
while this might be true for Al Qaeda (and even then there is some reason to believe that Saddam knew of Zarqowi prior to the invasion, though I'm personally skeptical of this being a "link" to anything) "terrorist" is a very loaded term. The PKK for instance, and other Kurdish groups undeniably were in Iraq, though they were anti-Saddam. I can look it up, but I'm sure some Palestinian or other militant likely stayed in Iraq at some point, as Saddam was a supporter of anti-Israel militancy which targeted civilians, call it terrorism or not.

and yes, Bin Laden was opposed to how secular the Iraqi state was, and thus refused (several times) offers of asylum from Saddam. My thought is this is more anti-American politicing than it is a declaration of alliance from mr Hussein.

no, Saddam was no threat to [b]you. Canada never had a reason to be scared of him. [/B]

😆 What a stupid thread.

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
😆 What a stupid thread.

Very insightful by the way.

Originally posted by BigRed
And one you just posted in. How stupid does that make you?

Very insightful by the way.

Go be Anti-bush on a site that's just as ludicrous as your posts.

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
Go be Anti-bush on a site that's just as ludicrous as your posts.

I'm anti-Bush because he engaged in criminality as a President of the United States and that should piss off any American.

Unless you want to actually refute my posts, then you have no business calling them ludicrous. I'm not going to take your word for it.

You read a book, good for you! It sort of concerns me anytime anyone reads a single opinion on a matter and then becomes so vehement about a cause. If Bush really is accountable for these deaths, congress has failed us yet again, since it would fall upon them to impeach him. They didn't, because for all of their outward rhetoric, they get security briefings and have a better handle on Nat'l Security situations and geo-politics than you or I. Now, go and find an article or book by a non-biased author giving reasons why the war was justified and read it, I'll expect a report on my desk by 8 am tommorrow morning.

Originally posted by tsscls
You read a book, good for you! It sort of concerns me anytime anyone reads a single opinion on a matter and then becomes so vehement about a cause. If Bush really is accountable for these deaths, congress has failed us yet again, since it would fall upon them to impeach him. They didn't, because for all of their outward rhetoric, they get security briefings and have a better handle on Nat'l Security situations and geo-politics than you or I. Now, go and find an article or book by a non-biased author giving reasons why the war was justified and read it, I'll expect a report on my desk by 8 am tommorrow morning.

If anyone thinks I'm naive enough to read one book or watch one documentary (for example) and form a whole basis of thought on that, please dismiss those claims.

I formed my thoughts on Iraq, Bush and his criminality long, long before I ever even touched this book. I knew most of the arguments presented by the author before he presented (although some facts were new to me).

This just happened to be the definitive book on the matter IMO.

Originally posted by BigRed
It is true that Zarqowi (however you spell it) was in Iraq pre-Invasion at some point. But no intelligence suggested that Saddam actually knew he was there.

Christopher Hitchens disagrees, and he usually knows his stuff (though he keeps repeating a long discredited report of Iraqi intelligence meeting with Al Qaeda in Eastern Europe).

It really doesn't matter though. It isn't surprising that an Autocratic Dictator would know that someone entered his nation, nor that, given various political contexts, he would extend some form of welcoming. His knowledge of an Al Qaeda operative in his country is nothing close to being involved in 9-11, nor does it come close to justification for invasion.

Originally posted by BigRed
I'm not anti-Bush for the sake of being anti-Bush. I'm not anti-Bush because I'm a Democrat (I'm a libertarian). I'm not anti-Bush because Comedy Central made it cool. I'm not anti-Bush because the Media tells me.

I'm anti-Bush because he engaged in criminality as a President of the United States and that should piss off any American.

Unless you want to actually refute my posts, then you have no business calling them ludicrous. I'm not going to take your word for it.

You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor. Take him away!

Originally posted by BigRed
I'm not anti-Bush for the sake of being anti-Bush. I'm not anti-Bush because I'm a Democrat (I'm a libertarian). I'm not anti-Bush because Comedy Central made it cool. I'm not anti-Bush because the Media tells me.

I'm anti-Bush because he engaged in criminality as a President of the United States and that should piss off any American.

Unless you want to actually refute my posts, then you have no business calling them ludicrous. I'm not going to take your word for it.

Declaring war based on evidence presented to you does not make you a criminal.

If anything the CIA or whoever supplied the intelligence should be prosecuted.

Originally posted by KidRock
Declaring war based on evidence presented to you does not make you a criminal.

If anything the CIA or whoever supplied the intelligence should be prosecuted.

Bush controls the intelligence communities. So if they do have any shortcomings (which they did no doubt), then it would be his fault.

The evidence showed Saddam wasn't linked to 9/11 and Saddam would only use WMD's (if he had them) in self-defense against us if we attacked him. Not to attack us. Bush pressured the intelligence to meet his agenda.

Originally posted by KidRock
Declaring war based on evidence presented to you does not make you a criminal.

If anything the CIA or whoever supplied the intelligence should be prosecuted.

Dick Clarke talks about how much pressure was on the intelligence community to find Saddam-911-Al Qaeda links or weapons of mass destruction.

Clarke says the CIA repeatedly told the executive (at least terror experts in the CIA) that there was no link (I'm not sure what Clarke was saying about WMDs) and were made more and more obsolete for that reason.

also, I forget the guy's name, but he was captured and under waterboarding said that Iraq had WMDs. This was one of the most important pieces of evidence used by the current administration to justify the invasion... Man, I should have bookmarked all that Democracy Now! shit.

Originally posted by BigRed
I knew this would come eventually.

If anyone thinks I'm naive enough to read one book or watch one documentary (for example) and form a whole basis of thought on that, please dismiss those claims.

I formed my thoughts on Iraq, Bush and his criminality long, long before I ever even touched this book. I knew most of the arguments presented by the author before he presented (although some facts were new to me).

This just happened to be the definitive book on the matter IMO.

Naive isn't the word. Blinded by an almost religious hatred of Bush, that's it. I have several friends who are exactly the same way.
Look, I'm no Bush apologist, I've disagreed with his policies far more than I've agreed with them. I have noticed a trend among his detractors though, he's two opposite things at once. He is simultaneously an evil "Emperor Palpitine" who has deliberately masterminded an unjust war for (place your nutty theory here), or he's a bumbling doofus that can't tie his own shoes in the morning. Unfortunately, you can't have this both ways. I'm old enough to remember Carter and Reagan being presented in exactly the same light, and look at how they're viewed today. The only two presidents of the last century that have been remembered as total assholes are Herbert Hoover (which I would argue is an unfair characterization) and Richard Nixon (who was an evil bastard). Even hard-core Right-wingers are lightening up on Clinton, a man who they wanted to see eviscerated at the town sqaure. I don't care how respected the man who wrote the book is, and I really don't care that he prosecuted the Manson case, which was a slam dunk. He wrote the book to make a buck and gain noteriety, (yes, those can still be deciding factors for a 70-year old who hasn't had his name in the papers for a while) and if you seriously think that Bush should be tried for murder in a U.S. criminal court, then you are not thinking clearly. And yes, this is a dumb thread. And I posted in it. 😕

Originally posted by tsscls
Naive isn't the word. Blinded by an almost religious hatred of Bush, that's it. I have several friends who are exactly the same way.
Look, I'm no Bush apologist, I've disagreed with his policies far more than I've agreed with them. I have noticed a trend among his detractors though, he's two opposite things at once. He is simultaneously an evil "Emperor Palpitine" who has deliberately masterminded an unjust war for (place your nutty theory here), or he's a bumbling doofus that can't tie his own shoes in the morning. Unfortunately, you can't have this both ways. I'm old enough to remember Carter and Reagan being presented in exactly the same light, and look at how they're viewed today. The only two presidents of the last century that have been remembered as total assholes are Herbert Hoover (which I would argue is an unfair characterization) and Richard Nixon (who was an evil bastard). Even hard-core Right-wingers are lightening up on Clinton, a man who they wanted to see eviscerated at the town sqaure. I don't care how respected the man who wrote the book is, and I really don't care that he prosecuted the Manson case, which was a slam dunk. He wrote the book to make a buck and gain noteriety, (yes, those can still be deciding factors for a 70-year old who hasn't had his name in the papers for a while) and if you seriously think that Bush should be tried for murder in a U.S. criminal court, then you are not thinking clearly. And yes, this is a dumb thread. And I posted in it. 😕

If you actually read the original post, nobody with any amount of intelligence actually thinks Bush would be prosecuted in the American courts. It won't happen. Why? Because nobody in America has any balls to actually do it.

I've never eluded to Bush being an idiot. It does take some smarts to do what he did. But he had some good players around him. No doubt about it. However, he was still unfit to be President.

The only 'nutjobs' around here, are those that would allow criminality to go unanswered. It doesn't matter if Joe the garbage man across the street or the President sitting in the Oval Office does it, they should be brought to justice.

Besides 'nutty' would be (for example), thinking Bush blew up the towers to get to Iraq or that Bush is a puppet for higher powers (like the Illuminati). Believing Bush could be a bad guy (yeah, they exist) and be President isn't such a stretch of the imagination.

Originally posted by BigRed
I've already stated why I'm against Bush. I'm against him because he engaged in acts of criminality. I have no political bias or other ridiculous reason to be against him. I want to see a person come to justice, especially a government official. Just like I would anyone else that engaged in criminality.

If you actually read the original post, nobody with any amount of intelligence actually thinks Bush would be prosecuted in the American courts. It won't happen. Why? Because nobody in America has any balls to actually do it.

I've never eluded to Bush being an idiot. It does take some smarts to do what he did. But he had some good players around him. No doubt about it. However, he was still unfit to be President.

The only 'nutjobs' around here, are those that would allow criminality to go unanswered. It doesn't matter if Joe the garbage man across the street or the President sitting in the Oval Office does it, they should be brought to justice.

Then you should extend your definition of criminality to every President we've ever had. Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine? The Roosevelt corrolary? The U.S. as a nation has organized hundreds of coup de'tats in it's history to serve our needs and preserve our national security. Our hands are bloody, but sometimes it's neccesary to ensure our survival as a nation. And sometimes it's just good business. If you really want to read something interesting, I reccomend "War Is A Racket" by Smedley Butler. It's a short and sweet eye-opener.